April 26, 2015, Issue 217
ACTIVIST NEWSLETTER
Contact us or subscribe to Newsletter at jacdon@earthlink.net
The Hudson Valley Activist Calendar is at (click) 04-01-15 CALENDAR
—————————
CONTENTS
1. Quotes of The Month: Ho Chi Minh (May 1890-Sept.
1969)
2. Photo of The
Month: Female Battalion Defends Damascus
3. The U.S. 40 Years After Vietnam's Victory: Learning Nothing, Forgetting Nothing
4. Low Wage Workers Fight Back
5. $18.50 an Hour Minimum Wage is just
6. Police Are Rarely Convicted for Killing
7. Jeb Bush Praises Obama’s NSA Expansion
8. U.S. Carbon Emissions are Rising Again
9. Where are U.S.-Russian Dynamics Headed?
10. China Banks on Shaping a New Asian Order
11. Protest Target: European Central Bank
12. Armenian Genocide and Geopolitics
13. U.S. Losing Afghanistan's New 'Great Game'
14. Latin America Backs Venezuela at Summit
15. Raul Castro's Speech at The Summit Meeting
16. Raul, Che, Fidel
17. Republicans And Democrats — Who are They?
18. Military Vets Launch Anti-Drone TV Ads
19. Fight Injustices, Support Purvi Patel
20. Stop Solitary Confinement of Youth
—————————
Editor's Note: We encourage our readers to send us their thoughts about a particular issue or one or more articles in the Activist Newsletter. We can benefit from constructive criticism or general thoughts. Email jacdon@earthlink.net.
—————————
1. QUOTES OF THE MONTH: Ho Chi Minh (May 1890-Sept. 1969)
April 30 is the 40th anniversary of the
Vietnamese victory of what they call the American War (see article below). Uncle
Ho, as he was known to the people of Vietnam and all Indochina, led the 35-year
struggle for independence and unification against Japan, then France and then
the United States. He is considered by many throughout the world to be one of
the most outstanding figures of the 20th century. His was a long
struggle from an early age, including years in dreadful confinement recorded in
his "Prison Diary" (the last three quotes are from the diary). Ho was
elected president of North Vietnam in 1954 after the French defeat and would
have been elected president of all Vietnam but the U.S. cancelled UN-ordered
nationwide elections because, as President Dwight Eisenhower acknowledged, "Ho would have won." Ho Chi Minh was Chairman of the Communist Party
of Vietnam until he died. Reading these quotes you will understand why the
United States prefers to fight in the Middle East these days, and not Southeast
Asia.
· If the tiger ever stands still, the
elephant will crush him with his mighty tusks. But the tiger will not stand
still. He will leap upon the back of the elephant, tearing huge chunks from his
side, and then he will leap back into the dark jungle. And slowly the elephant
will bleed to death. Such will be the war in Indochina.
· The
Vietnamese people deeply love independence, freedom, and peace. But in the face
of United States aggression, they have risen up, united as one man.”
· You
can kill ten of our men for every one we kill of yours. But even at those odds,
you will lose and we will win.
· Nothing
is more precious than independence and liberty.
· To reap
a return in 10 years, plant trees. To reap a return in 100, cultivate the
people.”
·
Remember
that the storm is a good opportunity for the pine and the cypress to show their
strength and their stability.
·
Soldiers
stand guard with rifles at the gate. Above, the moon drifts off on rags of
clouds.
Bedbugs crawl here and there like army tanks.
Mosquitoes swarm and flee
like fighter planes.
Beyond a thousand miles my heart goes home.
A tangled
skein of sorrows weaves my dreams.
Guiltless, I’ve languished a whole year in
jail.
Pen dipped in tears, I write my prison poems.
· Being
stubborn and patient, never yielding an inch, though physically I suffer, my
spirit is unshaken.
· Better
death than slavery! Everywhere in my country the red flags are fluttering
again. Oh, what it is to be a prisoner at such a time. When shall I be set free
to take my part in the battle?
———————
2. PHOTO OF THE MONTH
Female Battalion
Defends Damascus
A woman tank driver from an all-female Syrian army
battalion prepares to close the hatch and continue surveillance through the
suburbs of Damascus. All 800 members of the unit are stationed throughout the
most vulnerable suburbs. Their task is to function as the first line of defense
should anti-government forces seek to attack the capital. The battalion was
formed a year ago as part of the Republican Guard, the most elite force in the
military.
—————————
3. THE U.S. 40 YEARS AFTER VIETNAM'S VICTORY
Learning nothing, forgetting nothing
 |
| Antiwar veterans of military service toss medals and articles of war clothing over the fence of the Capitol in Washington. They were part of a massive peace movement that helped end Vietnam war. |
By Jack A. Smith,
editor
Forty years ago on April 30, 1975, the Vietnamese people,
led by their Communist Party, were finally victorious in the long just struggle
for national independence and unification against the United States and its
puppet regime in Saigon.
America experienced an earthshaking lesson in Vietnam —
"Stop your unjust wars of aggression!" —but Washington learned
nothing from its humiliating defeat except to shift its battlefields of choice
from Southeast Asia to Southwest Asia (i.e., the Middle East).
The U.S. went on to fight in Iraq three times and impose
long sanctions in 25 continuous years; in Afghanistan the Pentagon has been
fighting for 14 years and has achieved nothing; in Libya the U.S. bombed for
less than a year but managed to spark a civil war and open the door to the
Islamic State in the process.
Many smaller incursions have taken place since losing the
Vietnam war. For instance, the Obama Administration for years took actions to
overthrow Syrian President Assad, and all the White House has to show
for it is a jihadi war led by the Islamic State and the al-Nusra Front (the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda). Most recently the Obama
Administration publicly supported the unjust and illegal bombings and
blockade of Yemen by the repressive rightwing dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, the
country that helped bankroll the jihadi warriors in Syria.
Most Americans, except for families of the dead, veterans
and war opponents, never think about the Vietnam War — one of history's most
unequal and vicious. Young Americans in general have received only a
bowdlerized trace of information at school. At the same time, the lives of many
Americans who protested this shameful war — civilians plus antiwar GIs and
draft resisters — were largely radicalized and changed forever. Now in their
sixties through eighties and older, they continue to this day to protest war
and injustice. For some, myself included, details of this war remain indelibly
etched in memory.
 |
| The message says:
"President Ho Chi Minh lives
with us forever."
|
The day after the U.S. debacle the name of Saigon, the South
Vietnamese capital where the American command was situated until being
unceremoniously ousted, was changed to Ho Chi Minh City in honor of the great
leader of the Indochinese people who died in 1969. Hanoi, to the north,
remained the capital of reunified Vietnam.
Droves of Americans, including a substantial number of
former soldiers, now visit both cities and other parts of the Vietnam every
year. Many tour the war museums, the old battlefields and tunnels used by
peasants and fighters to escape from or to attack American forces. The
Vietnamese treat such visitors courteously, without a sign of enmity, which is
quite remarkable considering the horrors perpetrated upon a country that
survived more explosive tonnage than the U.S. deployed during World War II in
Europe and Asia-Pacific — 15,500,000 tons of air and ground munitions during
the Vietnam War; 6,000,000 tons in WW II.
Vietnam at the time had a population of about 31 million
situated on both sides of the 17th parallel, temporarily dividing
North and South Vietnam. Over four million (one in eight people of Vietnam) were
killed in Washington's aggressive war upon a very poor largely peasant society beginning
in the mid-1950s when the U.S. took over from the defeated French colonialist
armies. France had occupied and oppressed Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia
(Indochina) for over 100 years, then it became America's turn. U.S. bombings
killed at least a million more people in Laos and Cambodia.
For an American society fearfully fixated on a few 9/11
followup domestic terrorist incidents such as the Boston Marathon killings or
the so-called "underwear" bomber, the immensity of the deaths caused
by their own government in Vietnam, Iraq, North Korea and so many other
countries, is evidently incomprehensible and thus unimportant.
U.S. combat deaths from 1955-1975 were 47,424, nearly all between
1965 and 1973. Officially, Afghanistan is Washington's longest war at 14 years,
but unofficially Vietnam is six years longer. In time, Afghanistan may live up
to its dubious designation since the U.S. government continues to delay full
withdrawal of combat forces.
It may be of interest to learn that the total number of American
combat deaths in 76 wars from 1775 to 2015 (including all the dead on both
sides during the Civil War) amounts to 846,163. That's less than the UN-verified
total of a million Iraqis, half of whom were young children, who died from 1991
to 2003 due to killer sanctions. This was followed by another million dead
Iraqis from the 2003-2011 war.
Compare the U.S. total of combat deaths in World War II
(291,557) to the number of Russian combat and civilian deaths (27 million). There
were no civilian deaths in the U.S, which has not suffered war damage from
foreign invasions since the British War of 1812-15. Most of Russia was
flattened west of the Ural Mountains in WWII. In Washington's 1950-1953 war
against North Korea, every city and most towns were destroyed by U.S. carpet
bombings. Several millions were killed. The U.S. suffered 33,686 combat deaths.
 |
| Antiwar American students on many hundreds of campuses went on strike against President Nixon's terror bombings of Cambodia during the week of May 4, 1970. Above, Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. |
Militarism, a principal element in U.S. society, thrives on
unequal wars where the weapons, technology and communications of the
"enemy" are far inferior and where it is impossible for an inch of U.S.
territory to experience the footprint of a foreign soldier. Since the Civil War
the American people at home, the landscape and infrastructure have been untouched by war.
This is not as good as it looks. America is the world's
principal mass killer since the end of WWII but its people are so accustomed to
wars that cause them no pain and suffering that they easily support, or are
indifferent to, unjust aggression in the name of protecting America, especially
since the Pentagon ended conscription. This allowed recent wars to impact only
a tiny minority of American families. Ironically, there's hardly any need to
protect America, enclosed between two oceans in an impenetrable fortress. But government
fear mongering about the nation's vulnerability is a most useful lie intended
to perpetuate Washington's insistence upon functioning as global overlord and
military superpower.
The overwhelming majority of Americans knew absolutely
nothing about their own country's involvement in Vietnam until around 1965 when
President Lyndon Johnson began to vastly increase the U.S. troop component,
which reached 549,500 mostly conscript personnel in 1968. By then, a vibrant
antiwar movement was shaking the White House to the extent that Johnson
announced he would not run for re-election. He retired in disgrace because of
his unpopular war, despite being the last Democratic president who authorized
and fought for civil rights and important social programs, such as Medicare,
Medicaid, food stamps and much more. The domestic achievements of Democrats
Clinton and Obama were pathetic compared to LBJ.
 |
| Women's march for peace (date and location unknown). |
The 1960s and early '70s were great years of domestic
uprisings in the United States against various ills and injustices, from the
segregation of African Americans, to the subjugation of women, repressive
cultural backwardness, the Vietnam War, the hatred and shunning of LGBT people and
other causes.
As the war continued, the majority of the American people began
demanding peace. The antiwar movement became extremely large and militant, ultimately
contributing strongly to the withdrawal of U.S. troops. By the early 1970s the
Hanoi government recognized there were three fronts in the war — the
battlefield, the Paris peace talks, and the American people's antiwar movement.
I always bring this up when I'm told that peace demonstrations do no good. When
antiwar movements become large, rambunctious, militant and long-lived they can
stop a war or at least educate millions of people to oppose the next war.
 |
| Mass peace march in Washington in October 1967. |
As a quite young journalist for a major international news
service I was aware of many details of the Vietnam conflict beginning in the
1950s, mainly after the historic French defeat in the battle of Diên Biên Phu
in 1954. My years as a writer and then the editor of the (U.S.) Guardian radical
newsweekly (1963 to 1984) made me feel very much a part of the antiwar struggle
because few if any other U.S. independent publications labored as long and hard
against the war and for the victory of the Vietnamese people.
Our long-time foreign correspondent Wilfred Burchett wrote
weekly articles from the battlefields and liberated areas of Vietnam with
coverage that far excelled that of the reporters for major American newspapers,
stationed in Saigon or with fighting U.S. units, often pegging their stories on
official lies and fictitious body counts and on press conference propaganda
from the government. It still happens today, of course, but Vietnam opened
millions of eyes to Washington's imperial perfidy, and the Internet has become
a major source of antiwar news and radical analysis if you know where to look.
To the leftist Guardian, along with many on the U.S. left
from progressives to communists, the Vietnam War was imperialist in nature. The
Guardian wanted the war to end with the defeat of the American aggressor.
 |
| Members of Black Panther Party march for end of Vietnam War in Washington, DC, in 1969. |
I have been involved in opposing every U.S. war since Korea (1950-53)
and have seen the "imperialist" question crop up repeatedly as though
it is too radical or leftist instead of what it really is — the truth in terms
of most scholarly and political definitions of the concept.
The issue of the Guardian reporting on the April 30 defeat
of U.S.-South Vietnamese forces proclaimed in huge type on the front page:
"VICTORY IN VIETNAM!" The lead article began: "Vietnam is
completely liberated. After 35 years of continuous heroic struggle against
Japanese, French and American imperialism, the Vietnamese people from north to
south are free and independent."
I was in Vietnam a few months before victory and was told by
a government official of Hanoi's "deep appreciation for the Guardian's
steadfast opposition to French colonialism and American imperialism, and for
its years of efforts on behalf of peace, national liberation and the
unification of Vietnam." This was essentially repeated to me in different
words by another official on the 30th anniversary celebration in Ho
Chi Minh City.
 |
|
"Colonialists, International Traitors, Think Carefully Before
You Take on Vietnam"
|
One of the most significant long-term causalities of this right
wing strategy was the labor movement, which has been under constant attack by
the corporations ever since the mid-70s, not that the unions played a progressive
role in the Sixties. Most supported the war and were initially scandalized by the
cultural transformations that were taking place.
The union movement was and remains targeted because it
fought to improve the wages, conditions and benefits of the working class. In
retaliation, among other anti-worker initiatives, Big Business swiftly detached
wage increases from productivity gains for the first time since the end of WWII
three decades earlier. From 1948 to 1973 productivity increased 96.8% and
hourly wages rose 91.3%. From 1973 to 2013 productivity jumped 73% but wages
only gained 8.9%. This corporate class war is a major reason for the sorry
plight of today's working class, lower middle and sectors of the middle class —
and Washington's efforts to protect the workers have been utterly deficient to
nonexistent.
Today, far right pro-war Republican forces have taken over
Congress and the Supreme Court, and they are swiftly gaining control of state
governments and using their powers to wreck the union movement, take back the
gains of the women's movement and destroy programs that help the poor.
Meanwhile, since there are only two "official" political parties, the
only viable alternative within the ruling class-controlled electoral system is now
the center-right pro-war Democratic Party, which has proven itself incapable of
blocking the reactionary juggernaut, and all too often its conservative sector joins
with the opposition, as many House and Senate Democrats are doing today in
opposition to the U.S.-Iran talks. They'd rather follow Screaming Warlord Bibi,
who presides over an isolated settler country with a population less than that
of New York City, than the elected President of the United States. After a
short period of tension following Netanyahu's studied insult to the Oval Office
by speaking to Congress without a presidential invitation, Obama is now
reported "mending fences" and proclaiming Washington's eternal
loyalty to Israel.
 |
|
"Willing to be loyal to
the Communist Party."
|
Economic and social gains — or any gains for working
families — are hardly likely under present circumstances. There has to be a
major change away from our imperialist capitalist system that presides over
oligarch control of elections, rampant built-in inequality, wage stagnation,
police violence, impotence in the fight against climate change, historic
concentrations of wealth in the vaults of the 1% of the people, continuing
racism in America and endless imperialist wars. There are better systems, such
as socialism, but after 100 years of anti-socialist and anti-communist propaganda
the American people have a way to go before that becomes viable.
At this stage, it seems to me, America needs a new Sixties
on steroids — a 21st century uprising of mass movements in the
streets, meeting halls and cultural events making specific demands on the power
structure using whatever tactics are appropriate, including mass civil
disobedience, strikes and calculated disruption. And it is about time we
realize the absolute need for collective, disciplined leadership. I know there
is considerable anti-leadership sentiment in some oppositional movements, such
as Occupy when it flourished too briefly, but this has to change before system
change ever becomes a reality.
There are those who think significant social change in
America is impossible or that the vehicle for change emanates from the ballot
box alone. We disagree on both counts
In the politically, socially and culturally repressive 1950s
— when teachers were fired and writers, actors, unionists and others were blacklisted
for harboring progressive ideas, when African Americans suffered under official
and unofficial segregation, and when women were still kept "in their
place," who would believe that a "Sixties" was about to emerge?
Who would credit the idea that downtrodden blacks would stand
up and risk their lives to confront racist Jim Crow in a couple of years? Who
conceived of the possibility that women would stand up and demand their full
rights? Who believed that millions of Americans would stand up for years to
stop a criminal war? Was there anyone so naïve as to predict LGBT people would
stand up, come out proudly, and demand respect? What parents or educators
anticipated that many millions of students would stand up against repressive
campus and outdated behavioral rules, and then bring the antiwar and radical struggle
to the college green and even in some cases blockade their school president's
offices. Judging by the 1950s crackdown on left to communist movements, it was
not thought reasonable to proclaim that the left would soon stand up and
experience a virtual renaissance, gaining members and playing an important role
in the fight for peace and justice?"
If a Sixties can emerge from a backward Fifties, why can't a
Twenties emerge from a backward Tens? And if that doesn't work, there's always
the Thirties and Forties. The key is to work hard now and persistently to bring
it about, and to be patient if it takes a long time.
Obviously, serious progressive social change does not drop
from the sky, nor is it a gift from the bourgeoisie. It may not have been
noticed by history but very many people and organizations were working hard for
peace and social justice in the repressive 1950s. This helped bring about the
social uprisings in the next decade. First, the oppressed blacks rebelled
magnificently as the 1960s began, paving the way for other groups to rise up
and express various pent-up demands for social change, compounded by an unjust
criminal war that was draining the blood from America and its conscripted youth,
not to mention the victim countries.
 |
|
"For the more beautiful and
richer nation of Vietnam"
|
Our decade is not the 1950s, and today's protest movements
are much stronger: opposition to endless wars, climate change (and its
subdivisions), police brutality, Black lives matter, drone killings, the
abrogation of women's rights, the 1%, low wages, economic inequality, Big Money
control of the electoral process, militarism, the paucity of social programs
for the people, full LGBT rights, inadequate schools and housing, remaining
racial oppression, an end to mass incarcerations and deportation, and more. If
somehow there could be a cross-fertilization of these issues, and the addition
of a few missing ingredients....
The U.S. government may not ever learn the lessons of the
Vietnam war, compelled as it is by a socio-economic political system to create
a better world first and foremost for the 1%, and empty rhetoric and wars for
the rest of us. But I hope the lessons learned from the 1960-1975 era of
uprisings for social change are not entirely forgotten but revived, improved
and in time put into practice at a much higher and decisive level.
Thanks for listening, so to speak. The anniversary of
Vietnam's victory brought all this out.
————
— The Guardian radical newsweekly attained a paid
circulation of 26,000 readers and a pass along readership of at least 100,000
by the 1970s. The entire audience, aside from FBI readers seeking to know
what's happening on the left, opposed the Vietnam War. Several years after I
left the paper it suddenly and inexplicably folded in 1992, but the Guardian was
there when it was needed most — to tell the truth about the war, to identify it
as imperialist, to unequivocally support Vietnam against the aggressor, and to
report on and help build the peace movement.
— A 13-page article titled "The Guardian the Goes to
War," is collected in the 2011 book "Insiders Histories of the
Vietnam Era Underground Press, part 1," (Michigan State Univ. Press).
— If you haven't done so, read "Vo Nguyen Giap: Death of a Giant" in the 10-26-13 Newsletter: http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/2013/10/0-0-1-1-11-hudson-valley-activist.html
—————————
4. LOW WAGE WORKERS FIGHT BACK
 |
| Low wage workers demonstrated in many cities April 15. This one is in New York City. |
Workers in Atlanta, Boston, New York, Los Angeles and more
than 200 American cities walked out on their jobs or joined
marches and protests on April 15 during what organizers claimed was
the largest protest by low-wage workers in U.S. history.
Some 60,000 workers took part in the Fight for $15 demonstrations,
according to the organizers. The protests are calling for a minimum wage of $15
an hour, more than twice the current federal minimum of $7.25.
Few if any apprehensions had been reported, a marked
contrast to last May’s action when more than 100
people were arrested during a protest outside McDonald’s Chicago
headquarters.
The demonstrations were the latest in a series of strikes
that began with fast-food workers in New York in November 2012.
The movement has since attracted groups outside the restaurant industry. Protesters
this April included home-care assistants, Walmart workers, child-care aides,
airport workers, adjunct professors and other low-wage workers. It also sparked
international support, with people protesting against low wages in Brazil, New
Zealand and the UK.
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), one of the
largest U.S. unions and representing janitors, security guards, hospital aides and nursing home workers, has bankrolled the campaign, pumping in more than $25 million according to documents filed with the Labor Dept.
Mary Kay Henry, international president of the SEIU, told
the Guardian: "There is not a price tag you can put on how this movement
has changed the conversation in this country. It is raising wages at the
bargaining table. It’s raised wages for 8 million workers. I believe we are
forcing a real conversation about how to solve the grossest inequality in our
generation. People are sick of wealth at the top and no accountability for
corporations."
Speaking at a protest in San Francisco, Karen Joubert, a
nurse, Fight for $15 organizer and a vice-president of representation with the
northern California chapter of SEIU, said: "When you pay someone a decent
wage, it helps him to get better healthcare and take care of the family.
"Many of our members who work at fast-food restaurants
are not college students. They’ve worked there for 12, 15 years. They are
working three jobs so that they can raise a family. We want to see them get
better wages."
Gary Chaison, a professor of industrial relations at Clark
University in Worcester, Mass., said the protest marked a significant change in
labor disputes. "What is really significant about the Fight for $15
movement is – most labor disputes, look inside, they’re about a group of
workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement," said Chaison.
"In the Fight for $15, unions are helping to organize
on a community basis, a group of workers who are on the fringe of the economy.
It’s not about union members protecting themselves. It’s about moving other
people up. This is the whole civil rights movement all over again."
— From the Guardian (UK), 4-15-15
—————————
5. $18.50 AN HOUR
MINIMUM WAGE IS JUST
 |
The federal minimum wage reached its highest inflation-adjusted
value in 1968, when it was worth $9.54 per hour in 2014 dollars. Since that
time, infrequent or inadequate increases have allowed inflation to eat away at
the minimum wage’s value such that today’s federal minimum of $7.25 has lost
roughly one quarter of its purchasing power.
Measuring the minimum wage against changes in prices,
however, is only one way to think of where we could set the national wage floor
today. Given growth in the economy and improvements in labor productivity over
the past 45 years, the minimum wage could have been raised to a point
considerably higher than its 1968 inflation-adjusted value.
If the minimum wage had been raised since 1968 at the same
rate as changes in average hourly wages of nonsupervisory production workers — a
group that comprises roughly 80% of all U.S. workers and excludes highly-paid
supervisors and executives — the minimum wage would be almost $11 today.
Had the minimum wage been raised since 1968 at the same rate
as growth in productivity—i.e., the rate at which the average worker can
produce income for her employer from each hour of work—it would be nearly
$18.50 per hour.
—————————
6. POLICE ARE RARELY
CONVICTED FOR KILLING
 |
|
Faces of unarmed people of color killed by U.S. police in recent
years through 2014.
|
As police killings of unarmed men of color seem to take
place with regularity, a new study released by the Washington Post reveals that
for every 1,000 people killed by police, only one officer is convicted of a
crime. Since 2005, although there have been thousands of fatal shootings by
police officers, only 54 have been charged. Of those charged, virtually all were
cleared or acquitted.
Alarmingly, the number of people fatally shot by police may
be much higher because police
departments are not required to keep an updated database of cop shootings
According to the Post article: “The 54 criminal prosecutions
were identified by Bowling Green State University criminologist Philip M.
Stinson and The Washington Post. Cases were culled from news reports, grand
jury announcements and news releases from prosecutors. For individual cases,
reporters obtained and reviewed thousands of pages of court records, police
reports, grand jury indictments, witness testimony and video recordings. Dozens
of prosecutors and defense attorneys in the cases were interviewed, along with
legal experts, officers who were prosecuted and surviving relatives of the
shooting victims.”
The article noted that in order for prosecutors to press
charges, there had to be exceptional factors at play. These include “a video recording of the incident, a victim
shot in the back, incriminating testimony from other officers or allegations of
a coverup.” Criminologist Stinson declared, “To charge an officer in a fatal shooting, it
takes something so egregious, so over the top that it cannot be explained in
any rational way. It also has to be a case that prosecutors are willing to hang
their reputation on.
— From The Free Thought Project, April 16.
—————————
7. JEB BUSH PRAISES
OBAMA’S NSA EXPANSION
 |
| Jeb Bush admires the worst aspects of President Obama'a policies and can't wait to continue them. |
One of the most glaring myths propagated by Washington —
especially the two parties’ media loyalists — is that bipartisanship is
basically impossible, that the two parties agree on so little that they are
constantly at each other’s throats over everything.
As is so often the case for Washington partisan propaganda,
the reality is exactly the opposite: from trade deals to Wall Street bailouts
to a massive National Security and Penal State, the two parties are in full agreement
on the bulk of the most significant Washington policies. This is why the
leading candidates of the two parties — from America’s two ruling royal
families [footnote 1] — will have the same
funding base.
However, because policies that command the agreement of
the two parties’ establishments are largely ignored by the D.C. press in favor
of the issues where they have some disagreements, the illusion is
created that they agree on nothing.
To illustrate how true this all is, consider the comments
today of leading GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush. He appeared on Michael
Medved’s conservative talk radio program, and was asked by the host what his
favorite part of the Obama administration has been. His answer? As McClatchy’s
Lesley Clark noted on Twitter, Bush hailed “Obama’s
enhancement of NSA.” The audio was first posted by
Ian Hanchett and is embedded below; here is the full transcript of the
exchange:
Medved: If you were to look back at the last seven years,
almost, what has been the best part of the Obama administration?
Jeb Bush: "I would say the best part of the Obama
administration would be his continuance of the protections of the homeland
using the big metadata programs, the NSA being enhanced. Advancing this — even
though he never defends it, even though he never openly admits it, there has
been a continuation of a very important service, which is the first obligation,
I think of our national government is to keep us safe. And the technologies that
now can be applied to make that so, while protecting civil liberties are there.
And he’s not abandoned them, even though there was some indication that he
might."
It’s hardly unusual for even the most extremist right-wing
Republicans to praise Obama’s foreign policy. GOP Congressman Peter King has repeatedly
done just that, hailing Obama’s use of drones, assassination of a
U.S. citizen with no due process, his upholding of indefinite detention powers,
and the truncating of Miranda rights in terrorism cases. Just this week, GOP
Senator Lindsey Graham — who has advocated bombing almost more Muslim countries
in the last decade than he has fingers — said that he
prefers Obama’s foreign policy over Rand Paul’s. A bipartisan
coalition of Congressional outsiders tried in late
2013 to defund the NSA domestic spying program and almost succeeded,
but the union of
the parties’ establishments — the Obama White House, John
Boehner and Nancy Pelosi — whipped just enough votes to protect the program.
The cause of NSA mass surveillance has been
particularly embraced by many Democrats because it was Obama doing it (as I’ve
said before, if Edward Snowden had leaked this information when a Republican
was in the Oval Office, there would be a massive statue erected of him outside
of the MSNBC studios, where he is now often vilified). And now, Jeb Bush
(in contrast to Rand Paul, who vowed
to end NSA spying “on Day One”) has declared himself fully in support of
that cause, hailing Obama for expanding these capabilities.
 |
| The joke's on us when these rich, powerful good old boys have a laugh. |
Then there are their similar constituencies: what Politico termed “money men” instantly
celebrated Jeb Bush’s likely candidacy, while the same publication
noted just last month how Wall Street has long been unable to contain its
collective glee over a likely Hillary Clinton presidency. The two ruling
families have, unsurprisingly, developed a movingly warm relationship befitting
their position: the matriarch of the Bush family (former First Lady
Barbara) has described the Clinton patriarch (former President Bill) as a
virtual family member, noting that her son, George W., affectionately calls his
predecessor “my brother by another mother.”
If this happens, the 2016 election would vividly underscore
how the American political class functions: by dynasty, plutocracy, fundamental
alignment of interests masquerading as deep ideological divisions, and
political power translating into vast private wealth and back again. The
educative value would be undeniable: somewhat like how the torture report did,
it would rub everyone’s noses in exactly those truths they are most eager to
avoid acknowledging.
–––––––––––––––
8. U.S. CARBON EMISSIONS
ARE RISING AGAIN
 |
| But the U.S. government evidently can. |
U.S. emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide are rising
again, posing a potential challenge to President Barack Obama’s climate pledge,
the National Geographic reported April 21. In 2014, energy-related carbon
emissions increased for the second consecutive year, although by a smaller
amount than in 2013, according to a report by the
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
The uptick, after a few years of decline, suggests the
United States could have a difficult time meeting its emissions target. Last
month, ahead of historic climate talks in Paris, Obama pledged
to reduce total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 26- 28%, from 2005
levels, by 2025. The bulk (80%) of that total is energy-related carbon
emissions, the remainder coming from other gases such as methane.
It is questionable how Obama intends to keep his reduction
pledge in view of his program of vastly øincreasing America's hunt for
historically high levels of fossil fuels. Here's an example, according to the
New York Times April 23:
"The United States is overtaking the Organization of
the Petroleum Exporting Countries as the vital global swing producer that determines prices. That remarkable change has been building since 2008, as American shale fields accounted for roughly half of the world’s oil production growth while American petroleum output nearly doubled. And shale production methods have proven highly adaptable to market conditions....
"There is a strong chance, energy experts say, that
this could be the beginning of decades of United States dominance in the oil
markets, and that dominance will be accompanied by relatively inexpensive
energy. The shale fields around the country are plentiful, and there is much
more to be drilled...
The National Geographic continued: "The cornerstone of
Obama’s climate plan — proposed rules to
slash emissions from power plants by shifting away from coal-fired
facilities —faces stiff Republican opposition on Capitol Hill. Unless his plan
takes effect, the Energy Department’s EIA projects U.S. carbon emissions will
continue to rise slightly in the next two years.
"Emissions are rising largely because of recent
economic growth. In four of the five years from 2008 through 2012, they fell as
the Great Recession prompted businesses to shrink and people to drive less. In
contrast, emissions rose 2.5% in 2013 when gross domestic product, or GDP,
expanded 2.2%. Emissions are also up because coal’s decline has slowed. After
several years of steep drops, coal
consumption jumped in 2013 and barely dipped in 2014. This
fluctuation affects emissions because coal produces twice as much carbon dioxide
as natural gas when burned."
The EIA estimates that the U.S. could become for the first
time a net energy exporter within five years. If America comes close to the
reductions foreseen by Obama, and this is still conjectural, all it really
means is that Washington at the same time intends to profit from exporting its
surplus fossil fuels to other countries, which will cancel out any U.S.
reductions.
———————
9. WHERE ARE U.S.-RUSSIAN DYNAMICS HEADED?
 |
| The Yanks have landed in Ukraine, 300 of them. This can only increase tensions. |
The deployment of 300 U.S. paratroopers in Ukraine,
alongside contingents from the UK and Canada, can only be seen as the beginning
of so-called "mission creep." The mission claims to aim at training
Ukrainian national guards, but then, such missions invariably lead to deeper
military engagements. In this case, the commencement of American weapon
supplies to Ukraine now seems inevitable once the Ukrainian soldiers have been
trained to use them.
The Russian Foreign Ministry has reacted strongly,
expressing "alarm" and warning that the U.S. move undermines the
Minsk [ceasefire] agreements and is "fraught with the renewal of bloodshed
in Russia’s neighbor. The statement also implies that Russian interests are
involved insofar as the foreign instructors will be training troops “in more
efficient methods of killing Russian speakers in Ukraine."
The European Union and NATO are standing by watching as the
U.S. and two of its closest allies in the Euro-Atlantic space have directly
intervened in a military conflict in Europe once again after the gap of over a
decade and a half since the Kosovo War ended in 1999. In sum, the Ukraine
conflict is entering a new phase.
Thus, the German Foreign Minister Walter Steinmeier’s April
20 remark cautioning Russia against any move to accord recognition to the
self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in the eastern Ukrainian
region of Donbas could be understood as a look into the future by an
experienced statesman.
 |
| Russia's S-300 missile defense system will get to Iran eventually, but not so soon, says Moscow. |
There has been a hardline lobby in the U.S. spearheaded by
prominent figures in the strategic circuit that has argued all along that
arming Ukraine will drive up the cost of the war in Ukraine for Moscow and
compel Russian President Vladimir Putin to compromise.
A combined Task Force of Atlantic Council, Brookings and the
Chicago Council published a report in February titled "Preserving
Ukraine’s Independence, Resisting Russian Aggression." It recommended,
among other proposals:
"• The White House and Congress should commit serious
funds to upgrade Ukraine’s defense capabilities, specifically providing $1
billion in military assistance this year, followed by an additional $1 billion
each in the next two fiscal years; • The U.S. government should alter its
policy and begin providing lethal assistance to Ukraine’s military and; • The
U.S. government should approach other NATO countries about also providing
military assistance to Ukraine."
If anything, the decision last week by Putin to supply S-300
advanced air defense missiles systems to Iran [at a price of $800 million] would
have further strengthened this lobby in Washington, eleven though Moscow said April 25 that delivery will be delayed. The expert opinion by a
military analyst at the influential Council of Foreign Relations is as follows:
"The S-300 is not a wall in the sky. If we [U.S.] have
to, we can attack and defeat it. Doing so, however, requires an effort that is
much larger, much riskier, and much more costly. Recently, we have seen a
debate on the scale of a potential attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, with
some arguing that it would be relatively limited and others taking an opposing
view. With the S-300 in place, there is no debate. Overcoming this type of
system will require a large deployment of air, sea, and land assets, including
our most capable — and expensive — airplanes and missiles. Our people and
equipment will be at greater risk, and accomplishing the mission will be more
difficult and time consuming.
"No doubt, Moscow has dealt a body blow to the U.S.
capability to negotiate with Iran from a position of strength. Although Ukraine
and Iran nuclear issue cannot be compared, it will be hardly surprising if the
hardliners in Washington were to argue that the Obama administration must pay
back in the same coin in Ukraine."
This is vintage Obama! He is playing the long game and hopes
to turn the table on his Russian counterpart at a propitious point in a near
future in Ukraine.
To my mind, therefore, Washington will be in no hurry to
explore President Putin’s latest offer to "work together" with the
U.S. Moscow probably estimates that although the balance of power in the
bipolar world order characteristic of the Cold War era does not exist today,
there is still a "counterbalance" to the U.S., thanks to a large
section of the international community, especially the emerging powers, which
is not aligned with Washington,. This works in Russia’s favor in its
confrontation with the West.
However, this may or may not necessarily be the case. The
emerging powers are preoccupied with their own ambitions and are struggling to
cope with their own national priorities. (China, arguably, could be an
exception, which cannot remain indifferent if the crunch time comes.)
Meanwhile, neither Russia nor the U.S. is in a mood to step
back from the confrontation. Obama cannot afford to be seen as blinking first
once the U.S. presidential election campaign kicks off. For all practical
purposes, therefore, the two big powers could be stumbling to war.
— From Indian Punchline, April 22. M. K. Bhadrakumar is a
longtime ambassador in the Indian diplomatic corps and is now writes frequent
articles on international affairs.
— In a related article Aug. 14 Stratfor reported: "Even
within NATO, some countries have shown markedly conciliatory positions
regarding the fighting in eastern Ukraine. This divergence has highlighted the
persistent political rift among NATO members about their strategies regarding
Russia. Gen. Christophe Gomart, the head of France's military intelligence,
said at a hearing in the country's parliament on March 25 that contrary to NATO
reports, French military intelligence believes that Russia never deployed the
logistics that would have indicated preparations for an invasion of Ukraine.
Moreover, ahead of an April 13 meeting of the foreign ministers of Germany,
France, Russia and Ukraine, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier
emphasized that progress has been made in withdrawing heavy weapons from
eastern Ukraine.
———————
10. CHINA BANKS ON
SHAPING A NEW ASIAN ORDER
 |
| President Xi Jinping meets Bill Gates at Boao forum. |
By Charles Hutzler
BOAO, China (Reuters, March 29) - President Xi Jinping
sketched out China’s vision for a new security and economic order in Asia,
offering to spread the benefits of Chinese prosperity and cooperation across
the region.
In a speech to a regional forum March 28, Xi presented China
as a partner willing to "jointly build a regional order that is more
favorable to Asia and the world.” He highlighted a new China-led
infrastructure bank and other initiatives designed to leverage
hundreds of billions of dollars to finance railways, ports and other
development projects, and foster regional economic integration.
Throughout the 30-minute speech, Xi stressed that China’s
vision, while centered on Asia, was open to participation by all countries. He
was careful not to place China at the center of this emerging order, as some
regional politicians and security experts have warned could happen.
But Xi said given China’s size, it will naturally play a
larger role. "Being a big country means shouldering greater
responsibilities for the region, as opposed to seeking greater monopoly over
regional and world affairs,” Xi told the Boao Forum for Asia, an annual China-sponsored
conference named for the southern seaside town where it is held.
The speech was the latest by Xi to articulate his
government’s plans to use China’s growing power to reshape economic and
security arrangements in the region — a change from recent decades when Beijing
largely worked within a U.S. and Western-dominated international system.
At the center of these efforts is the new Asian
Infrastructure Investment Bank and plans to build infrastructure across Asia
and along the maritime routes that historically connected China to the Middle
East, Africa and Europe.
The plans have been welcomed by many countries and companies
throughout the region, which the Asian Development Bank estimates is in need of
trillions of dollars of infrastructure. Close U.S. allies and other governments
have signed
on to the infrastructure bank, despite concerns from
Washington about the way the bank will be run.
Chinese officials said the bank, which is due to start
operations this year, is expected to have about 40 founding member countries.
Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov announced
Moscow’s participation in Boao on March 28. China’s Finance Ministry said on
its website that day that the Netherlands, Brazil and Georgia have also applied
to join. Australian officials on Sunday confirmed that Canberra
would participate as a prospective founding member in negotiations
to set up the bank.
In an illustration of the breadth of China’s plans,
dignitaries attending Xi’s speech included government leaders from 15
countries, including Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Zambia, Armenia and Austria — but
there was no high-level representation by the U.S.
The Boao Forum, which was conceived as an Asian version of
the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, has typically focused on business and
economic matters.
Xi’s speech was notable for touching upon security issues — though
he didn’t raise China’s territorial disputes with Japan and the Philippines.
Without referring to the U.S. by name, Xi suggested the
security alliances that have underpinned Washington’s role in the region should
be done away with. "No country could have its own security assured without
the security of other countries, or of the wider world,” Xi said. "The
Cold War mentality should be truly discarded and new security concepts be
nurtured as we explore a path for Asia that ensures security for all."
President Xi held out the prospect that China’s own economic
growth, even if
slowing, would bring opportunities for the region. Over the next
five years, he said, China would import $10 trillion in goods, and invest $500
billion abroad.
—————————
11. PROTEST TARGET:
EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
By the Activist Newsletter
Protesting the austerity policies of the European Central
Bank, a young woman named Josephine Witt, 21, decided to make a dramatic
display of her displeasure in Frankfurt, Germany, April 15.
Attending a press conference by ECB president Mario Draghi,
67, she leaped on to the table at which he was seated, shouting "End the
ECB dictatorship!" and tossed papers and confetti at the stunned bank
official.
Security forces wrestled the woman to the ground and carried
her away, as she smiled in triumph for succeeding in her objective. Later she
was interviewed by a reporter from the Telegraph (UK) who wrote, "Ms Witt
said she would continue to engage in 'hardcore activism' in response to what
she believed was an undemocratic ECB." CNN reported, "Draghi was
shaken but later made light of it."
Mass demonstrations against the ECB took place in Germany
March 18 as thousands of mostly youthful protesters expressed their outage
against the ECB, an institution they blame for ruining the lives of millions in
the eurozone.
The protest was organized by the Blockupy, an activist
coalition of more than 90 groups from across Europe, including the Syriza
Party, which now governs Greece.
 |
| Mass German protest in March. |
The demonstration coincided with the opening of the bank's
new $1.3 billion headquarters in Frankfurt.
The organization said it opposed "the malicious spread of capitalism" which they held responsible for the increase in poverty and hardship in parts of Europe.
The organization said it opposed "the malicious spread of capitalism" which they held responsible for the increase in poverty and hardship in parts of Europe.
There wereviolent clashes between police and
demonstrators, not intended by the organizers. A Blockupy spokeswoman said the
group does not condone the clashes: "Blockupy is clearly against violence.
Obviously, there are people that go against what we intended for this day. It
is not what we planned, but it shows people are very angry about the austerity
policies."
Five demonstrators were arrested and around 500 were detained
for questioning. A number of police were injured. The protests will certainly
continue.
Nearly seven years on from the start of the financial
crisis, economic hardship remains a reality for many in Europe. Unemployment in
the eurozone is falling but is still around 11%, and growth is stuck at anemic
levels. The rate of joblessness among young people is much higher in Spain and
Greece.
—————————
12. ARMENIAN GENOCIDE AND GEOPOLITICS
 |
| Teenage Armenian girl guides somber Russian President Putin to April 24 ceremony in Yerevan. |
The United States is not about to be weighed down by the
historical baggage of the Caucasus. To Turkey's pleasure and Armenia's regret,
U.S. President Barack Obama did not utter the word "genocide" on
April 24 when he commemorated the 100th anniversary of a massacre of 1.5
million Armenians at the hands of Ottoman Turks. Obama is not the pope [who
recently condemned the Armenian genocide]; he is the president of the
United States, and the global hegemon appears to be in tune with its
geopolitical instinct.
A great deal of diplomatic energy has been exchanged between
Washington and the Turkish and Armenian lobbies in recent weeks. Not only have
decisions had to be made about what word to use to describe the historical
event, but there are also questions about the level of official that should
attend the Armenian commemoration versus the Turkish commemoration for the
Battle of Gallipoli. Putting aside the diplomatic motions, the choice is quite
simple for the United States: Either Washington can throw its support behind a
tiny landlocked satellite of Russia with negligible strategic value, or it can
use the opportunity to deepen its relationship with a country that has the
potential to influence two highly active geopolitical arenas, namely, the
Russian periphery and the Middle East. [The Activist Newsletter considers
Armenia an ally of Russia, not a "satellite."]
Turkey is already showing signs of wanting to be more active
in its region. While Saudi Arabia is trying to band together the Gulf
Cooperation Council countries as a military force with a common political
purpose — to contain Iran, which is on the way to rehabilitating itself through
a deal with the United States — Turkey is naturally feeling the urge to establish its
own leadership credentials. Washington will encourage this evolution
as it places more responsibility in the hands of local powers to manage
problems such as the Islamic State.
Turkey is also looking out toward the Black Sea when it
comes to recalibrating its foreign policy. Over the past few months, Turkey has
increased its engagement with European countries on the front lines with
Russia, including Poland, Lithuania and Romania, the leaders of a U.S.-backed
European coalition. On April 23, in a policy speech to parliament, the Polish
foreign minister mentioned Turkey three times in articulating his country's
foreign policy, describing a "duty which involves listening to the voice
of history and not turning one's back on nations — like Turkey, Ukraine,
Georgia or Moldova — that are prepared to follow the European
development." Warsaw's grouping of Turkey with these borderland countries
is notable as we track growing efforts by Washington and its European allies to
bring Turkey more into the Western fold.
Russian President Vladimir Putin seems to be well aware of
the shifting tide in Turkey. After Putin's spokesman wavered for weeks over
whether the Russian president would attend the ceremony in Yerevan, Armenia's capital, accept
Turkey's invitation to attend the Gallipoli commemoration or avoid the
political controversy altogether by staying home, it turned out that Putin would
indeed walk the red carpet in Yerevan. Putin still went out
of his way to call Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan ahead of his trip to
Yerevan to reassure him of the strength of their relationship, but the growing
tension between Turkey and Russia will become increasingly difficult for both
sides to paper over. Turkish-Russian energy negotiations over natural gas
pricing and Russia's Turkish Stream project are already
encountering obstacles. And with Turkey starting to become more
active in Russia's European periphery and the United States strongly nudging
Ankara from behind, Moscow should be eyeing Turkey with suspicion.
—————————
13. U.S. LOSING
AFGHANISTAN'S NEW 'GREAT GAME'
By Dilip Hiro
Call it an irony, if you will, but as the Obama
administration struggles to slow down or halt its
scheduled withdrawal from Afghanistan, newly elected Afghan President Ashraf
Ghani is performing a withdrawal operation of his own. He seems to be in the
process of trying to sideline the country’s major patron of the last 13 years
-- and as happened in Iraq after
the American invasion and occupation there, Chinese resource companies are
again picking up the pieces.
In the nineteenth century, Afghanistan was the focus of “the
Great Game” between the imperial powers of that era, Britain and Czarist
Russia, and so it is again. Washington, the planet’s “sole superpower,”
having spent an estimated $1 trillion
and sacrificed the lives of 2,150
soldiers fighting the Taliban in the longest overseas war in its history, finds
itself increasingly and embarrassingly consigned to observer status in the
region, even while its soldiers and contractors still occupy Afghan bases, train
Afghan forces, and organize night raids
against the Taliban.
In the new foreign policy that Ghani recently outlined, the
United States finds itself consigned
to the third of the five circles of importance. The first circle contains
neighboring countries, including China with its common border with Afghanistan,
and the second is restricted to the countries of the Islamic world.
In the new politics of Afghanistan under Ghani, as the
chances for peace talks between his government credit
for those potential peace talks goes to the Chinese leadership, which has
received a Taliban delegation in Beijing twice in recent months, and to Ghani,
who has dulled the hostility of the rabidly anti-Indian Taliban by reversing
the pro-India, anti-Pakistan policies of his predecessor, Hamid Karzai.
and the unbeaten Taliban brighten, the Obama administration finds itself gradually but unmistakably being reduced to the status of bystander. Meanwhile,
and the unbeaten Taliban brighten, the Obama administration finds itself gradually but unmistakably being reduced to the status of bystander. Meanwhile,
 |
| Cartoon from the original "Great Game"where Russia and Great Britain were deeply involved. |
As an official of the World Bank for 11 years, Ghani had
dealt with the Chinese government frequently. This time, he left Beijing with a
pledge
of 2 billion yuan ($327 million) in economic aid for Afghanistan through 2017.
The upbeat statements of the two presidents need to be seen
against the backdrop of the twenty-first-century Great Game in the region in
which, after 13 years of American war, Chinese corporations are the ones
setting records in signing up large investment deals. In 2007, the
Metallurgical Corporation of China and Jiangxi Copper Corporation, a
consortium, won
a $4.4 billion contract to mine copper at Aynak, 24 miles southeast of Kabul.
Four years later, China National Petroleum Corporation in a joint venture with
a local company, Watan Oil & Gas, secured the right to develop three oil
blocks in northwestern Afghanistan with a plan to invest $400 million.
In the other equally important realm of soft power, when it
came to gaining popularity among Afghans through economic aid, New Delhi
outperformed Washington in every way. Though at $2 billion, its assistance to
Kabul was a fraction of what Washington poured into building the country’s
infrastructure of roads, schools, and health clinics, the impact of India’s
assistance was much greater. This was so partly because it involved little
waste and corruption.
Continuing the practice dating back to the pre-Taliban era,
the Indian government channeled
its development aid for the building of wells, schools, and health clinics
directly into the Afghan government’s budget. This procedure was dramatically
different from the one followed by the U.S. and its allies. They funneled their
aid money directly to civilian contractors or to approved local and foreign
nongovernmental organizations with little or no oversight. The result
was massive fraud and corruption....
— Continued at http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175975/tomgram%3A_dilip_hiro%2C_afghanistan%27s_china_card/#more
—From TomDispatch, March 31. Dilip Hiro is the author of 35 books. His latest, The
Longest August: The Unflinching Rivalry between India and Pakistan, has just been published by Nation Books.
—————————
14. LATIN AMERICA BACKS VENEZUELA AT SUMMIT
 |
| Cuban President Raul Castro with Presidents Maduro of Venezuela (on left) and Obama. |
[The U.S. lost its
iron grip over many Latin American and the Caribbean governments in the last 15
years. They had enough of Uncle Sam's hegemony. To win back a degree of credibility in the region,
President Obama is finally seeking to improve relations with the Cuban government,
which Washington has sought to crush since 1961. Evidently thinking this
gesture provided him carte blanche to undercut Venezuela just
before the Summit of the Americas meeting in Panama, he encountered a solid
wall of opposition and in effect backed down.]
By Lucas Koerner
The seventh Summit of the Americas, held in Panama City
April 10-11, was widely hailed as a victory for left-leaning and progressive
forces in the region, particularly Venezuela and Cuba.
The summit involved all nations in the region, with this
year's marked by the historic presence of Cuba for the first time. Cuban
President Raul Castro addressed the summit and held face-to-face talks with
President Barack Obama ― the first Cuban leader to do so since the socialist
nation's Washington-imposed expulsion from the Organization of American States
in 1962.
However, the much anticipated rapprochement between the two
nations was largely upstaged by regional leaders' near uniform rejection of
Obama's March 9 executive order labeling Venezuela a "national security
threat" to the United States.
This move has been condemned by all 33 nations of the
Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, which unites all nations in
the hemisphere except the U.S. and Canada, and other regional bodies.
 |
| Collecting petitions for Obama to repeal action on Venezuela. |
Obama soon publicly acknowledged, "We do not believe
that Venezuela poses a threat to the United States," but said he had no
intention of repealing the executive order. He continued to justify new sanctions imposed
on Venezuela, which are allegedly aimed at "discouraging human rights
violations and corruption."
During the summit, Obama met privately with President Castro. He also agreed to a 10 minute closed door meeting with Venezuela's Maduro, who
termed their meeting "serious, frank and cordial.... I told President Obama
that I am not an enemy of the United States, nor are my people.”
Towards the summit's close, the U.S. and Canada blocked the
approval of a final declaration. This was despite it being backed by the 33
other nations of the region, broad agreement that was the result of four months
of negotiations.
The final declaration requires approval by consensus. The
two North American nations opposed several points in the draft document,
including a point declaring health a human right, calling for technology transfers
to developing countries, for an end to electronic espionage, and for the repeal
of the executive order targeting Venezuela.
— From Green Left Weekly (Australia), April 18, 2015.
————————
15. RAUL CASTRO'S
SPEECH AT THE SUMMIT MEETING
[Cuban President Raul Castro Ruz delivered an important speech at the April 11-12 Summit of the Americas in Panama, over half of which follows. We omitted his section on the political history of Latin America (not least because we have published articles on this topic in the past) and some elaborations on current affairs. The entire text is available at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41541.htm.]
I appreciate the solidarity of all Latin American and
Caribbean countries that made possible Cuba’s participation in this hemispheric
forum on equal footing, and I thank the President of the Republic of Panama for
the kind invitation extended to us. I bring a fraternal embrace to the
Panamanian people and to the peoples of all nations represented here.
The establishment of the Community of Latin American and
Caribbean States (CELAC) on December 2-3, 2011, in Caracas, opened the way to a
new era in the history of our America, which made clear its well-earned right
to live in peace and develop as their peoples freely decide, and chart the
course to a future of peace, development and integration based on cooperation,
solidarity and the common will to preserve their independence, sovereignty and
identity.
The ideals of Simón BolÃvar on the creation of a “Grand
American Homeland” were a source of inspiration to epic campaigns for
independence....
We have expressed to President Barack Obama our disposition
to engage in a respectful dialogue and work for a civilized coexistence between
our states while respecting our profound differences.
I welcome as a positive step his recent announcement that he
will soon decide on Cuba’s designation in a list of countries sponsor of
terrorism, a list in which it should have never been included.
Up to this day, the economic, commercial and financial
blockade is implemented against the Island with full intensity causing damages
and scarcities that affect our people and becoming the main obstacle to the
development of our economy. The fact is that it stands in violation of
International Law, and its extraterritorial scope disrupts the interests of
every State.
We have publicly expressed to President Obama, who was also
born under the blockade policy and inherited it from 10 former Presidents when
he took office, our appreciation for his brave decision to engage the U.S.
Congress in a debate to put an end to such policy.
This and other issues should be resolved in the process
toward the future normalization of bilateral relations.
As to us, we shall continue working to update the Cuban
economic model with the purpose of improving our socialism and moving ahead
toward development and the consolidation of the achievements of a Revolution
that has set to itself the goal of “conquering all justice.”
Esteemed colleagues:
Venezuela is not, and it cannot be, a threat to the national
security of a superpower like the United States. We consider it a positive
development that the U.S. President has admitted it.
I should reaffirm our full, determined and loyal support to
the sister Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, to the legitimate government and
civilian-military alliance headed by President Nicolas Maduro, and to the
Bolivarian and Chavista people of that country struggling to pursue their own
path while confronting destabilizing attempts and unilateral sanctions that
should be lifted; we demand the repeal of the Executive Order, an action that
our Community would welcome as a contribution to dialogue and understanding in
the hemisphere.
We shall continue encouraging the efforts of the Republic of
Argentina to recover the Falklands, the South Georgia and the South Sandwich
Islands, and supporting its legitimate struggle in defense of financial
sovereignty.
We shall maintain our support for the actions of the
Republic of Ecuador against the transnational companies causing ecological
damages to its territory and trying to impose blatantly unfair conditions.
I wish to acknowledge the contribution of Brazil, and of
President Dilma Rouseff, to the strengthening of regional integration and the
development of social policies that have brought progress and benefits to
extensive popular sectors, the same that the thrust against various leftist
governments of the region is trying to reverse.
We shall maintain our unwavering support for the Latin
American and Caribbean people of Puerto Rico in its determination to achieve
self-determination and independence, as the United Nations Decolonization
Committee has ruled tens of times.
We shall also keep making our contribution to the peace
process in Colombia.
We should all multiply our assistance to Haiti, not only
through humanitarian aid but also with resources that help in its development,
and, in the same token, support a fair and deferential treatment of the
Caribbean countries in their economic relations as well as reparations for
damages brought on them by slavery and colonialism.
We are living under threat of huge nuclear arsenals that
should be removed, and are running out of time to counteract climate change.
Threats to peace keep growing and conflicts spreading out.
 |
| May Day parade in Havana. |
Cuba shall continue advocating the ideas for which our
people have taken on enormous sacrifices and risks, fighting alongside the
poor, the unemployed and the sick without healthcare; the children forced to
live on their own, to work or be submitted to prostitution; those going hungry
or discriminated; the oppressed and the exploited who make up the overwhelming
majority of the world population.
Financial speculation, the privileges of Bretton Wood, and
the unilateral removal of the gold standard have grown increasingly
suffocating. We need a transparent and equitable financial system.
It is unacceptable that less than 10 big corporations,
mostly American, determine what is read, watched or listened to worldwide. The
Internet should be ruled by an international, democratic and participatory
governance, particularly concerning its content. The militarization of
cyberspace, and the secret and illegal use of computer systems to attack other
States are equally unacceptable. We shall not be dazzled or colonized again.
 |
| Raul answers questions in Cuban congress last December, discussing Obama's overture to Havana. |
It is my opinion that hemispheric relations need to undergo
deep changes, particularly in the areas of politics, economics and culture, so
that, on the basis of International Law and the exercise of self-determination
and sovereign equality, they can focus on the development of mutually
beneficial partnerships and cooperation in the interest of all our nations and
the objectives proclaimed.
The adoption in January 2014, during the Second Summit of
CELAC in Havana, of the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a
Peace Zone made a transcendental contribution to that end, marked by Latin
American and Caribbean unity in diversity....
Cuba, a small country deprived of natural resources, that
has performed in an extremely hostile atmosphere, has managed to attain the
full participation of its citizens in the nation’s political and social life;
with universal and free healthcare and education services; a social security
system ensuring that no one is left helpless; significant progress in the
creation of equal opportunities and in the struggle against all sorts of
discrimination; the full exercise of the rights of children and women; access
to sports and culture; and, the right to life and to public safety.
Despite scarcities and challenges, we abide by the principle
of sharing what we have. Currently, 65 thousand Cuban collaborators are working
in 89 countries, basically in the areas of healthcare and education, while 68
thousand professionals and technicians from 157 countries have graduated in our
Island, 30 thousand of them in the area of healthcare.
If Cuba has managed to do this with very little resources,
think of how much more the hemisphere could do with the political will to pool
its efforts to help the neediest countries.
Thanks to Fidel and the heroic Cuban people, we have come to
this Summit to honor Marti's commitment, after conquering freedom with our own
hands “proud of Our America, to serve it and to honor it […] with the
determination and the capacity to contribute to see it loved for its merits and
respected for its sacrifices.” End)
—————————
16. RAUL, CHE, FIDEL
By the Activist Newsletter
By the Activist Newsletter
Raul Castro (left), now 84 and the President of Cuba, is
shown here in his 20s in 1958 with Che Guevara in their mountain redoubt. Both
were commandants in the 26 of July Movement led by Fidel Castro. Months later
on New Year's Day 1959, the rebels took power after a several-year struggle
against a dictatorship that was backed, of course, by the Yankee Colossus 90 miles away.
Successive U.S. presidents have continuously sought and
failed to crush this small socialist island through war, subversion and
extremely punishing sanctions, which are continuing. Raul headed the Cuban
armed forces from 1959 to 2008. He has been acting president and president
since Fidel was taken ill in 2006.
Che, an Argentine, held important posts in the revolutionary government, but was restless and sought to use his revolutionary guerrilla experience on behalf of revolutions in countries where governments oppressed their people. He traveled secretly and on his own to Bolivia in 1966 in hopes of building a revolution. Che was captured by the Bolivian Army on the instructions of the CIA and murdered at the age of 39 on Oct. 9, 1967.
Raul and Che's old leader, Fidel (left), has been living in a Havana hospital for years. He's 88 and becoming quite frail. Foreign leaders and other guests are frequent visitors to Fidel's rooms. He writes articles for the Cuban daily Granma. Fidel is one of the great revolutionary leaders of our time, with the added distinction of having kept the imperialist wolf at bay all these years.
Che, an Argentine, held important posts in the revolutionary government, but was restless and sought to use his revolutionary guerrilla experience on behalf of revolutions in countries where governments oppressed their people. He traveled secretly and on his own to Bolivia in 1966 in hopes of building a revolution. Che was captured by the Bolivian Army on the instructions of the CIA and murdered at the age of 39 on Oct. 9, 1967.
Raul and Che's old leader, Fidel (left), has been living in a Havana hospital for years. He's 88 and becoming quite frail. Foreign leaders and other guests are frequent visitors to Fidel's rooms. He writes articles for the Cuban daily Granma. Fidel is one of the great revolutionary leaders of our time, with the added distinction of having kept the imperialist wolf at bay all these years.
————————————
17. REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS — WHO ARE THEY?
Following is a statistical breakdown of the constituencies that support the Democratic or Republican parties by the Pew Research Center April 7, 2015:
Democrats hold advantages in party identification among
blacks, Asians, Hispanics, well-educated adults and Millennials. Republicans
have leads among whites – particularly white men, those with less education and
evangelical Protestants – as well as members of the Silent Generation. (footnote1)
A new analysis of long-term trends in party affiliation
among the public provides a detailed portrait of where the parties stand among
various groups in the population. It draws on more than 25,000 interviews
conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2014, which allows examination of
partisan affiliation across even relatively small racial, ethnic, educational
and income subgroups.
The share of independents in the public, which long ago
surpassed the percentages of either Democrats or Republicans, continues to
increase. Based on 2014 data, 39% identify as independents, 32% as Democrats
and 23% as Republicans. This is the highest percentage of independents in more
than 75 years of public opinion polling.
When the partisan leanings of independents are taken into
account, 48% either identify as Democrats or lean Democratic; 39% identify as
Republicans or lean Republican. The gap in leaned party affiliation has held
fairly steady since 2009, when Democrats held a 13-point advantage (50% to
37%).
Here are five specific categories of party affiliation:
Race and ethnicity. Republicans hold a
49%-40% lead over the Democrats in leaned party identification among whites.
The GOP’s advantage widens to 21 points among white men who have not completed
college (54%-33%) and white southerners (55%-34%). The Democrats hold an
80%-11% advantage among blacks, lead by close to three-to-one among Asian
Americans (65%-23%) and by more than two-to-one among Hispanics (56%-26%).
Education. Democrats lead by 22
points (57%-35%) in leaned party identification among adults with post-graduate
degrees. The Democrats’ edge is narrower among those with college degrees or
some post-graduate experience (49%-42%), and those with less education
(47%-39%). Across all educational categories, women are more likely than
men to affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic. The Democrats’
advantage is 35 points (64%-29%) among women with post-graduate degrees, but only
eight points (50%-42%) among post-grad men.
Generations. Millennials continue to
be the most Democratic age cohort; 51% identify as Democrats or lean
Democratic, compared with 35% who identify with the GOP or lean Republican.
There are only slight differences in partisan affiliation between older and
younger Millennials. Republicans have a four-point lead among the Silent
Generation (47%-43%), the most Republican age cohort.
(1) Activist Newsletter: Most generational designations have
little relationship to reality and are usually mere products of marketing
research companies targeting consumers of certain ages. The "Silent
Generation" is the meaningless misnomer that applies to those born in the
U.S. between 1925 and 1945, many of whom lived through the Great Depression, WWII, the postwar period of political repression, the political/cultural
uprisings of early 1960s to the early '70s, the conservative backlash
continuing (and getting worse) to this day, the post-Soviet period of
unilateral U.S. global hegemony, and now its gradual decline. Could they actually have been silent during all this?
—For those who want
more of this article continue at:
—————————
18. MILITARY VETS
LAUNCH ANTI-DRONE TV ADS
A
group of military veterans is taking aim at U.S. drone strikes overseas with
graphic TV ads directly asking Air Force pilots to stop flying the unmanned aircraft, calling
the operations immoral and illegal.
The
ads are the first commercials opposing U.S. drone operations ever shown on
American TV, according to sponsors, which include the Veterans Democratic Club
of Sacramento County and the Sacramento chapter of Veterans for Peace. The
campaign is spearheaded by an activist website, KnowDrones.com.
The
commercials are airing in April on Comcast in Northern California communities
near Beale Air Force Base, which is home to Golden Hawk
reconnaissance drones. Pilots at Beale remotely fly the spy drones over areas
believed to be controlled by terrorists in foreign countries and pinpoint human
targets for attack by armed Predator and Reaper drones.
The
two 15-second spots show images from a drone operations video screen, an
explosion and civilians searching through rubble after a drone attack.
On-screen messages read "Drone killings violate law and morality" and
"Drone pilots. Please refuse to fly. No one has to obey an immoral
law."
One
of the ads, which includes images of dead and mutilated children, is being run
only after 10 p.m., while the other spot airs from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. daily. Both
are posted on YouTube.
The
commercials cost about $6,000, said Cres Vellucci, president of the Veterans
Democratic Club of Sacramento County. The spots are running during popular
shows on major cable channels, including AMC, CNN, Comedy Central, ESPN, Fox
News, HGTV and a Comcast Bay Area sports channel.
"If
you're a fan of 'Mad Men,' Giants games or Fox News, there's a good chance
you'll see it," Vellucci said....
— From the Sacramento Bee. For
information and news about drones check out http://www.knowdrones.com.
—————————
19. FIGHT INJUSTICE,
SUPPORT PURVI PATEL
Purvi Patel, after being sentenced to 20 years. This is a cruel injustice. She needs support.
[There has been considerable press coverage and vigorous shaking of heads following the recent conviction and 20-year sentence imposed on an Indiana woman for miscarrying a stillborn fetus. Her grim sentence underscores the increase backward decisions and legislation in many states throughout the U.S. Given the magnitude of the sentence and the nature of the so-called "crime," it is surprising that there has not been a much larger and demonstrative outcry from the movement and the public. We need a fight-back.]
By Jessica Valenti,
Guardian
Abortion
is illegal in the United States. So is having a stillbirth – not officially,
perhaps, but thanks to a case in Indiana, we’re halfway there. On March 30
Purvi Patel, a 33 year old woman who says that she had a miscarriage, was
sentenced to 20 years in prison for neglect of a dependent and feticide. She is
the first woman in the United States to ever be sentenced for such a crime.
In July 2013, Patel went to
the emergency room with heavy bleeding. She eventually admitted to
miscarrying a stillborn fetus and placing it in a bag in a dumpster. (Patel lived
with her religiously conservative parents who did not believe in premarital
sex.) After police searched Patel’s cellphone, they found text messages that
suggested she bought abortion-inducing drugs online.
Despite the fact that no traces of any abortifacent were
found in Patel’s blood work taken at the hospital, the prosecution argued that
she had taken the drugs mentioned in her text messages and caused her
miscarriage at 23-24 weeks of pregnancy. And, in legal maneuvering that defies
imagination, Patel was charged not just with
fetal homicide, but with neglecting a child. These charges are
completely contradictory: neglecting a child means that you neglected a live
child, and feticide means that the baby was born dead.
 |
| Her mug shots before conviction. |
But logic has never been at the center of the draconian laws
and arrest policies that target pregnant women: control is. As Lynn Paltrow,
the executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, told me last
year about laws aimed at drug-using pregnant women, this kind of
prosecution “is about making pregnant women – from the time an egg is
fertilized – subject to state surveillance, control and extreme punishment.”
And, as with other laws that hurt pregnant women, Indiana’s
feticide law was not intended (explicitly, anyway) to be a policy that affected
women: it was supposedly designed to target
illegal abortion providers. But despite the anti-choice insistence
that women are “victims” of abortion providers, the history of how similar laws
are used shows just how much it’s women – and women of color in particular – who
are directly impacted by “fetal protection” policies.
After a
feticide law was passed in Texas in 2003, for example, a local
district attorney used the opportunity to send a letter to all doctors in her
county that they were now legally required to report any pregnant women using
drugs. Doctors complied, and more than 50 women were reported and charged with
crimes.
We may never know what really happened in Patel’s case. She
has repeatedly said that she had a miscarriage which, if true, means that the
state is sending a woman to jail for not having a healthy pregnancy outcome.
But even if Patel did procure and take drugs to end her pregnancy, are we
really prepared to send women to jail for decades if they have abortions? Even
illegal ones?
When women are desperate to end their pregnancies, they
will. The answer to this shouldn’t be punitive, but supportive: women need
better access to education, affordable contraception and abortion without
harassment or delay.
Patel’s case opens the door for any woman who expresses
doubt about her pregnancy to be charged if she miscarries or has a stillbirth.
It’s a terrifying thought, but one that is already impacting real women:
the anti-choice movement is now sending women to jail for what happens during
their pregnancies. So tell me again how abortion is totally legal. Or tell
Purvi Patel.
— Democracy Now broadcast an interview about the Patel case
with Lynn Paltrow, founder and executive director of National Advocates for
Pregnant Women. It is available online in video, sound or text format at http://www.democracynow.org/2015/4/2/20_years_in_prison_for_miscarrying
—————————
20. STOP SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT OF YOUTH
 |
|
Seven demonstrators were arrested in this Oakland protest.
|
Numerous studies have proven that prolonged solitary confinement
causes prisoners significant mental harm and places them at grave risk of even
more devastating future psychological harm.
The UN says, "solitary confinement should be banned."
According to the American Civil Liberties Union, "It’s
practically torture and we’re doing it to our youth. Every day across the U.S.,
young people (13 and up) are held in solitary confinement with almost no human
contact for days or months at a time."
Solitary can amount to torture, and the consequences can be
devastating for children because they are still developing — that's why we must
stop this cruel practice. That's also why the ACLU has joined with the Student
Alliance for Prison Reform (SAPR) and launched a campaign to pressure the U.S. Attorney
General to ban solitary confinement for youth in federal custody.
Watch this very brief video, sign the petition and
share it with your friends and family. Add your voice to the call for justice
now – let's make sure that the Attorney General can't ignore this issue any
longer. It's all at: https://action.aclu.org/secure/stop-juvenile-solitary?ms=web_150319_massincarceration_stopjuvenilesolitary
—————————
