People Before Profit blog

Radio Ads Slam Republican Cuts to Medicare, Social Security

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:37:00 +0000

This week, the labor-affiliated Alliance for Retired Americans began running radio ads to protest the Republican budget cuts to Medicare and Social Security.

They joined thousands of voters across the country who held protests or sat in at congressional town hall forums demanding the Senate block the Republican Party's plan to gut Medicare by privatizing it.

According to analysis of the Republican Party's plan, over the next few decades retirees will pay an increasingly larger amount of their income to pay for healthcare coverage – if they are even able to buy health insurance at all.

Hundreds of voters even attended a town hall forum held by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., the "author" of the anti-Medicare law. After dozens of constituents caught Ryan lying about the bill, he fled the scene with armed bodyguards.

The pro-Medicare ads will air on the radio for seven days in Colorado, Missouri, and West Virginia, and call on Democratic Senators to block the Republican plan.

As many Republicans in Congress work to slash Social Security and Medicare benefits, the ads remind voters that the Republican budget would “…use our money to give more tax breaks to millionaires and corporations, and cut nursing home care and Social Security, too.”

During a speech at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) 4th District meeting in Morgantown, West Virginia on Thursday, Alliance for Retired Americans President Barbara J. Easterling told union members that the Alliance ads were used to urge Senators from those three states to stand up for Social Security and Medicare.

To hear the ad that will air in West Virginia, go to http://bit.ly/h0ZHX1.

Conversely, the right-wing, corporate-backed 60 Plus Association, which claims to be a conservative seniors organization, is spending $800,000 on radio ads expressing approval for the House Republicans to dismantle and destroy Medicare.

Since 2000, 60 Plus has advocated privatization and fought a Democratic-sponsored bill that would have reduced the price of prescription drugs for retirees – presumably a benefit for their claimed constituency – by allowing the importation of safe, cheaper drugs from Canada.

60 Plus has also gotten hundreds of thousands of dollars from the pharmaceutical industry and has close ties the Republican Party. It serves as little more than a corporate front group and has few members who are actually seniors, except for cosmetic purposes.

A Tale of Two May Days – Joining in Solidarity

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 08:24:00 +0000

Orignal source: The Cultural Worker

This coming Sunday is MAY DAY, THE INTERNATIONAL DAY OF THE WORKER. After more than 50 years of red-baiting against this global labor holiday, last year organized labor finally shook of the fear and marched in many cities along with comrades from the immigrants rights community and the wider Left. In NYC we had an amazing turn-out but the presence of two different May Day rallies, one specifically in honor of immigrant workers in Union Square and the other being simply worker-based and located in Foley Square, saw an uncomfortable rift in solidarity---what May Day is supposed to be all about. Happily, this year we are seeing a powerful alliance between the two organizing committees. I have been excited to be a part of the steering committee over the past few weeks, representing my union DC 1707 AFSCME, and watched as the plans have grown. This week there was a special joint press conference in which organizers from the two rallies sat together and offered a joint plan.

May Day in New York has an amazing heritage. In the 1930s and 40s, hundreds of thousands marched and rallied and the turn-out featured rank-and-file members as well as staff and leaders from all of the unions. Powerful cultural workers such as Paul Robeson and Pete Seeger offered rousing soundtracks to the proceedings and brilliant leaders and heads of state were counted among the guest speakers. The more moderate participants stood shoulder to shoulder with communists, socialists and anarchists (as they most surely did at work, anyway) and a decidedly radical message was the order of the day. Working people marched militantly and with great pride in their jobs, their unions, their progressivism!

The first blast of cold war chill changed all of this drastically and grand May Day parades quickly shrunk to small marches throttled by neo-fascist rhetoric and at times their violent assaults. The Left came under fire and was subject to HUAC hearings, blacklisting, public humiliation, detentions, and the worst kind of reactionary opportunism. The conformism of the 50s saw purges in the most radical of the CIO unions and by the time of the AFL and CIO merger, there seemed to be little chance of organized labor ever walking in the May Day light again. The Communist Party maintained annual May Day gatherings in Union Square Park but these too faded out by 2003. Several years ago, immigrants rights groups, under fire from Bush-era xenophobia, began to march and rally on May Day. Not subject to the average American fear of things "communistic", the immigrant activists reclaimed this day of the worker, recalling its significance in their homelands and teaching us a lesson in turn. By 2010, organized labor finally took the hint and lower Manhattan hosted a large and inspiring rally which, joined by some of the immigrants rights groups fresh from reveling in Union Square, forged a union, if you will, that was but a seed of what's to come.

This brings us to the here and now; radical arms of labor are working closely with highly active immigrants rights organizations in celebration of May Day. The Union Square rally will begin at noon and it will focus on radical calls for immigration reform; speakers, singers, poets and dancers are on the bill. But by 1PM, a large contingent of this group will march down to Foley Square---Worth St, near Centre St---where a mass gathering will be occurring. The forces of labor will be there alongside student groups, Left political parties and coalitions, feminists, peace activists, the No-Wal-Mart-in-NY collective and, yes, a swath of immigrants rights organizations. Speakers will come from all of these organizations and while progressive politicians are invited to be present, none will be allowed to speak on this event, by and for workers. And there will be music, including my own Flames of Discontent, plus an African drumming group, 1199's dance band GQ, the Reverend Billy and more. Here's a new, concerted vision for May Day in NYC and it will call on elected officials to end the attack on unions, immigrants and the poor. Sure, there may still be a level of division, but here's the first major vehicle for a united progressive stand, one which is inclusive and goddamned proud to be radical. It's a new day, comrades.

Middle East Interventions

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 08:20:00 +0000

Intervention in the Name of Stability

Professor Noam Chomsky recently delivered an important address in Amsterdam entitled “Contours of the World Order.”(1)

A large part of the speech was devoted to the role of the US in defending its area of absolute hegemony. According to Chomsky’s excellent analysis, the United States relates to all countries with a simple rule of behavior. They must honor obligations stemming from US control and domination and governments which refuse to behave according to this universal principle will be the objects of US reprisals up to and including direct military threat to their very existence. Chomsky sums it up with his characteristic incisiveness. If you are on the US team, then you are part of the stability that must be treasured above all else. If you challenge US hegemony, you are an enemy of stability.

It is necessary to understand that this US policy has nothing to do with the internal nature of the given regime. Iraq was attacked, as we suspected, because it challenged US dictates regarding its use of its own oil. The nature of Sadaam Hussein’s regime or the scope of his repression against the people of Iraq was totally irrelevant when the US decided that he was getting out of line.

Regarding Iran, Chomsky explains that no military or security danger emanates from the Islamic Republic. The simple truth is that the carefully cultivated US-Israeli hysteria build-up stems from Iran’s success in the diplomatic and political field.

Apologetics for USNATO Intervention

It is almost a full time job following the intensive debate in large sections of the left regarding the USNATO intervention in Libya. The pro-interventionist current has an important spokesperson in the highly respected person of Prof. Gilbert Achcar, a theoretician close to the radical left. Achcar, who speaks for a minority of the left, supported UN intervention, and the “no fly” zone, but did criticize the interpretation of the UNSC 1973 which allowed for bombing the country. Achcar holds to the position that the USNATO intervention was justified by the danger to Benghazi which would have fallen to the merciless Gadaffi. In his most recent comments on events in Libya, Achcar warns against foreign “boots on the ground” but sticks to his support for the rebels National Transitional Council, and calls for massive arms shipments to the rebels.(2)

This position appears to your humble correspondent to be seriously flawed. Senator John McCain was in Benghazi this week also calling for arms for the rebels. At this point in the debate we have thoroughly examined all the theoretical approaches to the question and have entered the world of practical politics. A war is going on in Libya sponsored, administered and conducted by USNATO. The purpose of this war at this stage is to effect regime change without which USNATO will suffer a humiliating disgrace. One might argue that Gadaffi was guilty of attempts to snuff out the democratic elements in Libya which had raised the flag of the Arab democratic revolution and who should have received full support from the left.

However, by centering our whole analysis on the crimes of Gadaffi, we encounter a serious difficulty. This is the same difficulty that we encountered regarding the drive for intervention against a long list of unsavory characters, including the likes of Sadaam Hussein, the Taliban, or even El Qaida. Experience provides ample evidence that confrontation between the US, acting in its imperial interests, and the local tyrants, reactionaries and fundamentalists enables the most reactionary sections of society to present themselves as the legitimate voices of authentic identity and patriotism. This dynamic, which develops intensely, at the heart of almost all interventions, actually prevents the growth and development of the social forces that carry the seed of genuine emancipation and reform.

The pro-independence, pro-democracy forces in Libyan society, even if they were as originally influential at the beginning of the crisis, as some believe, could not have conceivably survived as a significant force when the fight against the Gaddafi forces was taken over, subverted and recast as a battle to impose the will of the USNATO coalition in order “to save civilization and the free world.” The world has seen just how this kind of subversion ends. By virtue of its results, the US is still in Iraq and Afghanistan and continues the frenzied establishment of additional new military bases all over the globe. The name of this game is the right of intervention versus the right of self determination.

Syria in Crisis

As reports of large scale military and police attacks on peaceful demonstrating Syrian civilians are verified from objective sources, it will be the obligation of all democrats to call on the Assad regime to cease and desist immediately from such practices. Even so, we do not live in a romantic pseudo-democratic wonderland and we cannot be indifferent to the nature of the opposition in Syria, especially since it known that Syria is composed of a complex patch work of ethnic and sectarian entities. The empirical evidence of US involvement in the past so-called “velvet-color” revolutions will, as has happened invariably in the past, also surface here at a later stage regarding the crisis Syria.

There are unkind souls who will insist that all those who warn of US subversion and CIA provocations are claiming that the demonstrations and the protests in Syria are the work of the CIA. This is, of course, a gross falsification. The principles of the anti interventionist position is clear. There is every reason to believe that the mass protests in Syria reflect serious, genuine defects and weaknesses in the Assad regime. But, the crisis in Syria activates the hope in Washington for a pro-US regime in Damascus. And if this is not possible, the US and its faithful supporters might well prefer the disintegration of Syria into an ethnic-sectarian hodgepodge.

Up till now, the Syrian government has defended, over the years, its sovereignty and its independence against US pressures. It has acted with a modicum of solidarity and sensitivity to the Palestinian cause, when dictators such as Mubarek were openly conspiring with the US and Israel against the rights of the Palestinian people.

The survival of the Syrian government depends, in the final analysis, on its deserving the confidence and the support of the Syrian masses. Syria does have enemies but this is good reason for it not to become its own worst enemy.

(1) http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175382/tomgram%3A_noam_chomsky%2C_who_owns_the_world/

(2) http://www.zcommunications.org/the-libyan-insurrection-between-gaddafis-hammer-natos-anvil-and-the-lefts-confusion-results-and-prospects-by-gilbert-achcar

Raul Castro Takes the Reins in Cuba

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 08:02:00 +0000

HAVANA TIMES, April 28 — To explain what's happening in Cuba has always been complex, but with Raul Castro in the presidency, it's becomes even more difficult. He is a discreet man with short speeches and long silences, someone who deals behind the scenes and plays his cards with neither noise nor fanfare.

The Cuban media "cooperates" with him, keeping silent on many of the changes, while citizens find out through the rumor mill that they can now navigate the Internet as well as the sea.

However at the Sixth Communist Party Congress he demeaned the press, calling it triumphalist, strident, formal, boring and superficial. Author Eduardo Galeano had already observed that there are plenty of people who praise Cuba, but always few voices who know to defend it.

Castro repeats time and time again that he needs a different type of journalism, one with less applause and more intelligence, one with audacity to touch on sore stops and the courage to assume the consequences – a quality indispensable for facing Washington in cyberspace.

Meanwhile the reform advances in silence, meditating where it will place its foot to take the next step. Those who are pushing it are people without the vital time to correct new errors. Raul Castro recognizes that the Sixth Congress was the last in which his generation will participate.

The western countries were disappointed because the president-general of Cuba insists on continuing with socialism and announced that he wouldn't allow the activities of opponents who advocate the return to capitalism.

People wonder why Castro seeks to reestablish socialism after so many economic failures. Perhaps it's for the same reason that Roosevelt continued betting on the market economy in the middle of the 1929 economic crisis.

People act according to their beliefs, and the president of Cuba has been a communist since his adolescence, even before Fidel. In fact, he and Che were the ones who exerted the most pressure to transform the island into a socialist nation.

Those who want to understand "the Cuba to come" will have to learn how to approach it, to study it, to listen to it attentively, even in moments in when it detours from official discourse, which always comes out in written form.

Left groundings

No equation should overlook the relationship that has united Raul — since his childhood — with his brother, or his years as a young communist, his trips to socialist countries, his meticulous and efficient organization of the Second Front, and the construction of the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR).

He transformed a campesino guerrilla movement into a military force capable of facing South Africa but whose greater merit was in its fidelity to the nation's political institutions. His was one of the few armies in Latin America that never participated in a coup d'état.

When left without a budget, the general developed his economic vision. Using capitalist techniques he created the most successful managerial system that revolutionary Cuba had ever had and was able to self-finance the FAR.

His Marxist training allowed him to perceive the differences between the original Leninist model and Stalinism. In the Congress he broke from the script to say that Cuba should not copy what was done in the USSR after the death of Lenin.

He intends to build Cuba's own form of socialism but without reinventing fire. He and his circle studied the economically successful socialist countries and finally opted for the Vietnamese model, which they consider closer to Cuba both political and culturally.

He sent an army of specialists to collect everything that could be used in Cuba from the experience of that Asian country and he doesn't accept summaries, he demands complete reports that reflect the reality, even when the findings are upsetting.

As someone from the military, he knows how to be a team player but also delegate tasks. He goes more for institutions then for leaders and he trusts mechanisms above inspiration. When he needs cadre, he doesn't look for charismatic figures, he schools apprentices.

If we exclude the nine "historicals" on the Politburo, the new Central Committee appears as a pool of young leaders – half women, one third black and only fifteen military officers, a fact that makes one think the political role of Armed Forces will be less in the future.

The generals of the Politburo don't seem to be there because of their "stars" but because of the unassuming guerilla uniforms they wore in their youth. It was then that they established powerful bonds of trust between each other, as happen with those who risk their lives together.

Hurdles ahead

All are obsessed with "unity." They belong to a generation convinced that they lost the 19th century war of independence due to internal division. They also believe that the United States will take advantage of the most minimum schism to dominate the nation.

Perhaps that's why the general advances the creation of consensus. In 2007 he spoke of changes and convened a national debate where the people themselves called for those changes. He succeeded at getting Fidel's support, then united the "historicals" behind him, convinced the party of the new direction, and they finally gave him the helm.

Ahead of him lies the challenge of dismantling a powerful bureaucracy, the legitimate daughter of the Soviet model. Raul Castro warned that he would confront it and that he hoped to win, but he didn't specify "how they're going to fight the battles."

Days later, however, Granma, the newspaper of the Communist Party, gave a hint: It published Fidel's Castro quote that recommends combating the bureaucratic spirit "without truce, in the same way we fight against crime."

http://www.havanatimes.org

Book Review: After Empire - The Birth of a Multipolar World

Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:25:00 +0000

After Empire - The Birth of a Multipolar World.
by Dilip Hiro
Nation Books, Perseus, New York, 2010.

Modern history and current events are aligned in this excellent text from Dilip Hiro. Beginning with a short, concise back ground history on the arraignment of empires before and after World War II, “After Empire” then focuses more closely on the New World Order following on two main events. The first was the self-inflicted collapse of the Soviet Union following on Gorbachev’s perestroika and glasnost, followed by Yeltsin’s inebriated attempts to throw the country wide open to the capitalist free market west and the Washington consensus of the IMF and World Bank. The second event, a decade later, was the attack on the World Trade Center and the subsequent series of attacks and manipulations around the world combined with the stealthy annexation of the powers of the constitution towards executive supremacy in the U.S. government.

But as Hiro says, the book “does not revolve around America,” nor is it “dialectical,” one party against another. While it may not “revolve” around “America” the very force of the arguments keeps the U.S. front and centre in all the global actions charted through the work. Hiro does succeed in describing developments “leading to an international order with multiple poles, cooperating and competing with one another, with no single pole being allowed to act as the hegemonic power…the age-old balance of power is back at work.”

It is, after all, a book about ‘after empire,’ and the only true empire at the moment is the U.S. empire, one that stretches over all curves of the earth. In writing about it, Hiro covers a wide range of topics effectively. They range through warfare, economics, oil, democracy, capitalism, Islamism, soft power and hard power, media, investments, the business of war, liberty, decolonization, foreign aid, interventions clandestine or overt. All major countries, as necessitated by their many global interactions, are essential parts of the story. An excellent summary and history of the modern Soviet Union collapse followed by the Russian revival provides a strong base for events that occur later. China is of course central to any discussion on ’after empire’, as are Brazil and India, the so-called BRIC group. Other considerations are with the state of the European Union, economically powerful yet also fighting its own internal economic wars, while generally remaining within the U.S. sphere of foreign affairs influence.

Just as many historical events have dates and an action set to indicate the start of the overall course of the history, several items stand out for the U.S. empire’s apparently sudden change to a declining empire. First in time, would be the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the financial opportunism that directed most of the U.S.‘s actions towards its realignment. More obviously to outsiders would be the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now on into Pakistan, and the manner in which the U.S. manipulated the UN and NATO in order to have its way. To those inside the U.S., informed by the protective corporate media, the financial collapse of major companies and many large financial institutions combined with rising unemployment, the collapse of the housing bubble, and an enormous debt crunch could not be hidden.

Most of the singular events indicating the decline of empire are attributed to George Bush’s presidency. Bush is described as naïve, “bereft of intellectual curiosity…inarticulate, blinkered, and narcissistic,” all wonderful attributes for governing an empire. His policies originated from a group of “second rate, neoconservative intellectuals,” such as Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz (who created the preventative war doctrine as well as the first strike nuclear doctrine), Donald Rumsfield, and Richard Perle.

The “freedom agenda” displayed the largest hypocrisy. Hiro outlines succinctly and accurately the U.S. denial of democracy in the January 2006 election of Hamas to power within the Palestinian territories. The war in Iraq which was essentially about oil and Israel, the news of torture and human rights violations from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the denial of international law, all contributed to the quick erosion of any moral force that the U.S. carried.

From that start, the work then travels through the travails of other countries. Two chapters are spent discussing Russia’s renewal and revival in financial, political and energy sectors. The revival is credited to the hard lines of Vladimir Putin, operating under the constitution brought in by the U.S.’s favourite at the time, Yeltsin. Next up, Iran and Venezuela are well placed in context – and that is what this book does best, especially compared to other works on the declining empire, is to place things in context. China, India, and the European Union follow, each with concise well constructed chapters clearly highlighting the major relationships internally and externally. Democracy, soft power, the internet, al-Jazeera, and Bollywood are examined in relation to how things have and will change ‘after empire.’

Future flash points are discussed, not with projections and conjectures about what will happen – the downfall of other works looking post empire who focus mainly on China-U.S. relations – but by highlighting the current tensions in politics (Russia-Iran-U.S relations), resources (oil and gas obviously the big ideas here), the political tension between China, Taiwan and the U.S., and the obvious currency and commercial entanglements of the U.S. and China.

Hiro’s epilogue, written in 2009, credits China with pulling the world from the brink of economic disaster, creating the growth necessary for the global economy - the image comes to mind that China is paddling while the U.S. is treading water – not even in the boat, but with its debt lifeline attached to Chinese interests. Obama is credited with arriving with a new outlook on the world, but we are now into Obama’s second semester with not a lot of new direction taking place regardless of the fine sounding rhetoric. It will be interesting to see how Hiro interprets Obama’s efforts in the context of all that has preceded and surrounded his term in office.

For a work that accounts for current events and modern history, this is an excellent resource. The ideas, arguments, and factual notes are well placed within context of a global empire undergoing its transition from supremacy to a multipolar world. “After Empire” demonstrates that the multipolar world is back in play, however, as even more recent current events in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, and other Arab countries show, the empire will not give up its hold easily, and is fighting a coercive rearguard action against perceived threats to its control and power.

US Rethinks Strategy: War as Opportunity in Libya

Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:17:00 +0000

The brutality of Libyan leader Moammar Ghaddafi, and his refusal to concede power, is costing Libya much more than innocent lives. The country is now also facing a possible loss of future independence and sovereignty. From its early days, the Libyan revolt seemed to take a difference course than those of other Arab countries. It represented a window of opportunity for the United States and its western allies to reposition themselves, slowly but surely, around a conflict that promised grueling and bloodier times ahead.

A visit by Republican Senator John McCain to Benghazi on April 22, was described by a CNN online report as “a major morale boast” for the Libyan rebels. His arrival followed a US decision to deploy predator drones to Libya, thus promising a greater American role in the war. According to McCain, drones are not enough, and more will be needed to break the “significant degree of stalemate.” He described Benghazi as a “powerful and hopeful example of what a free Libya can be.”

A small crowd chanted as the US senator met with members of the Transitional National Council: “Thank you John McCain! Thank you Obama…Thank you America! We need freedom! Gadhafi go away,” according to the same report.

This decidedly American push has already inspired many neoconservative ideologues who unfailingly endorse war against any Arab or Muslim country that fail to tow their line. A major hub for US intervention – most often in support of Israeli interests – is the American Enterprise Institute, credited for introducing many suspicious characters to Iraq following the ousting of Saddam Hussein. AEI scholar Michael Rubin said that the visit by McCain “brings more limelight to the rebels.” But Rubin wants even more than this. “If McCain can meet the people for whom we are fighting, why not Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Why not Vice President Joe Biden?”

There are many indications to suggest that the US is upgrading its involvement in the Libyan war, following a brief period of political and military vacillation. Much talk of a pending stalemate in the unfair fight between poorly armed rebels and Ghaddafi’s forces preceded the actual standoff on the ground. With no meaningful Arab action, and NATO’s choosy military involvement proving to be largely ineffective, the US is now being urged to ‘do something.’

‘Doing something’ is, of course, a difficult endeavor in a highly volatile political season in Washington. As miscalculations can be decisive factors in winning or losing elections, the Obama Administration is trying to play its cards right, moving towards more tangible involvement in Libya, but with much caution. What is clear, however, is that the involvement will be more visible than before.

McCain’s visit is significant, not just because of his political seniority, but also owing to his former ‘war hero’ status. In Washington, military men are more trusted than politicians. As he ushered in greater American involvement in Libya, Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was contributing to the built up of rhetoric from Baghdad. The situation in Libya is “certainly moving towards a stalemate,” he told US troops during a visit. “Gaddafi’s gotta go…(and coalition actions)…are going to continue to put the squeeze on him until he’s gone,” he said, according to Reuters (Washington Post, April 22).

Ghaddafi’s brutal treatment of civilians made their protection a top priority for the country’s rebels. Benghazi-based rebel-spokesman, Abdul Hafidh Ghoda, told Aljazeera: “There’s no doubt that (the US decision to send unmanned drones) will help protect civilians, and we welcome that step from the American administration.”

But since the destruction of “somewhere between 30 and 40 percent” of Gaddafi’s ground forces (according to Mullen’s estimation) achieved very little by way of protecting civilians, more steps are expected from the Obama Administration.

Now we are witnessing a jubilant return of previously muted calls for interventionism and regime change in favor of US-style democracy. While Libya may not have specifically fallen under the Washington radar, it now presents an opportunity too good to miss.

This realization might challenge President Obama and force him to revise an earlier claim that the US’ goal was not regime change in Libya. In a televised speech on March 29, Obama said, “If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put US troops on the ground to accomplish that mission or risk killing many civilians from the air.”

But yet again, a stalemate might end up splintering Libya itself. The US and its allies would either accept a divided Libya – and exploit this division whenever possible – or raise their involvement to break the deadlock. If they opted for the latter, there is already much rhetoric to support an upgrade in the military mission. “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye (to) atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different, and as president I refuse to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action,” Obama said.

A US victory over Gaddafi may be seen as an opportunity to boost Obama’s faltering reputation just in time for the 2012 presidential elections. But history has repeatedly shown the high cost of political and military arrogance. Obama himself admitted that in Iraq, “regime change…took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly $1 trillion. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.”

Since the military plunder in Iraq, the US has resorted to softer and increasingly clandestine methods to destabilize ‘unfriendly’ countries. Recent Wikileaks revelations show that Syria was always positioned as one of these targets. Libya seemed too stable and somewhat too distant from recent US foreign policy estimations. However, the ongoing violence in the country, and fear of the long-term repercussions of a military stalemate, could change all of that.

In Washington, mood swings occur too quickly and too often. Political opportunists know well how to turn a challenge into an opportunity, and an opportunity into an all-out war.

Photo by jetalone/cc by 2.0/Flickr

What Happens If Congress Fails to Raise the Debt Ceiling?

Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:07:00 +0000

According to the Washington Post, the White House is warning that catastrophe will strike if Congress fails to raise the limit on the national debt: The Government has too little cash to pay creditors, thus the U.S. government would default. Interest rates would skyrocket, throttling credit and collapsing the sputtering "economic recovery."

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner has already begun planning for the catastrophe. First, by juggling the books to conserve cash. One short term, unsustainable maneuver would be to borrowing money from a pension fund for federal workers to pay interest obligations and forestall default.

Geithner also has authority to pay investors first for interest they're owed on the debt, according to a decades-old legal opinion. Republicans say this would avert "official default" – but, let's be real, the distinction would be lost on global financial markets.

The nation will pay a "substantial price in higher interest rates if it relied on such evasive maneuvers", the cautious Government Accountability Office said in a recent study.

"I think the failure to meet any commitment would be viewed by the markets as default and would be deeply unnerving," said Robert Rubin, former Treasury Secretary on President Clinton. "We don't know" what would happen in the event of default, Rubin said. "But I think it is totally irresponsible to take the risk of trying to find out."

Progressive leaders want a deficit-reduction trigger, which would automatically raise taxes on the rich and corporations before cutting benefits. The debt is forecast to hit the limit in mid-May. Geithner has said he can keep the wolf from the door only until early July.

Geithner is likely to take a series of steps to hedge resources. But even uncertainty has its costs. The GAO found that "general uncertainty" forced the Treasury to pay millions of dollars in higher interest rates in the months leading up to debt-limit increases in the early 2000s and again last year.

Republicans intent on crashing the economy in hopes that somehow Obama will be blamed, are pressing Geithner to prepare for lengthy and stupid battles that could force Treasury for the first time since the debt limit was established in 1917 to stop borrowing and make do with tax revenue. The government is forecast to collect $2.2 trillion in taxes this year and obligated to spend $3.7 trillion. That means Geithner could cover a maximum of 60 percent. Payments to both U.S. soldiers, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare recipients and payees would be in immediate jeopardy.

Republican idiotic arguments (Like Patrick Toomey R-PA) favoring "partial payments...just as long as 'our' bondholders get paid" speak for themselves. The GAO does not even want to take it on as meaningful since even discussing default is sending tremors through markets right now. In fact, the Fed makes all payments on debt automatically and actually has no means to "prioritize payments" in such huge system. It would create political hurricanes whose outcome no one can predict, with every move.

Even most pro-business analysts take a dark view of ANY default. Bill Gross, who runs Pimco, the world's biggest bond fund, said in an e-mail that "failure to raise the debt ceiling would be catastrophic – global investors would move money at the margin to countries which have their act together, interest rates might rise by 50 basis points overnight, the stock market would plunge."

The Washington Post reports that " traders have begun hoarding Treasury bills and other short-term assets in case the government stops issuing new debt."

As one analyst quipped: "It's like before a thunderstorm. The birds are quiet in the trees, and there's a very weird mood in the market. But it hasn't yet started to rain. YET."

Photo by dietrich_craig/cc by 2.0/Flickr

The Compatibility of Christianity and Marxism

Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:31:00 +0000

The common wisdom of both Christians and Marxists is that Christianity and communism are incompatible; when looking at the history of relations between the two ideologies as well as the ideologies themselves, it is understandable why many come to this conclusion. Communists have traditionally believed that Christianity has been a tool of the ruling classes to keep proletarians and peasants in chains. Marx, in his essay “On the Jewish Question” claims that religion provided an escape from the alienation of proletarian life. As this alienation would not exist in communism, religion would no longer be necessary.

Since people would find fulfillment in their day-to-day labor, the worship of deities would simply fade away. In addition, he believed that humans should strive for authenticity themselves rather than project ideal humanity onto a non-existent being. Many Christians see Marxism a materialist, secular philosophy that is antithetical to all forms of spirituality as well as inherently repressive. Hence, in spite of Christianity’s doctrines concerning social-justice, Christians do not view Marxism as a viable political option. As an orthodox Christian and a communist, I would contend that both sides are incorrect in their assessment of one another and that the time has come to build new bridges of reconciliation and solidarity between Christians and Marxists.

The main Christian critique of Marxism is that historical materialism is incompatible with Christian doctrines such as the existence of substances beyond matter, like spirit. Many Marxists (Marx himself) would agree. Many Christians have reinterpreted Christian doctrine in such a way that squares more ontological materialism, but for more conservative Christians such as myself, this is not a viable option. There is, however, a way to interpret historical materialism in such a way that it need not conflict with the existence of spirit.

Whether or not Marx would have believed that all things are composed of matter is beside the point; the most important aspect of Marxism is historical materialism—material entities satisfying their material necessities and the forces and modes of production that facilitate this are what primarily drive history—not necessarily ontological materialism (everything is matter). If we understand historical materialism in this way, we still leave open the possibility of immaterial reality; it is merely that, in terms of how history plays out, material reality has a certain priority. In addition Engels, in “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific” concedes that higher levels of the historical materialist superstructure can turn around and exert causal influence over economics, so Marxism can allow for things which are not necessarily material to have a direct impact on history.

As an orthodox Christian I am required to believe in the existence of spirit; nevertheless it’s undeniable that economics exerts a greater influence over history than the activity of our consciousness, and our consciousness itself has been to a large degree shaped by our particular relationship to the means of production. I see no necessary contradiction between this view and orthodox Christianity, so long as the Christian maintains that spirit does exist and exerts a certain non-historical priority over matter.

Marxists and Christians have a lot of common ground in that the Bible clearly teaches God’s preference for the interests of the poor. According to the 8th century BCE prophets, a key reason for the Babylonian exile was punishment for Israel’s failure to care for its poor (cf Jer 5:28-29; 22:3-5; Hos 6:6; Amos 2:6-7; 4:1; 4:11-12). The Torah is also filled with provisions designed to protect the poor from oppression (cf Ex 23:3, 7-11); not the least of which was the Jubilee Year, wherein every 50 years all outstanding debts would be canceled, all possessions returned to their original owners, all prices reduced, and all servants set free; this measure was designed to level the economic playing field among ancient Hebrews (Lev 25:8-17).

Jesus, for his opening sermon in the Luke’s Gospel quotes the Prophet Isaiah: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach good news to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to preach the year of the Lord’s Favor,” (Luke 4:18-19). Jesus later tells his disciples: “how hardly shall they that have riches enter into the Kingdom of Heaven,” (Luke 18:18-25). Beyond Jesus, James might as well directly explicate the doctrine of surplus value in the 5th Chapter of his epistle: “behold, the hire of the laborers who have reaped down your fields, which you kept back by fraud crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord Sabaoth,” (James 5:4).

Finally, the Acts of the Apostles explicates clearly the kind of society in which Christians are to live, and for which we are to advocate: “And the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common… Neither was there any among them that lacked… and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need,” (Acts 4:32, 34-35). Oddly enough, Marx said something suspiciously similar to the tone of: “…from each according to his ability to each according to his need.” Concern for the oppressed and the establishment of a just society is as much a part of Christian tradition as is raw spirituality. The goal of the Communist Party with regards to Christians should be awaken them to these teachings of their own traditions and how they have more in common with the left than with the right.

Concerning the Marxian critiques of religion: that it is unnecessary in communism, and more essentially (as per the new-Hegelian school from which Marx hailed) that it projects the human essence onto a non-existent reality rather than enabling humans to reach said essence themselves. It is here that I and Marx will part ways. If one believes this to be essential to Marxist doctrine, then Christianity and Marxism are incompatible, but I would contend that this interpretation is not necessary to either of the two most important doctrines of Marxism: historical materialism, and surplus value. Not only is this interpretation of Marx unnecessary, it is also unrealistic.

Although many of the existential problems that plague humanity stem from material causes, not all of them do. Even if the human person finds herself completely at home in her workplace, this alone is not satisfactory enough to unite the human essence with its existence. While Marx was correct that the human essence includes its ability to rationally change nature to produce the goods necessary to survive and thrive, it is also the case that human essence includes the possibility of achieving some kind of transcendence of the mundane that cannot be found in merely ending working class alienation.

In terms of the New-Hegelian Critique: I agree, we do project ideal humanity—in an allegorical sense—onto God. To argue that this necessarily implies that God does not exist, however, is circular. At any rate, the projection of ideal humanity onto God does not imply that religion must prevent humans from reaching this ideal itself. Although some Christians would argue that we should merely rely on the grace of God for salvation and wait for the coming of Christ rather than improve ourselves and reform society, they are sorely unbiblical (cf Eph 5:1; Phil 3:13-14; Heb 6:1). It is because of the biblical imperative to strive for existential authenticity as well as the interdependence of all members of the human community that Communism is entailed by Christian social ethics.

At any rate, whether or not my comrades agree with my interpretation of Marx, there is an entire community of social-justice-minded Christians—Protestant, Catholic, Evangelical or other—who could potentially be Communists without even realizing it. The party has a great deal of work to do in reaching out to them and assuring them that in the society we intend to build, our right to practice Christianity will be protected. A plurality of the working class of this nation identifies as Christian; imagine what we could accomplish if we managed to convince them that our faith is not only compatible with communism but entails it. At any rate that the party will never succeed in building a mass-people’s movement until it does just that.

Whither Egypt Now?

Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:58:00 +0000

"Peoples of Egypt, you will be told that I have come to destroy your religion. Do not believe it! Reply that I have come to restore your rights!" -- Napoleon Bonaparte, 1798

For those who thought the Egyptian revolution is done and past, think again. The Egyptians did not go home. They are out there again if things do not turn out the way they had hoped.

There’s no question that the unrest in Egypt is of paramount world concern. Opinions vary about how this situation will work out, but many analysts think, or rather hope, that this situation could actually have a positive outcome for Egypt.

One must keep in mind that Egypt’s standing in the Arab and Islamic world is partly linked to its role as a patron of the Palestinian cause in the era of Nasser.

There is talk about America's worries that a government less friendly to the USA will be installed. That is secondary, as long as it is a government that cares for its own people. And maybe if the U.S. doesn't interfere, there is a chance of that happening. Hopefully the Egyptians would not swallow the bait of falling in the same gutter that they managed to escape from, enticed by the hypocritical words of Obama; “We stand ready to provide assistance that is necessary to help the Egyptian people as they manage the aftermath of these protests.” In her statement, U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton claimed that Washington’s concern in relation to Egypt was to bring about a “real democracy” and not a “so-called democracy that then leads to what we saw in Iran.” Sometimes the argument comes in the form of "I support democracy, but only if I agree with the results." In other words, her sole criterion for a democracy is not the will of the people, but subordination to US interests or perhaps an imperialist "pax Americana."

The fear really is an Egypt that no one can predict. Will it continue in its former alliances? What good are its former alliances if they have to be maintained by a brutal and corrupt police force in the streets of Cairo?

The young activists who had organized the protests are still very optimistic but would not give up the pressure on the army to fulfill all its reform pledges, including the release of thousands of political prisoners. The leadership of the Coalition for change is still divided over the extent to which the army can be trusted.

If the Egyptian masses were allowed to express their genuine aspirations at the ballot box it would spell an end to the country’s role as a servile client of Washington and Israel. The issue that worries the U.S. is that when people are free, they try to be independent. They will not accept living in the custody of the U.S.

Many western leaders are worried that the failure of the Egyptian regime could see the Muslim Brotherhood, the most well-organized opposition party, take control. The Mubarak regime has historically used the Muslim Brotherhood as a bogeyman to frighten the people and the Western countries. However, it's not radical Islam that worries the U.S. – it's the independence. The nature of any regime it backs in the Arab world is secondary to control. Subjects are ignored until they break their chains. The US and its allies have regularly supported radical Islamists, sometimes to prevent the threat of secular nationalism.

There was a sense among reformists in Cairo that the army has been true to its word so far. Indeed, the Army has unequivocally stated that "it will not be an alternative to the legitimacy approved by the people." But concerns have mounted in the last days. Secular democratic parties are not involved in the dialogue the Army currently has with the Muslim Brotherhood. The process for reforming the constitution is far too quick and is not inclusive. Representatives of the old regime are there but there are no women. The question here is this: Is the army more representative of the people, or more representative of the old status quo? It boggles the mind to think that, after all the sacrifices the country made to unseat a dictatorship, a new one seems to lurk in the shadows of this promising new era.

The pledge that elections would take place within six months was welcomed, but a faster timetable was then introduced, making it impossible for the impoverished liberal parties like Wafd ("Delegation") or El Ghad (Tomorrow) to organize. The Muslim Brotherhood gets huge financial support from the Gulf States and is experienced in fighting elections. While the Brotherhood will not put up a presidential candidate, it will fight across the country for parliamentary seats. Alternatively, the hugely-popular Wael Ghoneim – a Google manager who was held and beaten up during the recent violence – has already been drawn into talks with the administration. Political groups would be able to accept unlimited funding from individuals, corporations or even foreign powers interested in influencing the presidential elections. This will leave the Egyptian political system ripe for corruption.

The young demonstrators are determined that the future political make-up of Egypt should reflect their role in the revolution. Nevertheless, getting rid of the dictators was only the first step of a process in which ordinary people will fight for their rights, notably better wages and public services. In a country of 80 million with 40% that live below the World Bank poverty level of $2 a day, it’s doubtful that the "youth element" would hold the voting majority.

"All Egyptians now think they are Che Guevara, Castro or something," says Essam el-Erian, a senior leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, bursting into laughter. "This is democracy."

Foreign governments, especially those in Europe and the U.S., have to make major reassessments as the Arab world makes up its own mind at last.

Tea Party Demands Racial Segregation Forever

Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:52:00 +0000

There is a line from an old Bob Dylan song that goes:

Steal a little and they throw you in jail
Steal a lot and they make you king.

In today's world you don't even have to really steal a dime and they'll throw you in jail, as Tanya McDowell, a mother of a public school student in Bridgeport, Connecticut can attest.

McDowell, who is homeless, was arrested and charged with larceny recently. She faces 20 years in prison for using her babysitter's address to place her son in the city's Brookside Elementary School kindergarten last fall.

McDowell is the second mother in recent months to face similarly ridiculous charges stemming from the desire to place her child in a public school.

Ohio mom Kelley Williams-Bolar was the subject of a nationwide campaign to free her after being arrested for using her father's home address to place her daughters in one of the school's in a wealthier neighboring school district.

According to ColorLines.com, while the prison sentence against Williams-Bolar was reduced to several days in jail she has been ordered to pay thousands back to the school district and her father faces trial as well.

Why has the desperate act of lying a little in order to provide a better education for your children become criminal?

While some in the media have commented on the how ridiculous the severity of the charges have been, few have noted the real underlying issue at stake here.

Both Williams-Bolar and McDowell are working-class African American mothers. Both understand quite clearly that any hope for social mobility for their children rests on their access to a quality education. And both likely realize that education in America has never been more segregated and unequal in its history.

According to Richard P. Burton, Sr., Director of PROJECT R.E.A.C.H., Inc., racial segregation in schools has created a situation in which "millions of non-white students are locked into 'dropout factory' high schools, where large percentages do not graduate, and few are well prepared for college or a future."

Racial and economic segregation in schools ensures that while families in affluent (mostly white) neighborhoods and communities will recive the lion share of the available resources for education, working-class families (disproportionatley of color) will be consigned to a system that seems to lock them in place permanently.

Even more than 50 years after the Brown vs. Board of education decision in which the Supreme Court banned racial segregation in public schools and ordered states to take steps to correct the problem, persistent racial segregation in cities and housing has ensured that schools have also remained segregated,

And unfortunately there is a terrible history in which white families fought desegregation – not just in the South but in many northern cities as well.

In a recent interview for a Milwaukee news website, education activist Jonathan Kozol noted that this uproar translated into a series of court decisions that effectively "ripped the guts" out of the Supreme Court's 1954 desegregation order.

"So long as poor Black and Latino kids are in separate schools it’s much easier to shortchange those kids in dozens of ways without hurting the children of the privileged, since they’re in different school districts," Kozol added.

So while the union rights of teachers and educators and the proper resources to fund a wholly public system of education remain central to education reform, without racial and economic desegregation, public education will fail to provide equitably for children of families like McDaowell's and Williams-Bolar.

More recently, Tea Party school board members have taken steps to kill a working 11-year old program in Raleigh, North Carolina's Wake County schools that use class-based data to increase the racial integration of its schools.

According to a Washington Post story on the matter, local parents love the program because it had begun to change the school system from economically and racially segregated schools to a more diverse, nationally ranked program.

In their campaign against the program, local Tea Party politicians used racially coded language harkening back to the "segregation forever" rhetoric of the 1960s. They called it "social engineering" and a "forced busing" policy, which is completely false as most students attend schools within five miles of their homes.

One Tea Party school board member even had the nerve to say that racial and economic segregation were good things because they make the public aware of the problem. What?

The Tea Party logic there is that if you solve a problem, people won't know there was a problem – best to create a worse problem so people will be aware of it. The only way to know that segregation exists is to maintain it forever.

It's like the cases of McDowell and Williams-Bolar. Punish two mothers who are struggling to improve their children's lives so people know there is a problem.

Meanwhile the kings of Wall Street – who lied and cheated and threw the well-being of tens of millions of Americans working families into dire jeopardy – are wallowing in the taxpayer-financed bonuses and stock options.

Photo by Phil Roeder/cc by 2.0/Flickr

Seven Students Arrested at Emory during Tent City Stand-off

Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:06:00 +0000

Orignal source: The Atlanta Progressive News

(APN) DEKALB COUNTY -- Seven students were arrested during a stand-off with the Emory University administration tonight, Monday, April 25, 2011, Atlanta Progressive News has learned.

Last week, APN reported that 150 students protested at Emory regarding its contract with Sodexo to operate its cafeterias. During that protest, two dozen students occupied the Administration Building, but they left the building after being threatened with arrest and after being promised a meeting with the University's President.

That meeting, which took place the following day at 5pm, was not fruitful, Alex Zavell, 20, an Emory sophomore majoring in Political Science, told APN in an interview.

The University insists it undertook an investigation of students' claims that Sodexo was mistreating cafeteria workers on Emory's campus and found no evidence of any problem, Zavell said. Yet, Zavell insists that University has failed to even hear what the problems are and has not explained what its so-called investigation consisted of.

Since the protest last week, the students erected a Tent City on the University quad outside the Administration building.

"At 630pm, students who were a part of the Tent City we set up on Wednesday and maintained constant peaceful presence... the Vice President came and delivered a notice of policy of the quad that said there needed to be a reservation if there needed to be events," Zavell said.

"A lawyer for our group looked at it and said the language of the policy did not apply to what we're doing," Zavell said.

"The Administration forcibly removed tents and signs. The grounds crew ordered by the Administration were told to start removing tents," Zavell said.

"In response, three tents were placed in a tight circle and students sat in them. Police backed off for about a half hour," Zavell said.

"John Ford, at that point came and told students they would be arrested if they remained in the tent," Zavell said.

"After which, the Emory police and Dekalb police came and arrested seven students who were sitting in the tent," Zavell said.

According to Zavell, the seven students are: Laura Emiko Soltis, an Emory fifth year graduate student in interdisciplinary studies; Roger Sikes, Emory second year graduate student in Public Health; Andrea Nicholls, Emory second year graduate student in Public Health; Joseph Diaz, Emory first year graduate student in Philosophy; Christopher Wells, undergraduate studying Film at Georgia State University; Amariah Love, an undergraduate studying Women's Studies at GSU; and Michael Iannocone, a graduate student from Georgia Tech in Computer Science.

"The Administration has consistently evaded dialogue, refused to acknowledge the existence of the problem on our campus, and responded with force in the face of peaceful student protest," Zavell said.

"I believe these actions fly in the face of Emory's mission statement and student values to create knowledge in the service of humanity, social responsibility, courageous inquiry, and ethical engagement," Zavell said.

The students were arrested at about 8pm, and Zavell said he believed the charges were for criminal trespassing, based on threats made by Administration prior to the arrests.

"Students were handcuffed with zip-tie handcuffs and dragged out by police officers," Zavell said.

Berlin’s Easter Parade vs. War and Bad Atoms

Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:03:00 +0000

The Easter holiday in Germany lasts from Good Friday to Easter Monday, four days. It arrived very late this year, at the end of April, and amazing summer weather drew multitudes to lakes or the seaside. Some, it was hoped - if not exactly multitudes - would be drawn by their consciences to a rather more recent tradition, the Easter Peace Marches. Would all that sunshine favor only the first option?

The marches began in 1960 when two teachers, inspired by the “Aldermaston” anti-A-bomb marches in Britain, organized 1000 people in four North German cities, largely in protest against a decision by top union leaders and the Social Democratic Party to approve atomic arms - and even West German atomic maneuvers in the risky shadow of the “Iron Curtain”. The party’s right wing, led by Willy Brandt, had hopes of becoming respectable enough to join a coalition government; since then its leaders have always opposed the Easter Marches.

And yet these actions sometimes rocked the country. 300,000 took part in 1968. In 1983, to protest the stationing of Pershing missiles in Germany, 700,000 joined in. Even that number was unsuccessful, however, and it was never reached again.

But some people kept walking, year for year. The movement, carefully unaffiliated with any party, varied from one area to another, for the marches were always regional, not central, and kept a local grass roots base. In the country’s capital it only gradually became possible to win over some East Berlin participation after this became possible in 1990. The total numbers depended on whether you believed estimates by the police, who often seemed to employ long division, or the organizers’ announcements, which may have been a bit on the optimistic side. Some tended to average out the two numbers. There was no denying that in some years those who took part, the truly faithful, could only be counted in hundreds. Last year there were about 1500.

And this year? With all that tempting sunshine?

Those faithful marchers – actually walkers or strollers – had most frequently come from the left “infra” wing of the political rainbow. One often recognized their familiar, devoted faces. But this year the atomic catastrophe in Fukushima had alarmed Germans immensely, more than in almost any other country. Their alarm, plus the awkward flip-flops of the Angela Merkel government in confronting it, had resulted in mass reactions and steep electoral gains for the Green party, most vocal in opposing the seventeen German reactors and unsafe storage sites for atomic waste. The entire media featured the subject almost daily. And this year, after often very delicate negotiations, an agreement had been reached: those of the faithful who had kept the marches alive over the toughest years and many people and groups activated by the huge opposition to dangerously misused atoms would combine and march together.

This was possible in most parts of the country, usually more, sometimes less successfully. But the march in Berlin on Saturday was an unquestionable a success. More than three thousand took part, enough to stretch for blocks and blocks down the up-and-coming Friedrich Strasse shopping street, along Berlin’s famous Unter den Linden boulevard, past the embassy buildings of Britain, Russia and the USA and along the big central park of Tiergarten to super-modern Potsdamer Platz. When the column passed the embassies, the headquarters of major weapons manufacturers or utility companies using atomic reactors it stopped for a few short speeches from the loudspeaker trucks. The police had forbidden a meeting next to the USA embassy, but two blocks further along Washington’s missiles, drones and other bloody weapons were loudly denounced – with calls for Germany to get out and keep out of its wars!

The main impression was of countless signs with bright yellow smiling suns saying “Atomic power? No thanks!” as well as hundreds of banners, mostly self-made, opposing all atomic weapons, especially those still stationed in Germany, and against all NATO military actions, above all in Afghanistan and Libya. A few people bucked this current by attacking Gadhafi, but many, many more said bombs could not settle anything.

Some groups stressed special issues; about a dozen, including two families, carried their striking, zigzag red and white Bahrain flag. With them was one man with a Palestinian flag; a few Egyptian flags were also visible. A group of Kurds also took part; others had very personal statements like the elderly man with a decorative and poetic declaration that it is poverty which leads to war.

It had been planned to have separate blocks for the anti-war groups, those stressing the reactor danger and a mixed group stressing both. But any such divisions disappeared and everyone mingled, forming a lively, always friendly atmosphere, with lots of children, also in baby carriages, a few people in wheelchairs and very many pushing bicycles. There was no block of the black-clothed protesters, often including masked provocateurs, who break windows, light fires, throw bottles and firecrackers and provide the mass media with the desired headlines. Maybe they are preparing for the usual May Day melees. But this time everything stayed sunny, peaceful but determined – right up to the final meeting and music at the crowded destination square with its big-biz skyscrapers.

Although both the Greens and the Left party had supported the marches, recognizable leaders of the two could be counted on one hand. There were more banners of the Left party than ever before; none, strangely, of the Greens. But such matters caused little if any concern. The big news was how different protest movements seemed, on this Easter weekend at least, to be moving closer together and, just possibly, growing in size.

Wikileaks and the India-US Defense Agreement

Fri, 22 Apr 2011 08:37:00 +0000

Original source: People's Democracy

The article published in The Hindu ( March 28, 2011) on the Wikileaks cables focusing on the landmark Indo-US Agreement of June 2005 on a ‘New Framework for US-India Defense Relationship’ as part of a wider strategic engagement between India and the US has received less attention than it deserves. (The writer must himself take some blame for not writing this piece earlier!) It covers a very significant period of modern India in which the UPA government took the country decisively into the US strategic orbit, and which witnessed a still unfolding process that included three watershed agreements between India and the US. The other two accords, both intimately connected to this one, were the India-US joint statement of July 2005 issued after the summit in the US between the then president George W Bush and prime minister Manmohan Singh, which took the next steps in strategic partnership entered into with the US by the earlier NDA government to a new level, and of course the 123 civil nuclear cooperation agreement which cemented the new strategic alliance.

Hopefully we are going to be treated to further Wikileaks installments dealing with these other agreements too, and their inter-connectedness. Till then we must content ourselves with this glimpse and infer from it what we can about the broader strategic engagement. Yet even this brief look provides some fascinating insights into how this engagement was viewed by both sides.

Left was correct

The first thing that strikes one is that, looking at the bigger picture, there are no startling new revelations, and very few surprises. Most of what we can read from the Wikileaks cables was already known, and had been brought out especially by the Left and by many other strategic commentators during that time. Yet to see it all come together in one place, brought out by official US documented exchanges, is important enough. And fresh light is also thrown on some key aspects, even if not in the referenced The Hindu article itself, if one connects the dots and reads between the lines.

Apart from anything else, the cables should convince the average reader that the Left in particular was not spinning out some paranoid conspiracy theory about US intentions and its orchestration of events, including micro-manipulations of government officials and elected representatives both high and low, towards the outcomes it desired. Indeed, several cables show it was the vigorous Left opposition to the deepening India-US strategic engagement, and the impact this critique was having in the wider polity and public opinion, which pulled the reins at least somewhat and kept the US horses from bolting with the Indian carriage. The US Embassy in Delhi for instance notes its frustration that the Indian leadership, though willing, was holding back because of its anxiety about the political campaign that “India is sub-serving its foreign policy to that of the US.”

This unfavorable environment engendered by the predominantly though not solely Left critique, with the Embassy analysis often pointing figures at the Nehruvian perspectives among sections of the foreign policy establishment also, seems to have the major reason for the UPA government going backing off from, or going slow on, several foundational bilateral agreements that the US was pushing. As a result India did not sign, and indeed has yet to sign, the Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreement (re-named Logistics Support Agreement to appear more innocuous) that provides for use of each other’s facilities and obtain refueling and other services on credit during operations, the Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement or CISMOA whereby air, sea and land assets of both sides can communicate with each other through common hardware and encryption software as forces of US allies do during NATO operations, the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geospatial Cooperation or BECA.

The US always claims that all these agreements will help the sale and transfer of advanced technologies to India and the latter two are indeed essential for sales of advanced and sensitive equipment. The cables show that in reality the US intention was to bind India into a web of military relationships both for their immediate strategic dividends for the US Pacific Command embracing East and South East Asia, and, as the cables show, as a part of the larger US strategy “to move the India-US mil-to-mil relationship closer.”

One new bit of information in the cables is that the US wanted to go even one step further and get India to agree to “Cooperative Security Locations” or CSLs, which are fully equipped military facilities in a dormant base that can be activated for operational use at short notice. This seemed too much even for pro-US sections of the Indian leadership!

Not that they have been converted! In fact, the UPA political leadership is slowly but surely finding backdoor means to achieve closer military ties. In some cases such as with the End-Use Agreements which the US normally insists on for government-to-government sales, and which gives the US rights to inspect military equipment sold to other countries on site and determine how they are used, India has not formally signed them but in 2009 agreed to language in annexures to sales contracts that are tantamount to the same. Similarly, India has gone along with the idea of interdiction on the high seas without actually signing the USA’s Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).

Strategy, not just sales

Much has been made in strategic and defense circles of the commercial angle to the India-US defense relationship. Articles constantly refer to the opening up of the Indian defense market to US suppliers and the potentially hundreds of billions of dollars that could be garnered for US companies through such sales. The cables too have reference to $14 billion annual purchases by India and $27 million acquisitions market just in the near term. But perhaps the most striking aspect of the cable extracts contained in The Hindu article is that, whereas this commercial aspect is undoubtedly important to the US, military sales to India are essentially seen not as ends in themselves but as part of a larger goal of drawing India into the US geo-strategic orbit.

Of course, cables originating from the US Embassy in India placed strong emphasis on the commercial side of military equipment sales for after all promoting commercial interests are important part of any Embassy’s mandate. However, US foreign policy is not limited to commerce, nor is it run from Roosevelt House, New Delhi but rather from Foggy Bottom and the White House. Thus, after the then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice’s announcement during her visit to Delhi that the US desire to assist India to become a world power, the US ambassador to India David Mulford conveyed to the Indian leadership that “energy, military cooperation, space and defense sales were the key areas” through which the US would do this. In the run-up to the signing of the defense agreement, the cables show much discussion on military sales to India, the need to take on board the persistent Indian demand for technology transfer if this window of commercial and strategic opportunity is to open up for the US, and the positive US response to such sales, drawing the conclusion that “military ties have developed into one of the most important and robust aspects of the… dramatic improvements in relations” between the US and India.

The cables reveal clearly that US strategic and foreign policy objectives vis-à-vis India, rather than commercial gains howsoever important, were the main drivers behind the burgeoning defense relationship. Sales of military equipment are seen as a key route to forging stronger military-to-military relationships which themselves are viewed as a crucial but not the sole component of a broader geo-strategic alliance.

Indeed, despite several large orders from India for military equipment, this is why the cables show, the impatience and frustration of the US at the lack of forward movement or slow pace of enlarging he scope of the defense pact through the foundational agreements or other substantive and formal actions demonstrating geo-strategic convergence between India and the US.

Since then, India has acquired US military hardware worth a whopping $10 billion. Equipment bought from the US include the USS Trenton (now INS Jalashwa) troop carrier ship, P8I maritime reconnaissance aircraft, Hercules C130J heavy lift transporter aircraft and other items. Despite the total volume of these transactions, the cables show that the US still longs for that “breakthrough sale,” especially the mega-order of 126 multi-role combat aircraft, now made possible by the End-Use Agreement and the agreement on licensed manufacture in India. The significance of such a sale for the US would be not just its commercial value but its importance for “deepening our mil-mil relationship and developing the military interoperability that will help our strategic partnership realize its potential”. It is argued by US diplomats that such sales with make a “sustained relationship far more robust than exercises and exchanges. If we can continue our trend of major military sales, we will cement a relationship for the next several decades with the most stable country in South Asia.”

Turning skepticism into opportunity

The cables also throw light on some interesting and hitherto unexplored dimension to Indian military acquisitions, especially from the US.

For one, the cables record considerable resistance in India, notably from the military leadership but also from a broader constituency of sections of the defense production sector, the strategic and foreign policy community, and journalists including defense correspondents, to strategic military acquisitions from the US. The Indian military brass appears to show deep-seated suspicions about US reliability as a supplier especially in time of conflict when, it fears, the US may impose sanctions or otherwise block supplies. The cables note the obvious reluctance of military leaders regarding acquisitions and deployment in theaters potentially involving Pakistan.

The above mentioned acquisitions are interesting in this light. They are mostly stand-alone acquisitions for longer-range or indirect roles, whereas the fighter aircraft would be frontline combat aircraft likely to find use in the neighborhood. The cables’ repeated reference to support from the military especially the navy for expanded military relations with the US should also perhaps be seen in this light. The navy not surprisingly finds considerable value in the experience gained from joint exercises using modern networking systems, and also looks positively at the prospect of strengthening its deep-water capabilities through such collaborations. None of these involve major hardware acquisitions that may be hampered in times of conflict. The air force chief has gone on record as saying CISMOA would not affect his service’s operational preparedness. The point is, weapon systems are a military’s bread and butter. And no military worth its salt would compromise its ability to be self-reliant within the nation especially in time of conflict when such equipment would actually be put to the use for which it was intended.

This is obviously linked to India’s defense industry capabilities to produce and maintain the major military hardware the armed services require. The on-going effort in India to address the well-known deficiencies of the Indian defense production sector is an unfolding story and cannot be addressed in this article. But we may briefly note that the Wikileaks cables throw a hitherto little noticed and interesting, new light on this aspect too.

The cables show US officials both in the US and especially in the Embassy in New Delhi repeatedly noting the strong Indian requirement for technology transfer to accompany any military sales. The cables reveal the US establishment, not being accustomed to such arrangements, gradually coming around to the idea in the interest of promoting the strategic partnership it wants “at a time when the goal of establishing a key strategic relationship... with one of Asia's rising giants... is becoming reality.” The cables show a US decision to project itself as a “reliable strategic partner for defense co-production, technology sharing, and joint research [while] using military sales as the platform for cooperation [to] catalyze development of India's defense sector [and] spin off new industries.” With typical American push, US officials suggest that the defense production and procurement group set up under the defense agreement could then “lay the foundation for direct interaction among Indian and U S business leaders aimed at creating corporate structures as the basis for defense cooperation, beginning with a few discreet projects.”

We are today witnessing an unfolding of this US stratagem. The UPA government has not only liberalized the offsets regime by various means including opening up civilian sector offsets which would benefit companies such as Boeing but has also decisively opened up the defense sector to the private sector including with foreign collaboration and portfolio investment. So not only will US interests be promoted in terms of military sales by agreeing to licensed manufacture or other offsets or collaboration as India wanted, this could be further advanced by tweaking these collaboration arrangements such that US defense manufacturers gain a foothold in the Indian defense manufacturing sector! But that’s the subject of another article!

Stand Up For Workers' Rights, Jobs and Peace

Fri, 22 Apr 2011 08:29:00 +0000

Stand Up For Workers' Rights, Jobs and Peace

The following is an excerpted version of the keynote address to the first annual conference of the Communist Party USA in New York City, April 16-17. To watch the video, click here.

Wisconsin: ground zero

Not in our lifetime have we witnessed such a deep going assault on the rights and conditions of the American people.

But neither have we seen such a broad surge of struggle of labor and its allies against this assault.

The enemy was joined in Wisconsin. What the Republican governor assumed would be a minor battle turned into a stunning display of people's power and solidarity. It was truly awesome.

If the sight of 125,000 people demonstrating, a tractor-cade of righteous farmers, and firefighters marching in with pipes piping doesn't inspire you, you are in the wrong business.

Can you think of a sustained action in recent memory that had such an infectious and energetic spirit? That demonstrated such unflinching courage? That attracted such a broad cross section of people? That employed such flexible and creative tactics? That displayed such determination in the face of a rabid right wing punk of a governor?

It made me think that Wisconsin might be our era's Montgomery, Ala. Montgomery being the place of the bus boycott in 1955-56 that triggered and inspired the modern day civil rights movement led so ably by the revolutionary democrat Dr. Martin Luther King. Only time will tell, but in the meantime all of us should "get crackin'."

While Wisconsin is the ground zero of the class war, it isn't the only ground on which working people are gathering and fighting to defend their rights and living standards.

Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, Michigan, Florida, and other states are also in the throes of this all out battle for democracy and democratic rights.

Full bore attack

Meanwhile Republicans at the national level, like their counterparts at the state level, are in full bore attack mode against the social contract that was won in the Depression years and consolidated over three decades following WW II. The "welfare state," they say, is no longer sustainable.

Indeed, if they have their way, here's what they would destroy:

Affirmative action and anti-discriminatory legislation - gone
Food stamps and employment compensation - gone
Quality desegregated public education - gone
Environmental protections - gone
Immigrant rights - gone
Health and safety standards - gone
Medicare and Medicaid - gone
Social Security - gone
Tax relief for working and poor people - gone
Head Start - gone
Pell grants - gone
Abortion rights - gone
Public radio and TV - gone
National Parks - gone
Public housing - gone
Right to collectively bargain and organize - gone

What would be left standing? A government not by and for the people, but rather one whose sole function is to facilitate by any means necessary the enrichment of the wealthiest families and corporations.

This is a raw grab for power, privilege and profits, coming at the expense of the democratic character and soul of our country. The extreme right, if it has its way, will turn our beloved United States of America into "America Inc." - a modern day plutocracy.

Obstacle to Republicans

A special target of this grab for power is the labor movement, because it is the most powerful obstacle to the Republicans' plans to transform the government into an ATM for the very richest.

Their aim isn't to weaken labor, but to crush it, much like ACORN was crushed two years ago, much like they tried to crush Planned Parenthood only a week ago.

Sobering yes! Dangerous yes! But labor and its allies are not backing down.

A living, dynamic working class led people's counteroffensive is emerging - so much so that it is fair to say a new phase of struggle is afoot.

This counteroffensive is national in scope, diverse in form, and creative in tactics. It is accompanied by a change in class mood, feeling and consciousness the likes of which we have not seen in a long while. Tens of millions of people can see that capitalism isn't working, the American Dream is crumbling, and something better is needed.

Socialism isn't yet a dinner table subject, but it is part of the broader discourse that includes the need for public works jobs, taxing the rich, the urgency of spending for people's needs, cutting the military budget, exiting Afghanistan and Libya, and much more.

The counteroffensive dates back to the 2006 elections, where labor and its allies scored a victory and thus threw the Bush administration on the defensive for the first time.

It continued two years later when tens of millions of all races, nationalities, and ethnic groups came together on the political stage and elected an African American president who promised a U-turn from the far-right policies of the Bush years.

There was an unfortunate lull in this counteroffensive in the first two years of the Obama administration. At the same time, the Republican right regrouped and went immediately into attack mode and the Democrats, not being fully surrounded by an energized mass movement, vacillated, lost control of the narrative, and compromised more than necessary.

But the lull is over. Labor and its allies are standing up for democracy and democratic rights. Their march is resuming in a strikingly new and promising way.

No one should expect this march to avoid bumps, setbacks and defeats going forward. The Republican victory at the polls last fall and its determination to press its advantage politically and ideologically will make the sledding very tough for a while.

In politics, winning and losing isn't a matter of simple arithmetic, not simply a matter of tallying up what was won and what was lost. Rather, it depends on which side is able to expand its support, deepen its unity, and capture the initiative. It also depends on which side is best able to frame the debate and win the battle for public opinion.

On these counts, labor and its allies, fighting in difficult circumstances for the moment, is in the fray.

2012 elections

The 2012 elections are casting a long shadow over the nation's politics, economics and public discourse.

For the Republican right, electoral success next year is crucial in order to radically transform the country to the advantage of the most reactionary sections of monopoly capital and their mixed bag of dangerous allies.

No one on their side, including tea baggers, is going to stay home on Election Day 2012. They will all be expected to march to the polls and bring others with them.

For the people's side of the struggle, the 2012 elections are of paramount importance too. No other struggle has the same possibility to rearrange the political balance of forces in a progressive direction, to put the working class and people's counteroffensive onto a new forward trajectory.

Some on the left disagree, and advocate either staying home or making a "strategic break" with the two-party system. But there are three questions that must be asked:

1. Would staying home or making a "strategic break" enhance the chances of beating the right?

2. Are millions of people and their organizations ready to drop the Democratic Party and form a big, broad, labor/people-based political party in the near term?

3. Are the differences between Republican and Democratic parties so insignificant that it doesn't matter who wins?

I believe the answer to each of these questions is an emphatic "No."

While millions understandably feel dissatisfied with the Democratic Party, it hasn't risen to the point where they are ready to bolt anytime soon. Nor are they ready to dismiss the real differences, say, between House Republican Paul Ryan's draconian, fatten-the-rich, long-term budget plan, and the plan that President Obama outlined, in which he defended Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other public programs.

The aggressive role of right-wing extremism in recent months has only reinforced these sentiments.

Politics is a complex and impure process. And as the Rolling Stones sang, "You can't always get what you want." In which case, you try to get what you need with what is available. That's not pragmatism, but political realism informed by the overriding necessity to decisively defeat the right in next year's elections.

Thus, for now, the only vehicle – as inconsistent as it is – that can take down the right in an electoral contest is the Democratic Party.

So what is to be done?

Here are five things that strike me as critical.

The further building of the spirited, hopeful, visionary, labor-led people's coalition and counteroffensive in every neighborhood, city, state, and nationwide is at the top of the agenda - especially in the context of the elections. This movement is the power base of any progressive turn in our nation's politics. Take it out of the equation and only minor reforms are possible at best; at worst, the Republicans go on the offensive as they are currently doing, Democrats waver and give in; and politics shift to the right. But neither our nation nor the world can afford another era of right-wing-dominated politics. The price is too steep. The future of humankind and the planet is too fragile.

The next task is to deepen the unity of this movement. Only a movement that unites all races and nationalities, young and old, men and women, immigrant and native born, gay and straight, urban and rural, workers and small business people, and labor and its allies has the political capacity to push the country down a progressive path and safeguard the future.

A requirement of any progressive and radical agenda is an elevated and sustained struggle for racial and gender equality. Both are of strategic importance. Anyone who devalues the struggle for racial and gender equality and against racism and male supremacy limits the sweep of any potential victory, and provides an opening to the Republican Party and the most backward sections of our ruling class to mobilize people along racist and male supremacist lines.

There is a burning need for progressives, liberal, pro-labor and left-wing forces to engage our adversaries on an ideological level. Our side fights with one hand behind its back when it doesn't bring persuasive arguments and compelling stories into the marketplace of public opinion.

Though the people don't own the mainstream media, the people's movements should still fight to be heard in it and also take full advantage of online media.

When the broader movement takes part in the battle of ideas, people respond positively.

Some of the ideas that already resonate with millions include: tax the rich, racism chains working people of all colors, economic crises hit racially and nationally oppressed people harder; wealth comes from labor and nature, working people have no stake in wars of occupation, and the country is not broke.

The image of socialism as economically just, ecologically sustainable, democratic, peaceful, and part of the American experience can and does resonate as well.

Finally, a bigger left and Communist Party are necessary for any sustained and far-reaching political advances. It is a fact that progressive and democratic breakthroughs in our nation's history have been bound up with popular uprisings in which a growing left played a critical role.

There is no reason to think it will be any different going forward. But here's the rub.

Emory Students Occupy Building over Cafeteria Workers' Rights

Fri, 22 Apr 2011 08:25:00 +0000

Original source: The Atlanta Progressive News

(APN) DECATUR -- About 150 students occupied the Administration Building at Emory University on Wednesday, April 20, 2011, for several hours.

The students later left after numerous police arrived on the scene and threatened to arrest them, while the Administration agreed that the students could have a meeting with Emory University President James Wagner.

That meeting occurred at 5pm today, Thursday, April 21.

The topic of the meeting was the alleged mistreatment of Emory University cafeteria workers by the Sodexo corporation.

Students want the university to end its contract with Sodexo. They are open to a new corporation coming in to replace Sodexo, but they have drafted a workers' rights resolution that they want the university to adopt for any subcontracted employees.

The protest was organized by Students and Workers in Solidarity, an informal student group at Emory.

Speakers at yesterday's protest included State Sen. Vincent Fort and Isaac Farris, Jr., the nephew of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

"We entered at approximately 115pm yesterday. We kept the hallways clear so that people could conduct their normal everyday business," Emiko Soltis, 27, a graduate student in human rights and social movements, an interdisciplinary program, told Atlanta Progressive News in an interview.

"They asked us not to sing and we did, that is probably the only rule we broke. We sang We Shall Not Be Moved and Which Side are You On," Soltis said.

"We were asked to leave at 6 o'clock, we were warned by the Dean of Campus Life, John Ford, leave or face consequences which may include conduct violations," Soltis recalled.

"When we refused, we were told that Dekalb County police had arrived and they were going to give us notice to leave the building or something to that effect," Soltis said.

"The police entered the conference room where we all were. That was a woman who was kind, she said we needed to leave; we stayed. Then they sent numerous cops with those wrist-tie things and they started marching up," Soltis said.

"They [administration] offered us a meeting. They offered us, you guys can leave because you are having a meeting," Soltis said. "Everybody left, no one was arrested."

"They had sent seven police cars, fifteen policemen, and a prisoner transport van. Emory said it wasn't safe in the building. When we asked if county jail was safer they didn't respond," Soltis said.

David Payne, a spokesman for the University, confirmed with APN that the President was meeting with the students this afternoon.

"At the heart of our protest, there is two tiered system of worker protection and rights on our campus," Soltis said.

"Emory's position is they can subcontract the responsibility of workers. Because people are contracted, the men and women who serve food on this campus are not the responsibility of Emory even though they have the name Emory on their uniforms. For that reason, Emory says they have no responsibility for how those workers are treated, and that's what we're protesting," Soltis said.

"Our goal is to end the contract with Sodexo, because of... human rights abuses by Sodexo all over the world. We've proposed a labor code of contract that would apply to all contracted and subcontracted workers," Soltis said.

As a result of the protest, the administration has shut down its building to the general public.

"They're not letting any members of the Emory campus into the building unless they have a specific documented reason to meet with someone," Soltis said.

In response to the students' concerns, Payne provided APN with a copy of a letter President Wagner sent to Alex Zavell, one of the student organizers.

"Thank you for your letter sent on 6 April on behalf of SWS," Wagner wrote. "That letter... has drawn Emory's attention to the ongoing disagreement between two very large organizations, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and Sodexo, Inc."

"On one side of the debate, SEIU alleges instances of abuse by Sodexo of its employees--such as human rights violated, workers dismissed without cause, reprisals levied for labor organizations, and overwork for substandard wages. Sodexo responds that such allegations are not true and are part of an ongoing smear campaign by SEIU," Wagner wrote.

"For its part, Sodexo has brought a suit against SEIU, charging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that SEIU has engaged in blackmail, vandalism, trespassing, harassment, and violations of lobbying law. Sodexo asserts that SEIU uses students and front organizations like United Students Against Sweatshops to help assert its positions," Wagner wrote.

"The crux of the issue appears to stand at the intersection of the competing interests of two giant organizations: on the one hand, SEIU's interest in breaking more fully into representation of food service workers on university campuses; and, on the other hand, Sodexo's wish to preserve its reputation and position of leadership in the food service industry," Wagner wrote.

"For us at Emory, as an ethically engaged community, two questions arise. The first is whether food service workers employed by Sodexo at Emory are treated fairly and have the right and freedom to unionize without being intimidated or threatened. The second, broader question is how to best weigh competing claims about activities beyond our campus," Wagner wrote.

"With regard to the first question, from what we have been able to determine, Sodexo does not engage in practices that block employees from the opportunity to vote in secret through the federally sanctioned NLRB process. Sodexo's employees have avenues available to them if they have grievances--specifically, Sodexo's human resources department and the NLRB. Nor have we found evidence that Sodexo workers on the Emory campus are subject to systemic violations of either Emory's code of ethics or Sodexo's own internal policies," Wagner wrote.

"With regard to the second question, concerning claims levied by Sodexo and SEIU about activities beyond our campus, our judgment is that the unresolved charges and counter-charges do not warrant terminating Sodexo's contract on the Emory campus," Wagner wrote.

CEOs Loot the American Economy

Wed, 20 Apr 2011 09:23:00 +0000

AFL-CIO President Trumka Launches 2011 Executive PayWatch
and Campaign to Strengthen Wall Street Reform
Searchable Online Data Bank Includes CEO Pay at 299 S&P 500 Companies
www.paywatch.org

(Washington, April 19, 2011) — While millions of Americans struggled to get back on their feet after the worst economic downturn in decades, chief executive officers of the nation's largest companies got average pay of $11.4 million in 2010–a 23 percent increase in one year, according to Executive PayWatch (www.paywatch.org), released today by the AFL-CIO. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said release of the searchable online data bank is part of a broad campaign to strengthen Wall Street reform, close corporate tax loopholes and ensure that poor and middle class Americans are no longer required to pay for the greed of corporate CEOs.

"Despite the collapse of the financial market at the hands of executives less than three years ago, the disparity between CEO and workers' pay has continued to grow to levels that are simply stunning," said Trumka. The AFL-CIO campaign, he said, is making hard information widely available and encourages people to contact lawmakers to defend and strengthen Wall Street reform.

Executive PayWatch's searchable data bank enables users to get information by state, industry and top-paid CEOs and compare the pay of top CEOs with the median pay of nurses, teachers, firefighters and other workers. For the first time, Facebook users will also have access to the information and to participate in the campaign.

The AFL-CIO's CEO pay estimate is based on 299 companies in the S&P 500 Index whose executive compensation data is available for 2010. The 299 CEOs received a combined total of $3.4 billion in 2010, enough compensation to support 102,325 jobs paying median wages. The median wage for all occupations was $33,190 in 2009, according to the latest available data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"For the first time, we have hope that things can change," Trumka said, noting that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act passed last year gives shareholders tools to help rein in CEO pay. The new law requires public companies to begin disclosing the ratio of CEO pay to median worker pay. "The law," he said, "will help investors and the public learn which companies provide fair wages and good jobs to their employees, compared with those that have outrageous CEO-to-worker pay disparities."

Pointing to attacks by some large banks and Wall Street lobbyists on the Dodd-Frank Act, Trumka said the AFL-CIO campaign will work hard to defend historic reform. "Their brazen attempts to undermine reform surprise and offend me, and I think they will surprise and offend most Americans. Apparently Wall Street doesn't want people to know that while working Americans paid for the economic crisis with their jobs, their homes and their retirement savings, these Teflon CEOs escaped unscathed," he said.

The Dodd-Frank Act also provides shareholders with 'say-on-pay' advisory votes on executive compensation. This year, Executive PayWatch highlights case studies at Occidental Petroleum, Reynolds American, Hewlett-Packard, PulteGroup, Rite Aid, and Abercrombie & Fitch where there are red flags for investors to watch for when voting on these companies' executive pay practices.

2012 Budget Battle: House Republicans Take Steps To Drown Government

Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:39:00 +0000

Original source: Coalition on Human Needs

The FY 2012 Budget: House Republicans Take Steps To Drown Government in a Bathtub; The President has Other Priorities

Anti-tax activist Grover Norquist famously observed a decade ago that he didn’t want to abolish government, but just to “reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” The Budget Resolution adopted by the House of Representatives on April 15 would drag the federal government pretty far across the tiles. It would over 10 years cut spending by $4.3 trillion, two-thirds of which would come from unprecedented cuts in low-income programs such as Medicaid and SNAP/food stamps. But despite ample rhetoric about deficit reduction, the plan would only shrink the deficit by $160 billion over ten years. Why so little despite massive service cuts? The budget uses almost all of the savings to cut taxes by $4.2 trillion over the decade. In contrast, several proposals released by the President and House Democrats produce more deficit reduction and, while not providing complete protection to low-income people, at least do not attack them.

There is little subtlety in the House Budget Resolution’s (H Con Res 34) choice of winners and losers. The budget makes permanent the Bush-era tax cuts, providing millionaires with an annual tax break averaging $125,000. The budget also assumes the estate tax will continue at the reduced levels agreed to in the tax cut deal enacted by Congress last December. About $800 billion in revenue increases in the new health care law would be eliminated, as the budget calls for repealing the law. In addition, the budget would slash the top income tax rates for individuals and corporations from the current 35 percent to 25 percent. The cost of this major reduction would be offset by unspecified cuts in tax expenditures – the tax credits or deductions now adding up to $1 trillion a year. While many tax expenditures are of disproportionate benefit to the wealthy, the large income tax rate reductions are exclusively for the rich, with extra benefits to the super rich.

If the rich are clear winners in this budget, low- and moderate-income people just as clearly take huge losses. Medicaid alone would be cut by $1.4 trillion over ten years. Major structural changes would be made to Medicaid and SNAP to restrict federal spending in these programs. Instead of open-ended funding to respond to changes in need, both Medicaid and SNAP would be changed to block grants. Medicaid would be cut 20 percent and states would receive a share of low-income medical costs that would shrink more and more over time. The expansions in Medicaid provided in the new health care law would be repealed. Protections that currently prevent states from reducing certain core benefits or reducing eligibility would be eliminated, allowing states to manage the loss of federal funds by serving fewer low-income people and/or serving them less well. Further reductions in payments to health care providers would also be likely. Changing SNAP to a block grant would prevent it from responding to the increased need that occurs during recessions. SNAP was successful in assisting millions of people driven to food insecurity because of the Great Recession; the billions of dollars pumped into the economy through SNAP was seen by economists as doing more to spur the economy and prevent job loss than almost any other action taken.

In addition, the Budget Resolution as passed by the House would cut housing assistance and make low-income renters pay more. It would cut education by $17.7 billion in FY 2012, and by $250 billion over ten years. Annual appropriations for Pell Grants would be cut by 60 percent; the mandatory funding (provided by law and not subject to annual appropriations) would be eliminated.

In all, the budget projects a $1.6 trillion cut in annual appropriations for programs other than defense, homeland security, and veterans over the next decade. But to see the true vision of this budget, one should follow projections through 2050, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. At that time, federal spending would shrink to less than 15 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – the lowest level since 1951, when Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps did not exist. By 2050, all programs besides Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest on the debt would shrink to only 3.5 percent of GDP. Since defense is assumed to continue at close to its current level of 3 percent of GDP, the House budget would essentially do away with most other programs. This decimation of services would take place because of a cap on all spending, starting with a cap on annual appropriations (aka discretionary spending) in FY 2012, with a binding cap on all spending as a percentage of GDP envisioned for future years. If spending exceeded the cap, there would be across-the-board cuts (these automatic cuts are called “sequestration”).

Medicare would also be cut substantially, although most of the cost-cutting would not show up until 2022 and beyond. Growth in Medicare would be limited to increases in inflation, even though health care costs routinely grow 2 percentage points beyond regular inflation. Instead of paying the costs of the Medicare benefits package (less the patient’s current share), Medicare would pay towards health insurance policies for retirees. The budget does not call for initiatives that would actually reduce the cost of health care, and by repealing the health care law in fact does away with such policies. Instead, the plan simply limits federal payments, shifting the burden to Medicare beneficiaries. According to the CBO, in 2022, a typical 65-year-old would see his/her payments for medical care more than double, to $12,500, with the federal government paying $8,000 of the cost, for a total expenditure of $20,500. If Medicare continued under its current policies, the total cost would be only $14,750 in 2022, with the federal government paying $8,600 and the Medicare beneficiary paying $6,150. The large increase in total cost would occur because the budget replaces the current cost-effective Medicare direct payments with the more expensive use of private health insurance.

Many other deficit reduction plans, including the one outlined by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson for the President’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, assume significant cuts in military spending (Bowles-Simpson envisioned cuts of $100 billion a year). In contrast, the House Budget Resolution increases military spending by $215 billion over ten years.

The Budget Resolution was approved in the House along party lines, 235-193. No Democrat voted for it; 4 Republicans opposed it (Rehberg-MT, Jones-NC, McKinley-WV, and Paul-TX). Several alternative budget proposals were considered, including an even more draconian version put forth by the Republican Study Committee. It failed 119-136, with 172 members voting “present.” The vote illustrated divisions among Republicans, with 119 voting for this proposal and 120 opposing it. Democrats made up the 172 “present” vote, hoping that the most right-wing members would overturn Republican party leadership to adopt a plan even more out of the mainstream. The alternative put out by Ranking Budget Committee Member Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) was defeated 166-259, with no Republicans in favor and 23 Democrats opposing. The Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Progressive Caucus each put out alternative budgets as well, which failed 103-303 and 77-347 respectively. The Democratic alternatives actually produced more deficit reduction than the version that passed the House, without massive restrictions in domestic programs, because they included revenue increases.

What’s Next

The House-passed Budget Resolution will not be agreed to by the Senate. It is worth taking a step back to recall what a Budget Resolution is – and isn’t. It is not a law that requires a presidential signature. It is an outline that spells out assumptions about how much will be collected in revenues and the sources of those funds and how much will be spent, with broad policy suggestions that may or may not be adopted by the committees with jurisdiction over various programs. It can put more teeth into recommendations if Congress chooses to require committees to produce specific cuts, for example, although it cannot tell them exactly how to achieve those cuts. It also contains a specific funding level for annual appropriations that is provided to the Appropriations Committees for dividing up among their subcommittees. If the House and Senate agree on a joint Budget Resolution, the level set for appropriations is binding. But if they never come to agreement (very likely this year), Congress has other ways of setting appropriations levels. And the broad changes proposed, such as block grants and spending caps, will either be ignored or worked on through other vehicles.

But the elements of the House Budget Resolution must be taken seriously, as Congress and the Administration grapple with deficit reduction. In particular, the proposal to cap all spending has adherents in the Senate as well as the House. A spending cap proposed by Senators Corker (R-TN) and McCaskill (D-MO) would lead to much the same result as the House Budget Resolution. Their proposal assumes all deficit reduction will be accomplished through spending cuts, not a combination of spending reductions and revenue increases. In order to achieve the drastically lower spending required by their cap (20.6 percent of GDP), the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that Congress would have little alternative but to restrict Medicaid through a block grant and to make major federal cuts in Medicare and Social Security as well. (See Proposed Cap on Federal Spending Would Force Deep Cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.) Some members of Congress have indicated they will hold the nation hostage over the need to increase the debt ceiling by withholding their approval unless such caps or other ways of shrinking federal spending are attached.

The President’s Plan

Two days before the House budget vote, President Obama released a plan to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years. Approximately $2 trillion would come from spending cuts, including $770 billion by 2023 in discretionary spending other than defense, homeland security, and veterans services; $400 billion in defense/homeland security; $480 billion in health care savings beyond the amount projected through the health care law; and $360 billion in cuts to other mandatory programs (such as agricultural subsidies and pension reforms). Another $1 trillion would come from reductions in interest payments as deficit spending declined. Finally, $1 trillion would be raised in new revenues (over and above the savings from allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers to expire). The President explicitly rejected the restrictions to Medicaid and Medicare in the House budget, as well as opposing the cuts in SNAP and many other programs serving the poor. However, low- and moderate-income people would not be immune to harm in the President’s plan. His cap on annual appropriations, while not as onerous as the House proposal, would force cuts in services needed by low-income people, as his FY 2012 budget released in February illustrated. That plan included severe cuts in community-based services and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), for example.

The President’s deficit reduction plan includes a “failsafe debt trigger” that would impose across-the-board cuts if debt does not fall sufficiently by 2014. The auto-cuts, in a notable departure from the House budget, would cover spending programs and tax expenditures, and would exclude low-income programs.

The President also called for negotiations to start in May with Congressional leaders to hammer out such a plan. Advocates have expressed concerns that, although the President’s outline is far more protective of low-income people and is less likely to push the economy back into recession, that negotiations will end up with far less in revenue increases and far more in harmfully restrictive caps, especially since the President’s proposal seems more like a description of what the end product of a negotiation should be, rather than an opening position.

Since poll after poll shows that the public is receptive to budget-cutting when dollar cuts are described, but opposed when the impact on specific services is spelled out, advocates will have to ramp up efforts to translate concepts such as caps and block grants into the expected outcomes for people.

Staying Human: The Heroic Legacy of Vittorio Arrigoni

Wed, 20 Apr 2011 07:54:00 +0000

“Dear Mary,” wrote Italian justice activist Vittorio Arrigoni to a friend. “Do you (know who) will be on the boats?... I’m still in Gaza, waiting for you. I will be at the boat to greet you. Stay human. Vik.”

“Mary” is Mary Hughes Thompson, a dedicated activist who braved the high seas to break the Israeli siege on Gaza in 2008.

Vittorio Arrigoni, or Vik, was reportedly murdered by a fundamentalist group in Gaza, a few hours after he was kidnapped on Thursday, April 14. The killing was supposedly in retaliation for Hamas’ crackdown on this group’s members. All who knew Vik will attest to the fact that he was an extraordinary person, a model of compassion, solidarity and humanity.

Arrigoni’s body was discovered in an abandoned house hours after he was kidnapped. His murderers didn’t honor their own deadline of thirty hours. The group, known as the Tawhid and Jihad, is one of the fringe groups known in Gaza as the Salafis. They resurface under different names and manifestations, for specific – and often bloody - purposes.

“The killing prompted grief in Gaza, but also despair,” read an op-ed in the UK Independent on April 16. “Not only was Arrigoni well known and well liked there, but it escaped no one that this kidnapping was the first since that of the BBC journalist Alan Johnson in 2007.”

However, Johnson’s kidnappers, the so-called Army of Islam (a small group of fanatics affiliated with a large Gaza clan) held their hostage for 114 days. There was plenty of time to organize and pressure the criminals to release him. In Arrigoni’s case, merely few hours stood between the release of a horrifying video showing a blindfolded and bruised activist, and the finding of his motionless body. The forensic report said that he was strangled. His friends said that he was tortured.

Vittorio Arrigoni’s murder was an opportunity for Israel’s supporters. Most notorious amongst them was Daniel Pipes. He wrote, in a brief entry in the National Review Online: “Note the pattern of Palestinians who murder the groupies and apologists who join them to aid in their dream of eliminating Israel.” Pipes named three individuals, including the Palestinian-Israeli filmmaker, Juliano Mer-Khamis, and Arrigoni himself, and then proceeded to invite readers to “send in further examples that I may have missed.”

Pipes’ list, however, will have no space for such names as Rachel Corrie, Tom Hurndall and James Miller, for these individuals were all murdered by Israeli forces. Pipes will also fail to mention the nine Turkish activists murdered aboard the Mavi Marmara ship on its way to break the siege on Gaza in May 2010, and the nine activists abroad Irene (the Jewish Boat to Gaza) who were intercepted, kidnapped and humiliated by Israeli troops before being deported outside the country in September 2010. 82-year-old Reuben Moscowitz, a Holocaust survivor, was one of the activists aboard the Irene, as was Lillian Rosengarten, an American “who fled the Nazis as a child in Frankfurt,” according to a New York Times blog.

The people Pipes failed to mention truly represent a rainbow of humanity. Men and women of all ages, races and nationalities have stood and will continue to stand on the side of the Palestinians.

But this story is selectively ignored of pseudo-intellectuals, intent on dismissing humanity to uphold Israel. They refuse to see the patterns in front of them, as they are too busy concocting their own.

Writing in UK Guardian from Rome, on April 15, John Hooper said, “Arrigoni's life was anything but safe. In September 2008 he was injured (by Israeli troops) accompanying Palestinian fishermen at sea. Two years ago he received a death threat from a US far-right website that provided any would-be killers with a photo and details of distinguishing physical traits, such as a tattoo on his shoulder.”

The group that murdered Arrigoni, like others of its kind, existed for one specific, violent episode before disappearing altogether. The mission in this case was to kill an International Solidarity Movement activist who dedicated years of his life to Palestine. Shortly before he was kidnapped, he wrote in this website of the “criminal” Israeli siege on Gaza. He also mourned the four impoverished Palestinians who died in a tunnel under the Gaza-Egypt boarder while hauling food and other goods.

Before his murder, Arrigoni was anticipating the arrival of another flotilla – carrying activists from 25 countries boarding 15 ships – that is scheduled to sail to Gaza in May. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu adamantly called on EU countries to prevent their nationals from jointing the boats. “I think it's in your and our common interest…that this flotilla must be stopped,” he told European representatives in Jerusalem, according to an AFP report, April 11.

Israeli officials are angry at the internationals who are ‘de-legitimizing’ the state of Israel by standing in solidarity with the Palestinians. Arrigoni has done so much to harm the carefully fabricated image of Israel as an island of democracy and progress. Along with other activists, he has shattered this myth through simple means of communication.

Vik signed his messages with “Stay human”. His book, detailing his experiences in Gaza, was entitled Restiamo Umani (Let Us Remain Human). Mary Hughes Thompson shared with me some the emails Arrigoni sent her. “I can hardly bear to read them again,” she wrote. This is an extract from one of them:

“No matter how (we) will finish the mission…it will be a victory. For human rights, for freedom. If the siege will not (be) physically broken, it will break the siege of the indifference, the abandonment. And you know very well what this gesture is important for the people of Gaza. That said, obviously we are waiting at the port! With hundreds of Palestinians and ISM comrades we will come to meet you sailing, as was the first time, remember? All available boats will sail to Gaza to greet you. Sorry for my bad English…big hug…Stay Human. Yours, Vik”

Vik’s killers failed to see his humanity. But many of us will always remember, and we will continue trying to “stay human”.

A New “Beijing Consensus”?

Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:59:00 +0000

Original source: People's Democracy

Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz has written an article in the Financial Times dated April 1, 2011 arguing that a substantially enhanced issue of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) by the IMF should be the first step in the reform of the international monetary system. The article is of special significance because it is based on a statement issued by 18 leading economists from across the globe calling themselves the Beijing Group, which includes nine known Chinese figures.

Few would object to the idea that the IMF must further enhance the allocation of SDRs and alter its distribution to help countries deal with situations of balance of payments stringency. But it is difficult to believe that the issue of SDR’s would offer a solution to the problem that the United States and the dollar do not have the requisite economic strength to warrant the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency. The problem is that the US is not the world’s most competitive economy, that the dollar has for long not been backed by gold, and that there are just too many dollars circulating globally and too much wealth invested in dollar denominated assets to ensure confidence in the currency. Yet, there is no other currency that appears likely to emerge as an alternative in the foreseeable future.

The Beijing Group advances three arguments in support of the SDR as an alternative reserve. The first is its view that it is because a national currency such as the dollar serves as reserve that the burden of adjustment to balance of payments imbalances falls on deficit countries, resulting in a global recessionary bias. Second, that the use of a national currency like the dollar as reserve forces the US to run unsustainable current account deficits to ensure that there is adequate global liquidity, and raises the danger that any effort of the US to shrink those deficits can generate global difficulties. And, third, that the dollar as reserve forces developing countries to accumulate large surpluses to “self-insure” themselves against future balance of payments crisis.

Questionable arguments

There are two difficulties associated with this line of reasoning. One is that the reading of the global economy and its functioning implicit in each of these arguments is questionable. The second is that even if the reasoning is correct it does not explain why the SDR is an alternative.

Implicit in the Beijing Group’s statement is the assumption that global problems arise solely or substantially because global outcomes result from the interaction of independent nation states. This underestimates the role of large corporations and finance capital. Once we take account of the motivations that drive corporations, especially the obvious one of maximizing profits, an important determinant of the distribution of current account surpluses and deficits in a world of globally mobile capital and technology is the search of transnational firms for low cost production locations. Such locations normally tend to be a few countries with a large reserve of cheap labour. As a result the most productive, best-practice technologies get combined with cheap labour, raising the level of global surpluses and inducing an underconsumptionist, deflationary bias into the system. It is difficult to see how just the availability of more of any reserve would counteract this tendency.

The reserve accumulation in some countries resulting from this process is compounded by flows of purely financial capital, encouraged by the accumulation of relatively cheap liquidity in the global financial system. That has resulted, inter alia, from the US government’s exploitation of its position as the home of the world’s reserve currency to function as if it faces no national budget constraint and undertake huge expenditures abroad aimed at maintaining its hegemony. The deficits associated with such expenditure have in turn been financed by the reverse flows of dollar surpluses invested in dollar-denominated assets. Hence, it is unlikely that the US would agree to a substantially enhanced issue of SDRs in order to create an alternative reserve that would weaken its own financial position.

Created in 1969, the SDR was initially seen as a supplemental reserve which could help meet shortages of the two then prevailing reserve assets: gold and the dollar. The IMF issues credits of SDRs to its member nations, which can be exchanged for freely usable currencies when required. The value of the SDR was initially set to be equivalent to an amount in weight of gold (0.888671 grams) that was then also equivalent to one US dollar. After the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1973, however, the value of the SDR was reset relative to a weighted basket of currencies, which today consist of the euro, Japanese yen, pound sterling, and US dollar, and quoted in dollars calculated at the existing exchange rates. The liquidity of the SDR is ensured through voluntary trading arrangements under which members and one prescribed holder have volunteered to buy or sell SDRs within limits. Further, when required the Fund can activate its “designation mechanism”, under which members with strong external positions and reserves of freely usable currencies are requested to buy SDRs with those currencies from members facing balance of payments difficulties. This arrangement helps ensure the liquidity and the reserve asset character of the SDR. So long as a country’s holdings of SDRs equal its allocation, they are a costless and barren asset. However, whenever a member’s SDR holdings exceeds its allocation, it earns interest on the excess. On the other hand, if a country holds fewer SDRs than allocated to it, it pays interest on the shortfall. The SDR interest rate is also based on a weighted average of specified interest rates in the money markets of the SDR basket currencies.

The volume of SDRs available in the system is the result of mutually agreed allocations (determined by the need for supplementary reserves) to members in proportion to their quotas. Till recently the volume of SDRs available was small. Since then SDRs have been allocated on four occasions. An overwhelming proportion of the allocation has occurred in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. But even now the quantum of these special reserves is well short of volumes demanded by developing countries.

Far-fetched idea

Does the recent large increase in the amount of SDR’s allocated herald its emergence as an alternative to the dollar? There are two roles that the SDR can play, which favor its acceptance as a reserve. First, it can help reduce the exposure of countries to the dollar, the value of which has been declining in recent months because of the huge current account deficit of the US, its legacy of indebtedness and the large volume of dollars it is pumping into the system to finance its post-crisis stimulus package. Second, since its value is determined by a weighted basket of four major currencies, the command over goods and resources that its holder would have would be stable and even advantageous.

There are, however, five immediate and obvious obstacles to the SDR serving as the sole or even principal reserve. First, the $317 billion worth of SDRs currently available are distributed across countries and is a small proportion of the global reserve holdings estimated at $6.7 trillion at the end of 2008 and of the reserve holding of even a single country like China. Since all countries would if possible like to hold a part of their reserves in SDRs, the fraction of this $317 billion that would be available for trade against actual currencies would be small, implying that even with recent increases in allocations the SDR can only be a supplementary reserve. Second, expansion of the volume of SDRs in circulation requires agreement among countries that hold at least 85 per cent of IMF quotas. With the US alone having a 16.77 per cent vote share, as of now it has a veto on any such decision. It is unlikely to go along with the decision to deprive it of the benefits of being the home of the reserve currency.

Third, since SDR issues are linked to quotas at the IMF and those quotas do not any more reflect the economic strength of members, the base distribution of SDRs is not in proportion to the distribution of reserve holdings across countries. Reaching SDRs to those who would like to hold them depends on the willingness of others to sell as noted earlier. Fourth, since the value of the SDR is linked to the value of four actual currencies, the reason why a country seeking to diversify its reserve should not hold those four currencies (in proportion to their weights in the SDR’s value) rather than the SDR itself is unclear. This would also give countries flexibility in terms of the proportion in which they hold these four currencies (which is an advantage in a world of fluctuating exchange rates, since weights in the SDR are reviewed only with a considerable lag, currently of five years). Finally, as of now SDRs can only be exchanged in transactions between central banks and not in transactions between the government and the private sector and therefore in purely private sector transactions. This depletes its currency-like nature in the real world. It also reduces the likelihood that a significant number of economic transactions would be denominated in SDRs.

Thus, the idea of a wholly new currency serving as a unit of account, a medium of exchange and a store of value at the international level does appear a bit far-fetched. The denomination of trade in that currency, the issue of financial assets denominated in that currency and the quantum and distribution across countries of the currency issued have to be all decided jointly and with consensus. That does appear near impossible as of now.

UN Chief Urges Libyan Ceasefire

Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:46:00 +0000

Original source: Global Times

UN chief Ban Ki-moon on Monday called for an immediate ceasefire and a political solution to the conflict in Libya, declaring that the UN would begin a humanitarian mission in Tripoli.

"We have three objectives: First, an immediate, effective ceasefire; second, to extend our humanitarian assistance to the needy; third, we have to continue to have a political dialogue and a political resolution to the issue," AFP quoted Ban as saying.

The International Organization for Migration said that it had helped evacuate almost 1,000 people stranded from Misrata on Monday, where at least 4,000 still awaited rescue.

Some 1,000 people have been killed and 3,000 injured in the past seven weeks in Misrata, Dr Khaled Abu Falgha, administrator of the city's main hospital, told AFP on Monday. "Some 80 percent of the deaths are civilians," he said.

Forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi continued to bombard Misrata with rockets and artillery on Monday while also pounding the insurgents' frontline city of Ajdabiya, rebels said.

A rebel spokesman said 17 people were killed during Sunday shelling in Misrata, Libya's third-largest city, and shelling continued on Monday. About 300,000 civilians are trapped inside the city.

Britain will charter a ship to get 5,000 people out of Misrata, a British spokesman at the UN said on Monday.

Gaddafi's government has promised the UN access to Misrata and the UN will send a team to the city as quickly as possible, a UN official said on Monday, the AP reported.

The Global Times reporters traveling to Ajdabiya late Sunday saw a few rebel pickup trucks mounted with some new weapons but could not verify their types.

Ajdabiya's streets were almost deserted Sunday as rebels threw up makeshift barricades with concrete blocks and tree branches among other sundry items.

NATO bombers attacked the town of al-Aziziyah, southwest of the capital Tripoli, on Monday, Libyan state television said.

Wahid Bugaighis, serving as oil minister for the rebel-held eastern swath of the country, told Reuters on Monday that the rebels were unlikely to export any more oil before they could resume production.

The Libyan opposition is eager to resume oil production so as to pay out salaries and meet other expenses as it continues its fight against Gaddafi.

Should Gaddafi be removed, Bugaighis said Libya's new leadership would try to root out corruption in the oil industry and might reconsider some of the Gaddafi government's production policies.