INTERNATIONAL POLITICS:

THE ARAB REVOLUTIONS: RANDOM THOUGHTS ON THE FUTILITY OF 'REVOLUTIONARY CONSPIRACY':

Unlike the Chinese proverb says I don't think it is a curse to be "living in interesting times". I've seen two before, one the worldwide revolts of the late 60s/early 70s and the other the wave of revolutions that toppled communist dictatorships in the late 80s. In both these cases the waves of revolt that passed from country to country were, to all intents, totally unpredictable. Now the Arab world has risen in revolt, and none of the talking heads of any political persuasion predicted such a thing. This is because such things are by their very nature too complex for any ideological viewpoint to understand. No doubt I've "endured" more than 40 years of the pseudo-science of Marxism predicting the imminent end of capitalism, and in that they hold to an old and hoary tradition first started in the 1850s by their founders who laid their bets on an abstract schemata that was too far removed from reality to take account of actual facts.

It's simple actually. NO so-called revolutionary group has EVER predicted a revolution accurately in the last 200 years. That's fine and good, but there is a corollary to this. NO revolutionary group has actually produced a revolution either, if you exclude the armies disguised as parties of 60 (Cuba) to 80 (China) years ago. I suppose Vietnam deserves mention in this category. I'm not speaking here of the seemingly endless nationalist "revolutions" which are an ever present factor in human history and which the three aforementioned revolutions were very much a part of. I'm speaking of actual "social revolutions" that change the class system of a country, and I certainly don't mean only "libertarian" revolutions, merely ones that resulted in socioeconomic change.

Let's take some obvious objection to this view. Did Solidarnosc actually carry out the Polish revolution that overthrew communism ? Of course not. It certainly prepared the ground, but the actual revolution depended upon external events in the Soviet Union. Did the "conspiracy of mullahs" produce the Iranian revolution of 1979 ? Of course not. They merely were the most skillful in the resulting faction fights. Was there even a 'Bolshevik Revolution' or was the establishment of the first communist dictatorship merely the result, like Iran, of the seizure of power by a disciplined party during a revolutionary process that had been going on for 8 months before ? A process that the "scientific socialism" of the Bolsheviks led them to believe couldn't happen.

There are many other examples. Some of them are from the anarchist tradition where a continuing series of insurrectionary attempts by Italian anarchists always failed. This was magnified by perhaps a factor of magnitude in Spain where localized insurrections meant to inspire the masses of people always failed. The result was similar, if you descend closer to the level of comedy, in modern urban guerrilla actions that were either Maoist (mostly) or anarchist and were closer to comedy than anything else. They always failed, they fal now and they will always fail. Risings of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria resulted in exactly the same result. It CAN'T BE DONE.

There is a reason for this, and leftists have expressed it at least vaguely in saying that revolutions occur with "a certain conjunction of objective and subjective factors". Marxists are particularity poor at taking subjective factors into account. Anarchists are particularly poor at taking objective factors into account. In any case even the "greatest theoretician" could never predict the occurrence of revolution simply because the factors are so complex. Don't depend on a computer program to do it either. It's the old "garbage in, garbage out".

The risings in the Arab world depended on a lot of things, of which demographic factors were quite high on the list of causes as were modern methods of communication. Still, all the countries involved have had long standing Islamist and Communist groups, none of whom had any part in initiating the risings. Not that either couldn't take advantage of them as the Bolsheviks did in Russia and the Islamists did in Iran. Whether they will succeed in this is a very open question, and personally I doubt it.

What does this mean to the people I identify with, the anarchists ? What it should mean is abandoning any hope of actually "creating a revolution" even if our own small groups were 1000 times more powerful than they are today. What it should mean is that we should make the maximum efforts to diffuse "libertarian ways of acting organizing" amongst the people who are not anarchists today so that these people will act accordingly in whatever unpredictable revolutionary situation that may occur.

AMERICAN POLITICS:

HEALTH CARE BILL- LESS THAN YOU THINK:

The all-too-debated health care bill in the USA has finally been passed. While the sound and fury still hasn't abated it may be time to begin to take stock about what the bill actually contains. Both sides of the ruckus down USA way have magnified the legislation way beyond its actual importance. To the left it was something akin to the Second Coming, to the right it was instead more like the Antichrist. Out here in the civilized world the general feeling was that it was insufficient and of Byzantine complexity.

The following opinion piece comes from the Trial By Fire blog. It came to Molly's attention via the LibCom website.

APAPAPAPAPAPAP
Whats in the Health Care Bill
Below is the first of a two-part series on the Democrats bill, HR 3590 – the health care reforms.



Health care reform in the United States has finally arrived.

After years of debate, President Barack Obama signed HR 3590 into law on March 23rd, 2010, heralding a new chapter in health care for millions of Americans.

The Democrats are ecstatic over the win. But is this really a victory for the American working class?

Lets take a look.

Health Care Reform’s History:

Health care reform, or “Obamacare” as it’s sometimes called, has its roots in Hilary Clinton’s own health care battle of the 1990’s. But it may surprise you exactly where in that debate its major ideas come from.

No, it wasn’t Hilary’s legislative proposals which inspired Obama’s reformation – it was in fact Republican proposals which formed Obama’s health care overhaul. Specifically, it was a health care strategy first articulated by the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation. You can still read the original plans here and here.

Notably, amongst its original supporters were Richard Nixon, George Bush senior and even Mitt Romney.

Amongst their proposals were the creation of an “individual mandate,” and the founding of “insurance exchanges” – both of which are now pillars of the Democrats’ reforms; but originally, the republicans supported them as good “free market” alternatives to government entitlement programs like Medicare.

This is precisely why Obamacare passed where numerous other health reform efforts failed. It was a good, free market option that CEO’s could get behind. “Government is,” after all “the shadow cast by big business over society,” as John Dewey once remarked.

That being said, lets take a closer look at the contours of this new silhouette on the next page.

&&& PART TWO &&&

Whats in the Bill?

The bills effects on the health care industry are mixed. Certainly, there are some positives.

On the one hand, it restricts some of the worst practices of the insurance industry – such as refusing to cover children with preexisting conditions.
On the other hand, it leaves health care under the control of the same corporations that got us into this mess.

Below we will begin to address the biggest changes the new reform brings to our system of health care.

1. The individual mandate: Amongst the reforms, the democrats have introduced an “individual mandate,” meaning individuals who do not purchase health insurance will be fined by the federal government. The fines will be introduced in 2014, and will grow until 2016, when they will total $695 a year, or 2.5% of personal income (whichever is greater).

Because of this, Democrats have touted the myth that this bill will “provide health care to 31 million people who are currently uninsured.”

In reality, these reforms don’t actually “provide” us with anything. It only punishes those who cannot provide it for themselves. But even then, the incentive to buy insurance won’t be great enough to cover millions of Americans: according to a report put out by the Congressional Budget Office, the total number of uninsured Americans in 2019 without reform is still expected to hit 24 million.

The individual mandate is expected to be a magnificent profit maker for the insurance industry. And of course it will be – it will force tens of millions of Americans into consuming the insurance industry’s goods.

But the bonanza of new profits doesn’t end there. Big Pharmaceutical companies are laughing their way to the bank as well, specifically Biotech companies.

Tacked onto the health care reform bill was a guarantee of market exclusivity for Biotech drugs for the next decade. In effect, less expensive, generic versions of biotech drugs are forbidden from being sold in the U.S. for the next 12 years, giving them a complete monopoly in their markets.

2. Cost control: Undoubtedly, one of health care reforms biggest selling points was that it would bring down the cost of health care.

So will this bill bring down costs? Yes and no. Certainly in some cases, costs will come down.

But overall, the costs of health care will remain astronomical.

Whereas in 2009 health care costs accounted for about 17% of our GDP, costs with the bill are expected to rise a tenth of a point higher than they would have without the reforms (20.8% of GDP in 2019 without reform, 20.9% with, according to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services).

Jane Hamsher of the Firedoglake points out that premiums will not come down significantly for most Americans either, and certainly will not decrease as much as Obama had promised ($2,500 a year). In fact, families shopping for insurance on their own are projected to spend nearly $2,000 more on insurance in 2016 than they would have without the reform, achieving exactly the opposite of what the bill claims it would.

Further projections for working class Americans are equally dismal. Jane Hamsher writes:

“A family of four making $66,370 will be forced to pay $5,243 per year for insurance. After basic necessities, this leaves them with $8,307 in discretionary income — out of which they would have to cover clothing, credit card and other debt, child care and education costs, in addition to $5,882 in annual out-of-pocket medical expenses for which families will be responsible.”

In short, the lower costs we were promised in the run up to these reforms are seriously lacking.

3. Insurance exchanges: State governments will create what are called “exchanges” to facilitate the purchase of health insurance, with the aid of federal start-up funds. Individual states may choose not to open an exchange, in which case the federal government may open one for them.

The exchanges would offer a range of private insurance options for qualified consumers to pick through, rated on a scale from cheapest to most expensive – or from a “platinum plan” to a “bronze plan.”

In theory, insurance policies on the exchange will be cheaper and of better quality than their counterparts in the private market, because the exchanges can offer larger customer pools, giving consumers more bargaining power.

But in practice, the results haven’t been quite so good.

In April of 2006, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney signed into law chapter 58, the forerunner of HR 3590. The bill would be the first in the U.S. to test out the ideas of both an individual mandate and a health care exchange.

Although the reform was supposed to lower costs to bearable levels for the working families of Massachusetts, a study conducted by the state found that 21% of their residents still went without medical treatment because they couldn’t afford it. This includes a stunning 12% of children.

And additional 18% are covered by insurance, but can’t afford to use it.

And of course they can’t. Since the reforms, the cost of insurance has substantially increased in Massachusetts, both in the private sector and in public spending.

In the private sector, the states’ Attorney General found in her research that this was largely because of disparities in bargaining power between consumers and the insurance companies – or, simply put, because insurance companies had too much power over consumers.

Publicly, costs have grown at an average of $88 million a year. This has been due, at least in part, to the reforms failure to address emergency room visits – a central concern of all health care reform efforts.

Although reformers predicted an astounding decrease of 75% in emergency room visits, in the first two years of the reform alone, it’s turned out that visits have increased by over 17%.

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS-HAITI:

HAITI-THE TRAGEDY YET TO COME:

There have certainly been a few inspiring scenes coming out of Haiti, such as when rescuers pulled a five year old girl alive out of the rubble. Yet, the great majority of the rescue workers, military and otherwise, and the supplies needed to avoid an even greater tragedy in the weeks to come sit on the tarmac at the pitiful Port-Au-Prince airport, smoking cigarettes and getting nervous. It certainly isn't their fault, but it is the fault of hundreds of years of colonialism that has given Haiti an infrastructure that crumbles away to nothing given a natural disaster.

Molly has mentioned, at least peripherally, one of these factors before when she published the appeal to cancel Haiti's debt. As we speak any Haitian financial reserves being held in foreign banks are being drained away minute by minute by the same forces that brought the world its recent financial crisis. Here's an article from the Anarkismo site that goes into more detail about the underlying causes of Haitian poverty that made this society so vulnerable to this tragedy.

@@@@@@@@@@@@
Earthquake in Haiti -Solidarity with the Haitian People:
by José Antonio Gutiérrez D.
In this terrible moment, as usual, we stand with the Haitian people. We give them all of our solidarity, their pain being our pain, and from this forum we call our readership and anyone aware to generously help through the humanitarian organisations that have sent appeals in order to bring some relief in these dramatic conditions.

Neither crocodile tears nor silence

Solidarity with the Haitian people

Tragedy strikes once again Haiti. This time, it was a fierce 7 degree earthquake which has devastated the country and turned it into rubble. We have yet to know the exact number of victims, but the Red Cross is talking about 3 million affected and the number of dead could well go up to 100,000 – a horrible count if we take into account that the country has a population of only 8 million. The images circulating of survivors crushed under the rubble begging for help, of wounded children, of people breaking down in tears for the death of their relatives, give a much more accurate sense of the horror of this tragedy – much better than anything we could say.

In this terrible moment, as usual, we stand with the Haitian people. We give them all of our solidarity, their pain being our pain, and from this forum we call our readership and anyone aware to help generously through the humanitarian organisations that have sent appeals in order to bring some relief in these dramatic conditions.

Also, we cannot help feeling a just sense of disgust with the hypocrisy of an “international community” that once again is shedding crocodile tears in the face of this “incomprehensible tragedy” (to borrow Obama’s own words), without recognizing their own share of responsibility in it – the impact of the earthquake was so devastating because this is a people already devastated by a century of military intervention, shameless plunder, of US- and French-backed autocratic regimes and of international financial institutions’ policies aiming at ruining the Haitian people for the benefit of few. This country has been turned into an enormous sweatshop, where the majority of its people survive thanks to charity. We are not faced with a mere natural disaster, as the media would like us to believe: we are, in fairness, facing a man-made tragedy. This earthquake merely came to finish the job started by the US, France, Canada, the MINUSTAH (the occupation troops of the UN), the International Monetary Fund and fake development agencies such as USAID.

They didn’t care about the Haitian people when they drowned in a fraudulent external debt acquired by the dictatorship of the Duvalier, and they never felt any “anguish” whatsoever in looting even the last penny of this starved and impoverished country.

They didn’t care about the Haitian people when they “had to” impose structural adjustment programmes in the ‘90s, that had such calamitous results on the population, as for example with the case of the reduction in tariffs for imported staples such as rice. The result of this was the absolute destruction of the Haitian peasantry, which was driven to the slums of Port-au-Prince – leaving a country that up to then was perfectly able to feed itself, to starve to death, as shown by the hunger rebellion of April 2008.

They didn’t care about the Haitian people when the dictatorships of Duvalier, Namphy, Avril, Cedras and Latortue (all of which had the approval of Washington and Paris) raped, maimed, "disappeared" and massacred thousands of Haitians. Some of them, such as Jean Claude Duvalier, live luxuriously in France. Others, such as Raoul Cedras, thanks to the pay received from the US as part of their agreement to step down from power, turned into respectable businessmen - in Panama, in the case of Cedras.

They didn’t care about the Haitian people when we heard of thousands of denunciations of sexual abuse by the troops of the “civilising” mission of MINUSTAH, who still occupy, rape and murder in absolute impunity. Proof of that was the repatriation to Sri Lanka of over a hundred Sri Lankan blue helmets in November 2007, after having been accused of rape; in their country, they did not face even a pantomime of a trial.

They didn’t care about the Haitian people when the sweatshops came to grossly distort the Haitian economy, paying starvation wages while abuses of all sorts were taking place in their compounds on a daily basis.

The list of reasons to be indignant with the hypocritical sorry statements of people like Sarkozy, Obama, Ban-Ki-Moon and Lula, is way too long to give it in full length. Let us just say that the more miserable a population is, the stronger it will be hit by the vicissitudes of nature. That misery has been caused by forces imposing the current social model through dictatorships and international pressures; if three out of four people living in Port-au-Prince dwell in shacks, in slums that sprung out of the Haitian economic ruin (mainly of the countryside), can we really wonder that the death toll has to be counted in the thousands?

We hope that the solidarity of the people all over the world with their Haitian brethren will be massive. As has been previously said, solidarity is the tenderness of the people. And we hope that this solidarity, on which thousands of lives currently depend on, arrives to its destination instead of being trapped in a cobweb of NGOs and Aid Agencies. Doubtlessly, there are a number of reputable organisations today such as the Red Cross doing much necessary relief work; but alongside them, sharks will appear to profit out of this tragedy. We have to watch out for them and the popular movement of Haiti needs to be alert to make sure that the assistance does actually arrive and is distributed efficiently. We also hope that there is no invasion of “white men” brought by some NGOs to do work, such as building houses, that the locals – 80% of whom are unemployed – can perfectly well do and should do themselves.

Once again, we call for your solidarity. Not only in the face of this particular tragedy that shakes anyone who has a heart in their breast, but solidarity now and always; a type of solidarity that scratches underneath the surface of devastation to understand the deep roots of the Haitian tragedy. Roots which are, in any case, deeper than an earthquake of force 7 on the Richter scale; in other words, a solidarity that forces us to re-think the relations that the great world powers have with our region, of which Haiti is only the worst example. This solidarity should make us question the role served by the troops that the majority of Latin American countries have in the military occupation of Haiti – an occupation that has had as much of a devastating effect as this earthquake, something hard to deny notwithstanding the photo-ops of MINUSTAH soldiers giving packets of rice to the homeless.
José Antonio Gutiérrez D.

13 January, 2010
Solidarity with the Haitian people, now and always!

LA POLITIQUE CANADIENNE/CANADIAN POLITICS:
LES RETRAITÉS CONTRE LES TRAVAILLEURS/PENSIONERS VERSUS THE WORKERS ????
Au Québec il ya eu une tentative de la part des retraités de l'Union d'avoir les divers syndicats enregistrés comme «lobbyistes». quand il s'agit de negtiations pension. Il est douteux si un tel déplacement sera de toute bénéficier les retraités d'aujourd'hui au Québec. Il convient également de s'interroger sur les arrière-pensées derrière une telle initiative. Voici le rapport de la Gazette de Montréal.

In Québec there has been a move on the part of union pensioners to have the various unions registered as "lobbyists" when it comes to pension negotiations. It is doubtful if such a move will be of any benefit to present pensioners in Quebec. One also has to wonder about the ulterior motives behind such a move. Here is the report from the Montreal Gazette.

CCCCCCCCCCCCC
Make unions subject to lobby laws: ex-workers:
By KEVIN DOUGHERTY,

The GazetteDecember 19, 2009
Quebec's lobbying commissioner is deliberating on a request by an association of retired public-sector employees that public-sector unions be required to register as lobbyists.

The Association québécoise des retraité(e)s des secteurs public et parapublic wants the unions, whose negotiations are normally exempt from the lobbying law, to register as lobbyists when the talks turn to pension changes.

Luc Vallerand, director-general of the AQRP, said his association wants to use the lobbying law to influence the unions.

"We want to be consulted," he said.

And Vallerand says it is not ethical for the government to negotiate with the common front of 475,000 teachers, hospital workers and civil servants until the unions register as lobbyists.

Under the province's tough 2002 law on lobbying, a lobbyist is anyone who communicates orally or in writing with elected officials or their staff, senior civil servants or government enterprises, such as Hydro-Québec, to influence a decision.

All lobbyists must register with the lobbying commissioner, explaining each mandate they are pursuing.

Marjolaine Perreault, spokesperson for the Secrétariat intersyndical des services publics, the largest group in the common front, representing 300,000 teachers, daycare workers, hospital workers and civil servants, had no comment on the AQRP request.

Mélanie Malenfant of the Quebec Federation of Labour said the QFL is not taking seriously the AQRP's request and considers all issues on the bargaining table, including pensions, as part of the negotiating process.

Jean-Pierre Larche of the Confédération des syndicates nationaux noted that CSN president Claudette Carbonneau is already registered as a lobbyist for issues unrelated to the bargaining table.

"There is nothing to it," Larche said of the AQRP position. "It's a negotiation. It isn't lobbying to influence a minister."
kdougherty@thegazette.canwest.com

CCCCCCCCCCCCCC

Et ice est une opinion anarchiste de la blog Voix de Faits./ And here is an anarchist opinion from the Voix de Faits blog.

CCCCCCCCCCCCCC

Du syndicalisme au lobbyisme:
D'après le Devoir, ça grogne du côté du Commissaire au lobbyiste du Québec pour que les syndicats complètent leur étiquette officielle de lobbyiste en chef. Même l'AQRP, l'Association québécoise des retraités des secteurs public et parapublic, attaque les syndicats pour qu'ils s'inscrivent officiellement lors de leur négocation! On savait que l'AQRP a quelques relations nébuleuses avec les grandes centrales syndicales. Rappelons surtout le dossier des retraites où elle plaide pour être à la table de négociation, craignant que ses membres - les retraitées- qui ne sont plus membres des centrales syndicales ne soient pas représentées. Mais là! Tant qu'à moi ça vole bas: pousser pour que les syndicats achoppent leur (dernier!) petit pouvoir de mobilisation et de contestation auprès du gouvernement!




Il est vrai que dans les faits, c'est peut-être seulement un titre de plus, voire une question d'image, puisque les grandes centrales agissent déjà comme des groupes de pression à saveur lobbyiste (d'ailleurs les chef.fes syndicaux sont pour la plupart déjà inscrites). Mais sur le long terme, cette entourloupette légaliste ne servira pas la cause des travailleurs et des travailleuses.




Surtout qu'idéologiquement, on entérine
1) que le gouvernement, en tant que patron, use de son pouvoir législatif pour baîllonner le combat syndical: d'où l'idée que les syndicats doivent inscrire leur négociation dans le registre des lobbyiste puisque la négociation du contrat de travail en lui-même ne requiert pas d'inscription au registre, seulement ce qui est encadré par la loi (les retraites par exemple).
2) que les syndicats sont un parti-pris comme un autre, au même titre qu'une entreprise privée ou qu'une branche d'industrie (le pétrole par exemple?); contrecarrant leur pouvoir de justice sociale pour tous et toutes et leur lutte pour l'amélioration des conditions de vie universelle, les faisant retomber au niveau d'une défense de droit lobbyiste du "plus pour soi, je m'en fiche des autres!".




Même s'il faut admettre que les grandes centrales syndicales négocient souvent lobbyistement, cherchant à protéger les acquis de LEURS travailleurs et travailleuses plutôt qu'à abolir le rapport capital-travail et à travailler pour l'ensemble des travailleurs et travailleuses exploitées, il n'en reste pas moins qu'ils sont un levier important pour la défense de la justice sociale. À ce point tel important que le gouvernement et le patronat ont compris depuis longtemps qu'il valait mieux encadrer leur puissance de frappe avant qu'elle ne porte le coup final.




La négociation des retraites risque d'être un sujet de plus où, sans démonstration collective de l'importance de la liberté syndicale, le dossier risque d'être clos avant même d'avoir instaurer un débat démocratique dans les instances syndicales. Toujours au profit des mêmes; toujours sur le dos de notre liberté à nous et de notre autonomie organisationnelle.
@@@@@@@@@@
And also in English.

@@@@@@@@@@
FROM UNIONISM TO LOBBYISM:
According to Le Devoir, the grumbles to the the Commissioner of Quebec Lobbyists are that the unions adopt the official label of lobbyists. Even AQRP, the Quebec Association of Retired Public and Parastate sectors, demanded that the unions to formally register their lobby business! We knew that AQRP has some nebulous relationships with the major trade unions. Recall especially the issue of pensions where it pleaded to be at the negotiating table, fearing that its members - the retired, who are no longer members of trade unions were not represented. So there! But it appears to me very much a drive for unions give up their (last?) little power to mobilize and challenge the government!




It is true that in practice it may be only a simple title , even a question of image, since larger organizations are already acting as pressure groups lobbying to their tastes (besides the union chiefs are mostly already signed on). But in the long term, these legalistic shenanigans will not serve the cause of working men and women.




Especially ideologically, it confirms
1) the government as a boss, uses its legislative powers to gag the union struggles: hence the idea that unions must register their negotiations in the register of lobbyists as bargaining since the negotiation of work conracts in itself does not require registration, only what is framed by law (eg pensions).
2) that the unions are biased like any other, just like a private company or a branch of industry (oil for example?); Counteracting their power for social justice for all and their struggle to improve living universal conditions , making them fall into a lobbyist defense of "more for itself, I do not care for others!".




Even if we admit that the main trade unions often employ lobbyists, seeking to protect the achievements of their workers rather than abolish the capital-labor relationship and work for all exploited workers , the fact remains that they are an important lever for the defense of social justice. At this point very important as the government and employers have long understood that it was better to regulate their punching power before they deliver the final blow.




The negotiation of pensions may be more a matter of where, without the collective demonstration of the importance of union indpendence, the case may be closed even before a democratic debate in the union bodies. Also always to their own benefit , always on the backs of our freedom and our organizational independence.

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS:

OBAMA'S WARS:

Here's a little piece shamelessly stolen from the Anarkismo website. In this piece author Wayne Price gives his opinion about how anarchists should react to what, to true believers, may seem like a "betrayal" on the part of the Obama administration of the hopes that they had placed in this one man. To say the least such "hopes" (and fears) were the beliefs solely of the ideological left and the ideological right. Most ordinary Americans knew very well that, in electing their Emperor, they were doing just that...electing their Emperor whom they trusted to preserve the general balance of power in the world (and more importantly correct some serious domestic imbalances). The way in which the Roman Empire progressed from Roman or Latin Emperors to provincial Emperors and finally to "barbarian" Emperors should be instructive. Through all these changes the Roman Empire remained...the Roman Empire, whoever was at its head.

Personally I am undecided about how I view the following essay. Mercifully, my own opinion, and any other anarchist's opinion in North America is very much beside the point. There are few countries in the world (Spain, France ?, Italy ?) where anarchists are in a position to speak to even a small (5%) of the general population and receive a respectful hearing. In this vacuum anarchists far too often fall back on the sad leftist habit of trying very much to appear "right" instead of being effective. The history of developed countries (and underdeveloped ones as well) is littered with a history of "brilliant analyses" (some of which were correct and some of which were grossly wrong without their adherents ever admitting it). The question about "what to say" and, most importantly, "when to say it" is not even on the horizon of North American anarchism. For myself I hope that I will live long enough to see this change. I see no reason why other countries cannot follow the lead of Spain, whatever the advantages of the Spanish anarchists, especially those of the CGT. If we ever achieve the happy state of actually having at least a small amount of influence then the question of what authors such as the following are saying is "politic" would assume a much greater importance than whether they are (provisionally) right or (provisionally) wrong.

@@@@@@@@@@
Obama's Imperial War - An Anarchist Response:

by Wayne Price
In discussing President Obama’s expansion of the US attack on Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is important not to focus on Obama as a personality but on the social system to which he is committed, specifically to the war-waging capitalist national state. “War is the health of the state,” as Randolph Bourne declared during World War I. It is what the national state is for, what it does, and why it still exists, despite the real trends toward international unity and worldwide coordination. In an age of nuclear bombs, the human race will not be safe until we abolish these states (especially the big, imperial, ones such as those of North America, Western Europe, and Japan) and replace them with a federation of self-managing associations of working people.
Obama's Imperial War
An Anarchist Response

The expansion of the US attack on Afghanistan and Pakistan is not due to the personal qualities of Obama but to the social system he serves: the national state and the capitalist economy. The nature of the situation guarantees that the system will act irrationally. Anarchists should participate in building a broad movement against the war, while raising our political program.

In discussing President Obama’s expansion of the US attack on Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is important not to focus on Obama as a personality but on the social system to which he is committed, specifically to the war-waging capitalist national state. “War is the health of the state,” as Randolph Bourne declared during World War I. It is what the national state is for, what it does, and why it still exists, despite the real trends toward international unity and worldwide coordination. In an age of nuclear bombs, the human race will not be safe until we abolish these states (especially the big, imperial, ones such as those of North America, Western Europe, and Japan) and replace them with a federation of self-managing associations of working people.

After 3 months of consultations and deliberation, President Obama has announced that he is going to do what he had promised to do during his campaign for president—namely to expand the US attack on Afghanistan and Pakistan. This may not have been inevitable (since he broke many of his campaign promises already, such as ending overseas prisons, openness in government, ending “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a health care plan which covers everyone, an economic plan for working people, etc.). But it was probable.

As has been pointed out, his stated reasons for the war do not make much sense: in order to get out of Afghanistan, the US will send more troops into Afghanistan. The US needs to fight Al Queda, even though there are now only about 100 Queda militants left in Afghanistan; the Queda base is mostly in Pakistan (which Obama slurred over by speaking of “the border”) but the US will not be sending troops there (just secret attacks by drone missiles and CIA operatives). More generally, the US supposedly has to strengthen the resolve of the government of Pakistan…by sending more troops to Afghanistan. The US hopes to win over the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan by sending more non-Muslim, only-English-speaking, troops, which is sure to antagonize the people of the region. In 18 months, the US forces are supposed to transform the Karzai regime from one of the most corrupt, incompetent, and illegitimate states on earth, to a stable government (never mind a democracy). The effects of the mistaken US policies of 8 years can be reversed in 18 months (on the assumption that US forces will really “start” to withdraw in 18 months; promises are cheap; the US is still in Iraq). All of this is simply unbelievable and it is hard to think that an intelligent man such as Obama believes any of it.

Why then, really, is the US sending more troops into the region? Closer to Obama’s thinking are the expressions in his December 1, West Point, address, when he announced his program, where he spoke about the US as a global power with an economy which competes on the world market. Thus he remarked that “competition within the global economy has grown more fierce….Our prosperity…will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the past.” Implicit in these statements is an awareness that the US is no longer the economic power it was “in the past.” While still having the largest national economy, the US is now a de-industrializing debtor nation, losing out in world competition to Europe and Asia. This has been made worse by the global Great Recession, which has exposed the decay of the whole international capitalist system. The US ruling class, its layer of rich people, is not happy about this.

So they turn to the one asset they still have, which is the mighty military force of the US state—more powerful than any potential combination of opponent states. By throwing its weight around, the US hopes to re-achieve world dominance, or at least to slow its decline in world power. Obama reminded his listeners that the US has long been the dominant world power. “Our country has borne a special burden in global affairs ….More than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for six decades…” This is modified by the hypocritical words,”But unlike the great powers of old, we have not sough world domination.” He can say this because the US has not ruled through open “ownership” of colonies (leaving aside Puerto Rico and a few other places) but by economically dominating the world market, so that all must buy and sell on the US’ terms (“neocolonialism”). But whenever “necessary,” this has been backed up by military force, as shown in two imperialist world wars and a large number of invasions of smaller, weaker, nations.

Therefore it cannot accept being kicked in the teeth by small groups of terrorists living in caves, nor let petty dictatorships thumb their noses at the US. Nor can they afford to let regions which dominate the world petroleum supply fall into chaos, or at least outside of US rule, given the centrality of oil for the capitalist industrial economy. This includes both the Middle East and Northwest Asia (which may have important oil pipelines go through it). (Molly Note- "Northwest Asia" already has several important pipelines. I assume the author refers to 'Central Asia' )

Irrational behavior will result from being in situations which cannot be rationally dealt with. The US ruling class must try to dominate the world, economically and therefore politically and militarily, due to world competition. But it cannot dominate the world and is losing out in international competition. It must try to control the oppressed nations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, but it cannot control them. The result is a contradictory and irrational foreign policy. This was apparent under the stupid George W. Bush, with his ideologically fanatic advisers. It is still obvious under the intelligent and reasonable Barack Obama.

The result is likely to be disastrous (as it was in the Vietnam war, also waged by moderate Democrats—in fact most US wars have been waged by Democrats, starting with World War I). In Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, many people have been killed or wounded or their lives disrupted—mostly the nationally-oppressed people but also many US soldiers. Now very many more will be killed. Not to speak of the wealth which will be destroyed, both in the attacked countries and in the US (Obama says the war will cost $1 trillion).

And in the background is the threat of nuclear war—not only does the US have nuclear weapons but so does Pakistan and its long-time opponent and neighbor India. Also, in the same region, the US is threatening to attack Iran, for supposedly working toward nuclear weapons, and there are similar threats by the US ally Israel, which does have nuclear weapons. Will nuclear bombs be used in the near future? I doubt it; but time marches on and sooner or later they will be used. (The Bush administration made an effort to make smaller “bunker-blasting” nuclear bombs, which could be used in small wars such as in Iraq. These would have erased the gap between nuclear and conventional weapons. I do not know where this stands at the moment.) Liberals have called on the US to lead a world-wide crusade to abolish all nuclear weapons. Obama has given lip service to this idea, but nothing will come of it because the US state cannot give up any of its power to threaten the rest of the world.

We revolutionary anarchists must oppose these wars will all our might. While the system cannot stop making wars, it can be forced to end particular wars. This can be done by raising the price which the state must pay for that war. If the capitalist politicians feel that young people are becoming radicalized and militant, that labor is becoming restless, that soldiers are potentially mutinous, and that the local peoples will not stop resisting--then they will finally decide to end the war (as in Vietnam).

We should participate in broader “peace” movement, joining it in its mass marches and demonstrations. Often we radicals get tired of demonstrations, seeing how little they accomplish; but we should not forget how exciting they can be for newer layers of antiwar activists. However this does not mean that we cover up our program. In particular we must oppose the leaders of this movement (liberals, social democrats, and Marxist-Leninists) for their capitulation to the Democratic Party. For years now, they have held back the movement by focusing on electing and supporting liberal Democrats.

We need to point to those who have the real power to end the war: the soldiers and other military forces and the working class. There has been increasing discontent among rank-and=file military and their families about the war. We should have a positive attitude toward this, as opposed to a moralistic superiority toward ordinary soldiers, who are usually victims of the poverty draft.. Similarly, there has been much discontent with the wars among working people and their families. We can at least support the idea of strikes against the war, war production, and the transportation of war material. We should oppose any use of the war as an excuse for union-busting or wage-lowering.

The force most directly opposing US imperialism in these regions are the people. We should make clear our solidarity with the nationally oppressed people (who are mostly workers, peasants, and small businesspeople). We should defend their right to resist US aggression. We should not be “neutral” between the mightiest imperial power and the oppressed people of Afghanistan. But this does not require any support or endorsement for any particular organization or leadership. We are certainly not “for” the Taliban, which is viciously misogynist, anti-labor, and statist. We do not want them to get their state again. However, that is a matter for the Afghan people to decide, not for the US state nor for Western anarchists.

We should be willing to work with anyone who will oppose the wars, while openly expressing our own program: the end of the state, of international capitalism (imperialism), and of all forms of oppression.

@@@@@@@@@@

Here is another article that comes Molly's way via Anarkismo but was originally published at the African website Pambazuka News. It lays out what are tghe likely plans of the US Empire in the next imperial field of action-Africa.

@@@@@@@@@@
Obama moves ahead with AFRICOM:
Concerned over the supply of oil to the US and a supposed need to continue the global 'War on Terror', President Barack Obama has essentially maintained the militarised approach to Africa that was the hallmark of his immediate predecessors George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, writes Daniel Volman. The escalation of AFRICOM (United States African Command) activities, argues Volman, underlines a troubling commitment to an approach based on might and dominance, one entirely at the expense of promoting sustainable economic development and democracy.

In his 11 July 2009 speech in Accra, Ghana, US President Barack Obama declared, 'America has a responsibility to advance this vision, not just with words, but with support that strengthens African capacity. When there is genocide in Darfur or terrorists in Somalia, these are not simply African problems – they are global security challenges, and they demand a global response. That is why we stand ready to partner through diplomacy, technical assistance, and logistical support, and will stand behind efforts to hold war criminals accountable. Our Africa Command is focused not on establishing a foothold in the continent, but on confronting these common challenges to advance the security of America, Africa and the world.'

And yet all the available evidence demonstrates that he is determined to continue the expansion of US military activity on the continent initiated by President Bill Clinton in the late 1990s and dramatically escalated by President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2009. While many expected the Obama administration to adopt a security policy toward Africa that would be far less militaristic and unilateral than that pursued by his predecessor, the facts show that he is in fact essentially following the same policy that has guided US military involvement in Africa for more than a decade.

The clearest indication of President Obama’s intentions for AFRICOM (United States African Command) and for America’s military involvement in Africa is provided by the budget requests for the 2010 financial year submitted by the Departments of State and Defense to Congress in May 2009. The State Department budget request – which includes funding for all US arms sales, military training, and other security assistance programmes – proposes major increases in funding for US arms sales to a number of African countries through the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) programme. The budget proposes to increase FMF funding for sub-Saharan African counties more than 300 per cent, from just over US$8.2 million to more than US$25.5 million, with additional increases in funding for Maghrebi countries. Major recipients slated for increases include Chad (US$500,000), the Democratic Republic of Congo (US$2.5 million), Djibouti (US$2.5 million), Ethiopia (US$3 million), Kenya (US$1 million), Liberia (US$9 million), Morocco (US$9 million), Nigeria (US$1.4 million), South Africa (US$800,000) and the Africa Regional Program (US$2.8 million).

The same trend is evident in the Obama administration's request for funding for the International Military Education and Training (IMET) programme. The budget request for the IMET programme proposes to increase funding for African countries by nearly 17 per cent, from just under US$14 million to more than US$16 million, with additional increases for Maghrebi countries. Major recipients slated for increases include Algeria (US$950,000), Chad (US$400,000), the Democratic Republic of Congo (US$500,000), Djibouti (US$350,000), Ethiopia (US$775,000), Equatorial Guinea (US$40,000), Ghana (US$850,000), Liberia (US$525,000), Libya (US$250,000), Mali (US$350,000), Morocco (US$1.9 million), Niger (US$250,000), Nigeria (US$1.1 million), Rwanda (US$500,000), Senegal (US$1.1 million), South Africa (US$900,000) and Uganda (US$550,000).

The Obama administration also proposes major new funding for security assistance provided through the Peacekeeping Operations programme. The 2010 financial year budget proposes to increase funding for the Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Partnership – from US$15 million in the 2009 financial year to US$20 million in 2010 – and for the East Africa Regional Strategic Initiative from US$5 million in the 2009 financial year to US$10 million in the 2010 financial year.

It also includes US$42 million to continue operations in support of the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Accords (CPAs) in southern Sudan, US$10 million to help create a professional 2,000-member armed force in Liberia, US$21 million to continue operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo to reform the military (including the creation of rapid reaction force for the eastern Congo and the rehabilitation of the military base at Kisangani), and US$3.6 million for the Africa Conflict Stabilization and Border Security Program, which will be used to support monitoring teams, advisory assistance, training, infrastructure enhancements, and equipment in the Great Lakes region, the Mano River region, the Horn of Africa, Chad and the Central African Republic.

And it includes US$67 million to support the African Union mission in Somalia, along with a request for US$96.8 million for the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI). The request for the GPOI includes funding for the African Contingency Operations and Training Assistance Program (ACOTA) – which provides training and equipment to a number of African military forces to enhance their peacekeeping capabilities – and the Obama administration has requested US$96.8 million for ACOTA activities in the 2010 financial year.

Furthermore, the Obama administration’s budget request for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) programmes contains US$24 million for Sudan to support the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Accords in southern Sudan and to assist programmes to stabilise Darfur by providing technical assistance and training for southern Sudan’s criminal justice sector and law enforcement institutions as well as contributing to UN civilian police and formed police units in southern Sudan and Darfur. It also includes funds for police reforms in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC); for training, infrastructure, and equipment for police units in Liberia; to operate the American-run International Law Academy in Gaborone, Botswana; and to create a Regional Security Training Center for West, Central and North Africa.

And the Obama administration is also asking for funding to be provided through the INCLE programs for the first time to provide security assistance to countries participating in the Trans-Saharan Counter-Terrorism Partnership: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Mauritania, Senegal, Mali, Niger, Chad, and Nigeria. Major recipients slated for increases include Algeria (US$970,000), Cape Verde (US$2 million), the Democratic Republic of Congo (US$1.7 million), Ethiopia (US$500,000), Gambia (US$450,00), Ghana (US$500,000), Guinea-Bissau (US$3 million), Liberia (US$8 million), Morocco (US$2 million), Nigeria (US$2 million), Sierre Leone (US$250,000), Sudan (US$24 million), Uganda (US$385,000), and the Africa Regional Program (US$4.5 million).

The Obama administration also proposes to increase funding for counterterrorism programmes. These include the Anti-Terrorism Assistance Program – which provides training to countries throughout the world – the Terrorist Interdiction Program/Personal Identification, Secure Comparison, and Evaluation System Program – which supports identification and watch listing systems to 18 countries (including Kenya) – the Counterterrorism Financing Program, which helps partner countries throughout the world stop the flow of money to terrorists – and the Counterterrorism Engagement Program, which is intended to strengthen ties with key political leaders throughout the world and 'build political will at senior levels in partner nations for shared counterterrorism challenges'. The Obama administration’s budget request requests increased funding for Kenya (from US$5 million in the 2009 financial year to US$8 million in the 2010 financial year), for South Africa (a new programme for US$1 million), and the Africa Regional programme (from almost US$15 million in the 2009 financial year to more than US$20 million in the 2010 financial year).

The Obama administration proposed 2010 budget for the Department of Defense requests US$278 million in operation and maintenance funds to cover the cost of AFRICOM operations and Operation Enduring Freedom-Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Partnership operations at the AFRICOM headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. The administration is also requesting US$263 million to provide additional manpower, airlift and communications support to AFRICOM. In addition, the administration is requesting US$60 million to fund CJTF-HOA operations in the 2010 financial year and US$249 million to pay for the operation of the 500-acre base at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti and for facilities modifications, along with US$41.8 for major base improvement construction projects.

The administration has requested some US$400 million for Global Train and Equip (Section 1206) programmes, some US$200 million for Security and Stabilization Assistance (Section 1207) programmes, and some US$1 million for the Combatant Commander’s Initiative Fund. This money will be used primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan to pay for emergency training and equipment, the services of personnel from the State Department and humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi and Afghani armed forces, but it will be available for the use of AFRICOM as well.
The administration’s budget request also contains US$1.9 billion to buy three littoral combat ships and another US$373 million to buy two joint high speed vessels, ships that will play a crucial role in US Navy operations off the coast of Africa. In addition, the administration has requested US$10.5 million to pay for naval deployments in west and central Africa in the 2010 financial year and another US$10 million for naval operations in east Africa.

When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton travelled to Nigeria during her tour of Africa in August 2009, she met with Ojo Maduekwe, the foreign minister, and Godwin Abbe, the new minister of defence. In her remarks after the meeting, she was asked what the US government intended to do to help the Nigerian government establish stability and security in the Niger Delta. 'Well, the defence minister was present at the second larger meeting that the foreign minister convened,' she said, 'and he had some very specific suggestions as to how the United States could assist the Nigerian government in their efforts, which we think are very promising, to try to bring peace and stability to the Niger Delta. We will be following up on those. There is nothing that has been decided. But we have a very good working relationship between our two militaries. So I will be talking with my counterpart, the secretary of defense, and we will, through our joint efforts, through our bi-national commission mechanism, determine what Nigeria would want from us for help, because we know this is an internal matter, we know this is up to the Nigerian people and their government to resolve, and then look to see how we would offer that assistance.' Thus, in addition to the security assistance programmes in the budget request for the 2010 financial year, the Obama administration is now considering providing even more military support to the Nigerian government for use in the Niger Delta if the current amnesty programme collapses, as many analysts expect, and the government resumes military operations against insurgent forces in this vital oil-producing region (which produces 10 per cent of America’s total oil imports).

Another indication of the Obama administration’s intentions are provided by its decision to expand US military involvement in Somalia as well as its decision to continue the Bush administration’s policy of unilateral military attacks against alleged al-Qaeda operatives in that country. In June 2009, a senior State Department official (presumed to have been Assistant Secretary of State Johnnie Carson) revealed that the Obama administration had initiated a programme of indirect military support for the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of Somalia (the internationally recognised government of the country, although it only exercises control over a small part of the capital, Mogadishu) and a few other towns in the southern part of the country).

According to the official, the US government was providing funding to the TFG to finance weapons purchases and had also asked the governments of Uganda and Burundi, which have deployed troops to Mogadishu under an African Union mandate to protect the TFG, to transfer weaponry from their own stockpiles to the armed forces of the TFG in exchange for promises that the US government would reimburse them. In addition, the US government made its base in Djibouti available to other governments for them to provide military training to the armed forces of the TFG.

During her visit to Kenya in August 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the US government would 'continue to provide equipment and training to the TFG', stating 'very early in the administration, I made the decision, which the president supported, to accelerate and provide aid to the TFG'. She went on to declare that al-Shabaab, the Islamist insurgent group fighting to overthrow the TFG, was 'a terrorist group with links to al-Qaeda and other foreign military networks' and that they 'see Somalia as a future haven for global terrorism'.

'There is no doubt', Secretary Clinton stated 'that al-Shabaab wants to obtain control over Somalia to use it as a base from which to influence and even infiltrate surrounding countries and launch attacks against countries far and near.' Thus, 'if al-Shabaab were to obtain a haven in Somalia, which would then attract al-Qaeda and other terrorist actors, it would be a threat to the United States.'

The US government arranged for the delivery of an initial supply of approximately 40 tonnes of small arms and ammunition worth approximately US$10 million to the TFG between May and August of 2009 from the stockpiles of the African Union peacekeeping force, along with between US$1 million and US$2 million in cash to the TFG to finance its own arms purchase, and the delivery of another 40 tonnes of small arms and ammunition over the following months. A number of other governments – including Kenya, Uganda, Burundi and France – are also reported to have sent military personnel to the US base in Djibouti to provide military training to TFG troops.

According to a report by the Associated Press, American officials 'say the US military is not conducting the training and will not put any forces in Somalia'. Other countries were conducting the training, the Associated Press reported, because 'the [Obama] administration is making a concerted effort to avoid putting any American footprint in Somalia, which would risk alienating allies and add to charges by Islamic extremists of a Western takeover.' However, it has since become clear that most of the arms and training has been transferred to al-Shabaab, either by Islamic militants who had infiltrated the TFG military forces or as a result of the sale of the weapons and ammunition on the black market.

Then, in August, US Special Forces troops attacked and killed Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, an alleged al-Qaeda operative who was accused of being involved in the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998 as well as other al-Qaeda operations in east Africa. The US Special Forces troops carried out the attack from onboard several helicopters that had been launched from a US Navy warship off the Somali coast, using machine guns and automatic assault rifles to strafe a convoy of four-wheel drive vehicles carrying Nabhan and his retinue. Following the initial assault, the helicopters landed so that their troops could seize Nabhan’s body for positive identification. It is likely that the Obama administration will conduct further military operations in Somalia since, in the words of Vice Admiral Robert Moeller, the deputy commander of AFRICOM, 'the threat posed by al-Shabaab is something that we pay very, very close attention to.'

And in October 2009, the Obama administration announced a major new security assistance package for Mali that was delivered on 20 October 2009. The package – valued at US$4.5 to US$5 million (2.3 billion CFA) and which includes 37 Land Cruiser pickup trucks, communication equipment, replacement parts, clothing and other individual equipment – is intended to enhance Mali's ability to transport and communicate with internal security (counter-insurgency) units throughout the country and control its borders. The security assistance package is officially known as the 'Counter Terrorism Train and Equip' (CTTE) programme. Although ostensibly intended to help Mali deal with potential threats from AQIM (al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), it is more likely to be used against Tuareg insurgent forces.

In addition, between April and June of 2009, 300 US Special Forces personnel were deployed to Mali to train Malian military forces at three local bases and, according to Lt Col Louis Sombora, deputy commander of Mali's 33rd Parachute Regiment (which was the recipient of the new US military aid package), more than 95 per cent of his soldiers have received US military training. And in early November 2009, US Air Force Brigadier General Michael W. Callan, vice commander of the US Air Force Africa (the Air Force contingent based in Europe and dedicated to AFRICOM), visited Mali along with other US military personnel in order to inspect local military forces (including the 33rd Parachute Regiment) and tour local military facilities.

According to Lt Col Marshall Mantiply, defense attaché at the US Embassy in Bamako, 'we are working with the Mali ministry of defence on a ten-year plan' to enhance the country's military capabilities.

The aid package to Mali is just the latest instance of America’s growing military involvement in the Sahel region. In his testimony before the Senate subcommittee on Africa hearing on 'Counter-terrorism in the Sahel' on 17 November 2009, Secretary of State for Africa Johnnie Carson identified Mali – along with Algeria and Mauritania – as one of the 'key countries' in the region for the US counterterrorism strategy. 'We believe that our work with Mali to support more professional units capable of improving the security environment in the country will have future benefits if they are sustained', he stated.

It is clear, therefore, that President Barack Obama has decided to follow the path marked out for AFRICOM by the Clinton and Bush administrations, based on the use of military force to ensure that America can satisfy its continuing addiction to oil and to deal with the threat posed by al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups, rather than to chart a new path passed on a partnership with the people of Africa and other countries that have a stake on the continent (including China) to promote sustainable economic development, democracy and human rights in Africa and a global energy order based on the use of clean, safe and renewable resources.

This is the consequence of two factors. To begin with, President Obama genuinely believes in the strategy of the global 'War on Terror' and thinks that Africa must be a central battlefield in America’s military campaign against al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups. Many analysts believe that terrorism does not constitute a significant threat to America’s national security interests and that it would be far more effective to treat terrorism as a crime and to reduce the threat of terrorism by employing traditional law enforcement techniques. But, as demonstrated by the president’s decision to escalate US military operations in Afghanistan, Somalia and Mali, the Obama administration is determined to use military force instead, despite the fact that – as US military analysts argue – this only helps to strengthen terrorist groups and jeopardises other US security interests.

And with regard to America’s growing dependence on African oil supplies, President Obama understands the danger of relying upon the importation of a vital resource from unstable countries ruled by repressive, undemocratic regimes and the necessity of reducing America’s reliance on the use of oil and other non-renewable sources of energy. But, for understandable reasons, he has concluded that there is simply very little that he can do to achieve this goal during the limited time that he will be in office. He knows that it will take at least several decades to make the radical changes that will be necessary to develop alternative sources of energy, particularly to fuel cars and other means of transportation (if this is even technically feasible). And he knows that – in the meantime – public support for his presidency and for his party depends on the continued supply of reliable and relatively inexpensive supplies of gas and other petroleum-based energy to the American people, more than any other single factor. In the event of a substantial disruption in the supply of oil from Nigeria or any other major African supplier, he realises that he will be under irresistible political pressure to employ the only instrument that he has at his disposal – US military forces – to try to keep Africa’s oil flowing.

Professional military officers also know that the repressive, undemocratic regimes upon which the United States relies to maintain oil production are likely to fail and that they are almost certain to find themselves sent into combat in Africa – whether they like it or not – if this leads to a major disruption of oil exports, and are already working on plans for direct military intervention in Africa. Thus, in May 2008, the Army Training and Doctrine Command, the Special Operations Command, and the Joint Forces Command conducted a war game scenario for Nigeria during war game exercise that it conducts each year at the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

The scenario – set in the hypothetical year 2013 – was designed to test the ability of the United States to respond to a crisis in Nigeria in which the Nigerian government fragments and rival factions within the Nigerian military begin fighting for control of the Niger Delta, creating so much violence and chaos that it would be impossible to continue oil production. The participants concluded that there was little the United States could do to bring about a peaceful resolution of the conflict and that, in the end, they would probably be ordered to send up to 20,000 American troops into the Niger Delta in what the participants clearly recognised would be a futile attempt to get the oil flowing again. The fact that the participants in the Nigerian war games decided to go public with this information suggests that they believe that this scenario is likely to become a reality in the near future and that their only hope of avoiding this is to tell the public in the hope that this will prevent the order from being issued.

But the professional military officers who would actually have to lead their troops into Africa are not the only people who understand that America’s reliance on the military to solve the energy dilemma and the threat of terrorism is a dangerous mistake. Members of the US Congress are also increasingly sceptical about this strategy and are beginning to give AFRICOM the critical scrutiny it deserves. Moreover, a number of concerned organisations and individuals in the United States and in Africa came together in August 2006 to create the Resist AFRICOM campaign in order to educate the American people about AFRICOM and to mobilise public and congressional opposition to the new command. The Resist AFRICOM campaign will continue to press the Obama administration to abandon its plan for AFRICOM and to pursue a policy toward Africa based on a genuine partnership with the people of Africa, international cooperation, democracy, human rights and sustainable economic development.
BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS
* Daniel Volman is the director of the African Security Research Project in Washington DC, and a member of the board of directors of the Association of Concerned Africa Scholars. He is a specialist on US military policy in Africa and African security issues and has been conducting research and writing on these issues for more than 30 years.
Related Link: http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/60921

CANADIAN POLITICS:

ECONOMIC ADVISE TO HARPER FROM THE WEST:

The nation is waiting, maybe without bated breath but at least waiting, for the new Conservative budget due to come out later this month. The Harper conservatives are in something of a bind. The seriousness of the economic situation, which they once denied for ideological reasons, has dawned even in their rusty craniums. No more of a "turn around by July" or "this is a good time to buy". Doing nothing is no longer an option, but what can they do ? Following the lead of the USA is the easy option. Take every bit of free money thrown at the corporations down south, divide it by 10 and you have "Canadian policy". Yet, simply bailing out corporations may turn out to be politically unacceptable. The governments of both the USA and Canada have to be at least seen to be doing something for ordinary people, whatever the substance of what they are actually doing. The latest polls put the Liberals ahead of the Conservatives in voting intentions. Perhaps not far enough ahead for Sneaky Stevie's Liberal doppelganger Infamous Iggy to actually dare to pull the plug, but it is a sign of caution for SS. No matter what he might feel like doing he has to make at least some sort of theatre of concern for the public rather than his corporate friends.

Molly has previously presented the program that the Canadian Labour Congress would like to see instituted. Here is another alternative economic plan, this time from a collection of 20 western Canadian economists, compiled by the Canada West Foundation. Like the CLC program this set of recommendations emphasizes help for ordinary people over help for the corporations. Once more, I do not necessarily agree with all of the proposals. Things that are conspicuously missing include:

***A job creation strategy based on subsidies, tax breaks and changes in legislation aimed at the expansion of the producers' cooperative sector, a sure fire way to create maximum employment (and purchasing power) for every dollar spent. Employment that is not dependent upon a weak international trade system. This is especially important in the concept of "infrastructure" as many of such projects would be best and most efficiently undertaken by local coops.

***Basing any bailouts for the auto industry (and others) on the provision of equity in the industry, both for the Canadian public and the workers in said industry. In terms of the workers such equity should give them an increased say in how the industry was run. The economic benefits of this are obvious- increased efficiency as the workers actually have a stake in the enterprise. It is my opinion that all future government support to any industry should be premised on such conditions. Should the industry fail despite infusions of government money the way would be open to reestablish it as a producers' cooperative with minimal disruption.

***An emphasis on the domestic economy rather than the international trade system. Enterprises whose customers are local are far less vulnerable to fluctuations in international financial systems.

***An emphasis on the system of credit unions, properly regulated to avoid speculation. Unlike the large banks such institutions are basically local and thus insulated from the vagaries of international finance. Legislation should favour such institutions over the banks, and it should properly restrict their operations to avoid speculation on the part of their managers, a class whose interests are often at variance with that of the members.

***A reinvigoration of the 'Labour Sponsored Funds' via increased tax breaks for same, and an interprovincial agreement to restrict their operations to local industry rather than speculation. A re-examination of the legislation governing same to ensure transparency and prevent influence peddling such as led to the collapse of the Manitoba Crocus Fund.

***A guarantee of assured funding to munipalities, not just provinces. The amendment of provincial legislation, once more by an interprovincial agreement, to assure that such funding was, once again, more transparent and open to democratic control by municipal electors.

***Amendment of labour legislation, hopefully with provincial agreement, to 1)raise minimum wages nationally, 2)make union organization easier and 3)improve workplace safety and health standards. This would provide increased purchasing power as assuredly as a tax cut would and it would actually improve competitiveness as business would be induced to concentrate on actual improvement in production rather than on trying to squeeze labour costs.

One could go on and on about such proposals, and I will probably do so in the future. What is important to note here is that there is an "undiscovered continent" beyond the classical social democratic nostrums for correcting economic crises. It is also important to note that pretty well all of such reforms would not be granted by the goodwill of any government, especially the present Conservative one. What is important, at this point, is to raise the possibility of such reforms. Whether they are implemented or not depends not on the machinations of political parties but on demand from below. Molly hopes she can do her little bit to stimulate such demand.

The following article which led to this overly long "introduction" is from the online news magazine Straight Goods.

........................

West urges Harper to act quickly:
Twenty-five Western economists send PM budget advice.
by Gillian Steward
If Stephen Harper is inclined to listen to anyone, other than himself, perhaps he should lend an ear to some western economists bursting with suggestions about how his government can best help Canadians weather the recession.

They want him to act quickly and be bold — no more dithering, no patchwork programs and no more fussing about whether to run a deficit.

"The first thing governments should do is stop talking about deficits and change the message to being willing to do 'whatever it takes' to save jobs," wrote William Kerr of the University of Saskatchewan in a report compiled by the Canada West Foundation, a Calgary-based think-tank.

"Getting more funds into the hands of individuals who most need support and will quickly spend the money should take priority over cutting personal or business taxes."

The 25 economists from the four western provinces want Harper to deliver a stimulus package that is national in design rather than targeted to particular regions, sectors or firms. But they also agreed, somewhat reluctantly, that the federal government will likely have to extend a helping hand to the auto sector.

"With the US government poised to introduce a package for the Big Three, Canada may have no choice but to do the same. The emphasis should be on structuring the package to include conditions that require it to be repaid, perhaps in the form of loans and/or loan guarantees," said Ken McKenzie of the University of Calgary.

Marlo Raynolds of the Pembina Institute suggested the government should support the auto sector with public funds only if the sector is willing to accept a fleet-wide fuel efficiency standard of at least 45 miles per gallon by 2020.

There was also a consensus that the feds should quickly inject money into the hands of consumers and businesses by strengthening Employment Insurance and other programs designed to act as a safety net during difficult times. The unemployed, pensioners, students and others more likely to spend than to save should be on the top of the list. Federal support for provincial social programs should also be increased as a short-term measure.

"Getting more funds into the hands of individuals who most need support and will quickly spend the money should take priority over cutting personal or business taxes," said Jonathan Kesselman of Simon Fraser University.

As for infrastructure projects, the group suggested that they be undertaken quickly and be evenly spread across the country. Among those on the top of the list: refurbishment of existing infrastructure, green public transit, transportation projects that facilitate trade such as a new Windsor-Detroit bridge and West Coast port facilities, affordable housing, and mental health and addiction facilities.

Tax cuts didn't get much play in this report mainly because participants couldn't reach a consensus on what kind of cuts would be the most effective. Some favoured temporary or permanent cuts to the GST while others preferred cuts to personal income taxes; others suggested reducing EI premiums for employers.

The economists agreed there wasn't much the federal government could do about the slump in commodity prices, which has hit the West hard. But they suggested an economic stimulus package should include measures to enhance credit financing in the energy sector, particularly for small to mid-sized producers. They would also like to see the reinstatement of the accelerated capital cost allowances for oil sands upgrader projects.

So there you have it, Mr Harper. Never let it be said there isn't a wealth of ideas being sent your way as you and your team craft that January budget.

Gillian Steward is a Calgary writer and journalist, and former managing editor of the Calgary Herald.

AMERICAN POLITICS:

OBAMA AND EMPIRE:

The dust surrounding the recent American election is beginning to settle, and while the world still seems caught up in their love affair with the new President-elect a few critical voices are gradually emerging. Here's one from the pages of the British LibCom site, concerning the (un)likelihood of any fundamental "change" in American policies under an Obama administration.

........................

Obama: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss:

There seems to be quite a lot of genuine excitement in the English language media following the election of Barack Obama. Various commentators are talking about it as if it signifies real change within America and even the world, rather than just the end of another of America’s four yearly electoral circuses.

If one were to believe the media it, would appear that after eight long years of Bush America has undergone a real transformation, the first Black President, and a commitment to real radical change.

It sounds like it is too good to be true. Obviously it is.

So what can we expect from the new regime in the US. Let’s look at foreign policy first. Of course, it is possible to look back at the last Democratic Government in the US, that of Bill Clinton. This was a government that fired cruise missiles almost indiscriminately at its enemies. From factories producing medical goods in Sudan to residential areas in Iraq, not forgetting to fire a few at Afghanistan in-between. We call also mention the two air bombardment campaigns in ex-Yugoslavia, which was referred to at the time as Humanitarian bombing. We could also point to his continuation of US sanctions against Iraq, which according to UNICEF caused the deaths of 500,000 Iraq children, the fact that he was the first to introduce the ideological basis of Bush’s terror campaign. It was Clinton who first used the terms ‘state sponsor of terrorism’ and 'rogue state'. There was also the little matter of an invasion of Haiti…

But let’s not damn Obama on the past record of his party in Government. Let’s allow the man to speak for himself. In April 2007 in his first major foreign policy speech, Obama stated that "We must lead by building a 21st century military.... I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.” One would wonder what he wants nearly 100,000 new soldiers for. Well, when he was asked on Fox News last month about the possibility of bombing Iran he stated that he “would never take a military option off the table.” He also wants to put an extra 10,000 troops into Afghanistan where he said that President Bush had ‘responded correctly’ in fighting the ‘good war’, a ‘good war in which between 20,000 and 60,000 civilians have been killed. He also believes that Pakistan is “the right battlefield ...in the war on terrorism”, and has threatened to attack it.

To be honest all this puts him right at the centre of the Democratic tradition from Kennedy and Johnson in Vietnam via Clinton in Somalia, Kosovo and Iraq.

And what does he offer to the working class in the US? One of the things that was clear about the election campaign was that despite the background of the deepening crisis neither of the candidates had any proposals to deal with the crisis. This is because neither of them had any answers to offer. Nor are there any answers to offer. All that the politicians can hope to do is to bring in austerity measure to attack working class living standards. The first rule of the crisis is always that the ruling class will try to make the working class pay the cost of it. For all his words about ‘workers rights’, he must still implement austerity programmes. There can be no difference between the results of the economic programmes of different parties. Indeed generally there is no difference between the actual programmes.

So what Obama offers is more war abroad, and more attacks against the working class at home. Everything must change so it can stay exactly the same: meet the new boss, same as the old boss.