By Stephen Zunes*

On July 2, former secretary of state and frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination Hillary Clinton wrote a letter to Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban, a strong supporter of the right-wing Netanyahu government, denouncing human rights activists who support boycott/divestment/sanctions (BDS) against the Israeli occupation.

In the letter, made public a few days later, Clinton made a number of statements which are not only demonstrably false but raise serious concerns regarding what kind of policies she would pursue as president.

She claimed that the BDS movement was working to “malign and undermine Israel and the Jewish people.” Though some BDS activists target Israel as a whole, most efforts on college campuses and elsewhere focus solely on the Israeli occupation, particularly companies that profit from that occupation and support illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. In any case, the BDS campaign does not “malign and undermine” Jews. This cynical effort to depict the movement as anti-Semitic could be an indication of the kind of rhetoric she would use as president to discredit human rights activists who challenge her policies elsewhere.

Clinton claims in the letter that initiatives through the United Nations critical of Israeli violations of international humanitarian law are inherently “anti-Israel,” thereby implying that those who raise concerns about a given country’s human rights record do so not because of a desire to uphold universally recognized ethical and legal principles, but because of an ideological bias against a particular country. Although some UN agencies have disproportionately targeted Israel for criticism, the vast majority of such reports and resolutions have been consistent with findings and concerns raised by reputable international human rights organizations (such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) and Israeli groups (such as the B’tselem human rights group and the veterans’ organization Breaking the Silence.)

Clinton further argues that it is illegitimate to use sanctions to “dictate” that an occupying power should end its illegal colonization of occupied territory and withdraw to within its internationally recognized boundaries in accordance with UN resolutions and international law. Indeed, she rejects any kind of “outside or unilateral actions” against such flagrant violations of international legal norms. Instead, she insists that resolution to such conflicts be based solely on negotiations between an occupying power and those under occupation regardless of the gross asymmetry in power between the two parties and a series of UN Security Council resolutions, rulings of the International Court of Justice, and longstanding international legal principles that recognize the illegitimacy of any country expanding its borders by force and moving settlers into occupied territory.

Clinton’s lack of concern for international law is also evidenced in her reference to the predominantly Palestinian Old City of Jerusalem as being part of Israel, even though it was seized by Israeli forces in the 1967 war and is recognized by the UN and the international community as being under foreign belligerent occupation.

She also proudly references her condemnation of the 2009 report by the UN Human Rights Council—headed by the distinguished South African jurist Richard Goldstone (a Zionist Jew)—which documented war crimes by both Israel and Hamas. In the letter, she implies that the report denied Israel’s right to self-defense, when it in fact explicitly recognized Israel’s right to do so. The report’s only objections to Israeli conduct were in regard to attacks on civilian targets, not its military actions against extremist militias lobbing rockets into Israel. The implication, therefore, is that Hillary Clinton believes killing civilians can constitute legitimate self-defense.

Her reference to Israel as “a vibrant democracy in a region dominated by autocracy”—while certainly true on a number of levels—ignores Israel’s denial of democratic rights to Palestinians under occupation. Furthermore, it ignores her history as a senator and secretary of state of backing Arab dictatorships in the face of pro-democracy struggles by their own peoples, which has contributed to the predominance of autocratic rule in the Middle East.

In the letter, she also reiterates the romantic Western myth that Israel is “a vibrant bloom in the middle of the desert.” Although Israelis are certainly responsible for impressive advances in irrigation technology in the Negev region and elsewhere, it ignores centuries of agriculture and urban settlement in what is now Palestine, Lebanon, and the western parts of Jordan and Syria, long known as the “Fertile Crescent.” Indeed, Israel originally seized much of its fertile lands by force from Palestinian farmers.

There are other troubling aspects of the two-page letter as well: She boasts about her efforts to block UN recognition of Palestinian statehood. She pledges to work with Republicans to fight BDS activists, who are mostly registered Democrats. She links anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism and the terrorist attacks against Jews in France. In addition, by denouncing BDS because it “singles out Israel,” she is implying that any human rights group that focuses on one country (i.e., Tibet, Burma, Western Sahara, Syria, or Iran) is thereby illegitimate.

Finally, her pledge to “defend Israel at every turn” and that as president she will “always stand up for Israel” is particularly troubling, given her propensity to equate “Israel” with the policies of its right-wing government.

Taken altogether, this letter raises very troubling questions regarding the kind of president Hillary Clinton would be, not just in regard to Israel and Palestine, but in relation to human rights and international law overall and her reaction to those who support such principles.

*Foreign Policy In Focus columnist Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics and coordinator of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco.

The post Troubling Implications Of Hillary’s Anti-BDS Letter – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Are Washington’s relentless bombings and military immersions in sectarian battles within Arab and neighboring regions accelerating the spread of terrorist attacks? Yes. The recent rash of terror attacks in Kuwait, Tunisia, Somalia, France, and other countries are tragic examples of the strategic failures of our government and its very heavy reliance on military interventions, including the omnipresent drones that terrorize civilians.

From the first bombings of al-Qaeda’s small band of fighters in the mountains of Afghanistan to the toppling of the Taliban government there by President George Bush in 2001, all Washington’s weaponry, soldiers, and trillions of dollars have accomplished is to spread al-Qaeda’s numerous offshoots into over a dozen countries.

The CIA calls this “blowback.” For fourteen years this “blowback” has destabilized countries, initiated civil wars costing millions of mostly civilian lives and leaving others sickened and injured, and caused many families to be driven out of their homes as masses of weeping refugees.

In the meantime, hatred of the U.S. in those regions grows. The attackers we have helped to provoke are becoming better trained on how to use their weaponry to create more devastation over larger ranges of territories.

Could there have been an overreaction by the U.S. militarists, including Republicans such as Senator Lindsay Graham (R- SC) and Democrats such as then-Senator John Kerry (D-MA)? Kerry, especially, had a record in the Senate so extreme as to criticize the belligerent Bush/Cheney administration for not deploying more weaponry and soldiers and invading more countries.

The effects of this widespread violence that overrides sovereign rights of other countries and violates international law and our Constitution also have ongoing domestic consequences. All empires eventually devour themselves; the U.S. is proving to be no exception. Unlawful mass surveillance and violations of due process and civil liberties by the misnamed Patriot Act have created a climate of suspicion that criminalizes speech and expands malicious prosecutions.

Moreover, trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have been wasted destroying other countries and bloating our military budget. Our soldiers and veterans pay the price with painful (physical, mental, and emotional) experiences. The massive sums of taxpayer dollars could have been used to create well-paying jobs repairing and rebuilding America’s crumbling public facilities—its schools, water/sewage systems, public transit, roads, bridges, airports, ports, clinics, libraries, and parks. Knee-jerk militarism and corporatism do nothing to improve the quality of life in our country or to promote global security.

Our government spends tens of billions of dollars on intelligence gathering and strategic planning. Yet, our government officials seem to have underestimated the impact that these policies have on our adversaries abroad. Our vulnerabilities have revealed themselves through profitable fear-mongering. One significant terror attack can, once again, turn our country upside–down and continue to divert our resources and attention away from very serious health and safety priorities that can save countless American lives here at home.

Osama bin Laden wanted economic damage and suffering in the U.S. after 9/11 far more than he wanted to cause a mass loss of life. He is getting his wish for U.S. immolation, year after year.

When is our government going to admit that fighting terror with more mechanized state terror is not working? We have much more to lose than those adversaries in these impoverished countries. They are there every day and night, knowing their terrain, their tribes, and how to appeal to cultural stamina for repelling foreign invaders.

Some have asserted that all this American “blood and treasure” was worth it because there has not been another 9/11. However, this has been rebuked by subsequent evidence that has shown that al-Qaeda had no second strike capability in the U.S. The hijackings on 9/11 revealed the many weaknesses in aviation security, from a lack of proper screenings to unhardened cockpit doors to government agencies not sharing counterterrorism intelligence.

Unfortunately, there is no indication that the Obama administration has any diplomatic plan to extricate our country from these uncontrollable vortexes, including Hillary Clinton’s undeclared, unfunded war on Libya and the chaotic, violent aftermath that has spread into central Africa.

There needs to be a stronger focus on humanitarian programs to help those suffering from the death and destruction in their communities and countries. That is the real way to win “hearts and minds” and for those with a focus on the bottom-line, it is far cheaper in the long run to fund development in these regions than it is to fund our ever-growing militarism. As Ashraf Ghani has explained well before being elected President of Afghanistan, justice is the best answer to terrorism. The alternative is perpetual, expanding wars with no exit strategy.

Maybe our peace-waging groups such as Veterans for Peace, composed of men and women who have served in hot wars, can gain access to some presidential candidates, such as Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), former Governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD), and James Webb (former Senator (D-VA) and Secretary of the Navy), who could launch a serious national focus on replacing the failed militarization of foreign policy that is eating away at our country’s future.

The post Ralph Nader: Smarter Foreign Policies Or Bigger Blowbacks? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

While the world’s attention is on Greece this week, a very interesting development is taking place in the usually sleeping capital of Armenia, as citizens are taking to the streets to protest against rising electricity prices brought about by a Russian state-owned company.

For years now, it is has been the policy of the Kremlin to lock down neighboring countries into aggressive energy deals, from pipelines to gas storage and distribution to electricity generation. The problem with having this kind of leverage is that there can be extraordinary political costs when market conditions don’t match the political imperative, you end up with deeply upset local populations protesting against the perceived abuses of Russia’s energy imperialism.

While the Russian state media is working hard to spin these protests into yet another ‘Western NGO conspiracy,’ the situation is quickly becoming concerning.

More details from VICE News:

The protests began at the end of June after the government announced that electricity prices would be raised by 16 percent in August. The demonstrations often were referred to on social media as Electric Yerevan. After removing demonstrators today, Baghramian Avenue was reportedly reopened.

Demonstrations took a turn on June 24, when police used force in an attempt to break up the movement. Authorities fired water canons at the participants and arrested more than 200 people. Both police and demonstrators were reportedly injured during the clashes.

Following the controversial crackdown, Prime Minister Hovik Abrahamyan said demonstrators were violating the country’s constitution and that the government would not change its decision. He did, however, offer the possibility of providing compensation as relief for those unable to afford the price hike. President Serge Sarkisian also said Armenia would “bear the burden” of rate hikes for an unspecified length of time.

Electric Networks of Armenia — the nation’s power grid — requested the price increase. Much like other industrial interests in Armenia, the power grid is fully controlled by a Russian company, RAO UES. The power grid defended the request by claiming that overall losses were sparked by low profits and debt, RFE/RL reported.

The post Why Armenia Is Rebelling Against Putin – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The human body is inhabited by billions of symbiotic bacteria, carrying a diversity that is unique to each individual. The microbiota is involved in many mechanisms, including digestion, vitamin synthesis and host defense.

It is well established that a loss of bacterial symbionts promotes the development of allergies. Scientists at Helmholtz Zentrum Munich, at the Technical University of Munich (TUM), and Institut Pasteur in Paris have succeeded in explaining this phenomenon, and demonstrate how the microbiota acts on the balance of the immune system: the presence of microbes specifically blocks the immune cells responsible for triggering allergies.

The results are published in the journal Science.

The hygiene hypothesis suggests a link between the decline in infectious diseases and the increase in allergic diseases in industrialized countries. Improvements in hygiene levels necessarily lead to reduced contact with microbes that is paralleled by an increased incidence in allergic and autoimmune diseases, such as type 1 diabetes. Epidemiological studies have substantiated this hypothesis, by showing that children living in contact with farm animals – and therefore with more microbial agents – develop fewer allergies during their lifetime.

Conversely, experimental studies have shown that administering antibiotics to mice within the first days of life results in a loss of microbiota, and subsequently, in an increased incidence in allergy. However, until now, the biological mechanisms underlying this phenomenon remained unclear.

Microbiota is essential for preventing allergies

In this study published in Science, the team around Dr. Caspar Ohnmacht at Center of Allergy and Environment (ZAUM) of Technical University of Munich and Helmholtz Zentrum Munich and around Gérard Eberl, head of the Microenvironment and Immunity Unit at the Institut Pasteur, shows that, in mice, symbiotic intestinal microbes act on the immune system by blocking allergic reactions. Several types of immune response can be generated in order to defend the organism. The presence of bacterial or fungal microbes provokes a response from immune cells known as type 3 cells. These immune cells coordinate the phagocytosis and killing of the microbes.

However, in the case of infection by pathogenic agents that are too large to be handled by type 3 cells (such as parasitic worms and certain allergens), the cells that organize the elimination of the pathogen, but also allergic reactions, are known as type 2 cells. In this study, scientists at the Institut Pasteur have shown that type 3 cells activated during a microbial aggression act directly on type 2 cells and block their activity. Type 2 cells are consequently unable to generate allergic immune responses.

This work demonstrates that the microbiota indirectly regulates type 2 immune responses by inducing type 3 cells.

These results explain how an imbalance in microbiota triggers an exaggerated type 2 immune response normally used to fight large parasites, but that also leads to allergic responses.

According to Ohnmacht, “These findings represent an important milestone in understanding the balance between our various defense mechanisms. In terms of allergy treatment, a hitherto unexplored therapeutic approach consists therefore in stimulating type 3 cells by mimicking a microbial antigen in order to block allergy-causing type 2 cells.”

The post Exploring Role Of Microbiota In Preventing Allergies appeared first on Eurasia Review.

NASA has taken a key step forward in the goal to eventually land a person on Mars. Robert Behnken, Sunita Williams, Eric Boe and Douglas Hurley will train to fly to space on commercial crew vehicles, NASA said.

“We are on a journey to Mars, and in order to meet our goals for sending American astronauts to the Red Planet in the 2030s, we need to be able to focus both on deep space and the groundbreaking work being done on the International Space Station,” said NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden, CNN reported.

The commercial crew initiative is part of the agency’s plan to return space launches to US soil. NASA is working towards a 2017 launch.

“For as long as I’ve been administrator, President Obama has made it very clear that returning the launches of American astronauts to American soil is a top priority,” Bolden said.

Training for these flights starts immediately and will create more jobs, officials said. More than 350 American companies in 36 states are working on the commercial crew initiative.

“There are real economic benefits to bolstering America’s emerging commercial space market,” Bolden said. “Every dollar we invest in commercial crew is a dollar we invest in ourselves, rather than in the Russian economy.”

It costs $76 million per astronaut to fly on a Russian spacecraft, Bolden said. The average cost on an American-owned aircraft will be $58 million per astronaut.

The post NASA Closer To Sending Astronauts To Mars appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By K. P. Fabian

Mainstream international media led by BBC and Der Spiegel have worked hard to give the impression that the crisis is all about profligacy and dishonesty on the part of Greece, which deserves stern punishment at the hands of the paragons of financial prudence and virtue led by Germany, Netherlands, Finland and others in the same virtuous category.

Such an impression is wrong on three counts. First, Germany itself benefitted significantly from a debt-write off in 1953. Second, the austerity medication administered by the creditor troika of Eurozone members led by Germany, the ECB (European Central Bank), and the IMF (International Monetary Fund) has proved poisonous. Greece’s economy shrank by 25 per cent in five years and the unemployment rate went up to 20 per cent, with 50 per cent of the youth being unemployed. And third, what Chancellor Merkel of Germany is doing is contrary to the European Union’s stated goals and norms.

The official European Union (EU) website states:

“The EU is based on the rule of law: everything that it does is founded on treaties, voluntarily and democratically agreed by all member countries. These binding agreements set out the EU’s goals in its many areas of activity.” (emphasis added.)

It was right on the part of the Greek Prime Minister to consult his people. It is difficult to understand why Germany is upset about the referendum. What is even more inexplicable is Merkel and others resenting the result of the referendum. If Prime Minister Tsipras had lost the referendum, his adversaries in Bonn, Brussels, and Frankfurt would have been very pleased. In that case, they would have been able to continue administering the same medication in bigger doses. They behave like a team of doctors who claimed that the operation was successful though the patient died.

To recapitulate the events of the last few days: Despite a huge disinformation campaign unleashed by the troika to frighten the Greek voter that a ‘no’ vote would take Greece out of Euro/EU, more than 61 per cent supported their government’s stand. After the referendum results were announced, former Prime Minister Antonis Samaras, whose government had meekly accepted the medication despite clear signs of its not working, has resigned from the leadership of his party. The Greek media controlled by the oligarchs had worked overtime for a ‘yes’ vote. Following his victory, Prime Minister Tsipras reached out to the opposition and obtained their support for a strategy to negotiate with the troika.

The IMF has come out with a paper pointing out that the debt owed by Greece (Euro 320 billion, working out to more than Euro 29,000 per capita) is unsustainable and, avoiding plain English as is customary, has hinted that either a write off of a part of the debt or restructuring involving a longer repayment time frame is necessary. This finding could and should have been brought out long ago as it has been obvious all along.

The ECB has been callous enough to refuse additional money to Greek banks, raising the risk of a total collapse of the country’s banking system and economy. In fact, the troika wants the sword of Damocles to hang over Greece as it begs for money from creditors. This is financial terrorism. In Greece normal life has come to a halt. People cannot afford to go to a café as they cannot afford VAT at 23 per cent. Small businesses run the risk of shutting down as there are no customers. As Greece imports fuel and food, there is risk of starvation.

There was a summit of the Euro-19 on July 6. Before that there was a meeting of finance ministers attended by Euclid Tsakalatos, the new finance minister who succeeded Yanis Varoufakis. Varoufakis was seen by his peers as rather abrasive and not humble enough for a debtor. For his part, he had said that he would consider the loathing of his peers as a badge of honour. Tsakalatos did not formally hand in any proposal when he met the Euro finance ministers on July 7 and a furious troika issued an ultimatum asking for a written proposal in 48 hours.

Greece handed over a proposal on July 8, which will be considered by the creditor-troika. If the troika finds the proposal acceptable, there will be a summit on July 12 of the Euro-19 to accept that recommendation. If the finance ministers do not find the proposal acceptable, instead of a summit of Euro-19, there will be a summit of EU-28, probably to bring matters to a head. The troika seems to calculate that if ECB stops sending money, Greece will be forced to print its own money and thus will be out of the Euro.

Obviously, the troika does not want to show the courtesy of discussing with Greece its proposal. By threatening to accept or reject the proposal the troika is asking for surrender. But the troika may have misread the situation. What it does not seem to have taken into account is the probability of Greece’s repudiation of its debt or asking creditors to wait for 40 years. What can the creditors do to punish and compel payment? Not much.

There are grave geopolitical risks in a Grexit about which some among the troika talk in too relaxed a manner. If Greece walks out repudiating its debt, the European financial system will be in trouble. There can be an assault on Spain and Italy by speculators and the ECB does not have the money to go to their rescue.

There is another geopolitical risk. Tsipras telephoned President Putin after the referendum; we do not know what transpired between them. Tsipras then telephoned President Obama requesting him to put some pressure on Merkel. Obama called up Merkel and asked her to be a little more accommodative as there is the risk of the Russians getting a foothold in the eastern Mediterranean.

There is high risk for Merkel. It was her predecessor Helmut Kohl who took the lead in introducing the Euro in 1999. If the Euro project fails, Merkel’s position might be in danger. The problem with Merkel is that so far she has not addressed the problem head on. She could have changed the medication, but she has been stubborn.
Eminent economists like Paul Krugman have argued convincingly for changing the medication. Thomas Picketty, the author of Capital in the 21st century,and Jeffrey Sachs along with other leading economists, have made this appeal in public:

“Together we urge Chancellor Merkel and the Troika to consider a course correction, to avoid further disaster and enable Greece to remain in the eurozone. Right now, the Greek government is being asked to put a gun to its head and pull the trigger. Sadly, the bullet will not only kill off Greece’s future in Europe. The collateral damage will kill the eurozone as a beacon of hope, democracy and prosperity, and could lead to far-reaching economic consequences across the world. In the 1950s Europe was founded on the forgiveness of past debts, notably Germany’s, which generated a massive contribution to post-war economic growth and peace. Today we need to restructure and reduce Greek debt….” (emphasis added.)

Will Europe sleepwalk into a Grexit and the attendant collapse of Euro and the European Union as it did in World War I about a hundred years ago? The answer depends mainly on Chancellor Merkel.

My personal guess is that sanity will prevail and there will be no Grexit. The repercussions of a Grexit can do significant damage to the global economy and India would not be immune.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India

Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/TheEuroGreece-CrisisWhatNext_kpfabian_090715.html

The post The Euro-Greece-Crisis: What Next? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Twelve people were killed and three injured in the explosion of an oil pipeline of the Italian energy company Eni in southern Nigeria, the company said in a statement.

The victims were members of a maintenance crew, hired from a local services company. The crew was necessary after “the pipeline was damaged by acts of sabotage”, Eni said, adding that local authorities are investigating the incident.

The blast occurred yesterday at the site of the repair works of the Tebidaba-Clough Creek line, an oil pipeline in Nigeria’s onshore Niger Delta, in the past targeted by militants of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) that was formed to denounce the economic exploitation of the region by multinationals.

The post Nigeria: Oil Pipeline Blast Kills 12 appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The government of President Salva Kiir “has abdicated its responsibilities, failed to protect its citizens, and squandered its legitimacy”, said the US national security adviser Susan Rice. “Instead of negotiating a resolution to the conflict, it has subverted democracy and unilaterally extended its mandate”.

This stance taken by the US marks the lowest point in relations between Washington and the government of South Sudan, which achieved independence also thanks to backing from the United States.

The statement was released yesterday on the 4th anniversary of the nation’s independence from Khartoum. A recurrence conditioned by the absence of an immediate prospect of peace after 19 months of conflict between Kiir’s loyalists and rebels tied to his former deputy Riek Machar.

The post US Says South Sudan Government Has ‘Squandered’ Legitimacy appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Italian oil and gas company Eni said it has started production of the giant gas field Perla, located in the Gulf of Venezuela, 50 kilometers offshore.

The first production well has been opened and is currently in the clean-up phase, Eni said.

Perla is the largest offshore gas field discovered to date in Latin America and the first gas field to be brought to production offshore Venezuela.

The field is located in the Cardón IV Block operated by “Cardón IV S.A.”, a company jointly owned by Eni (50%) and Repsol (50%).

According to Eni, Perla currently holds 17 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas in place, which corresponds to 3.1 billion of barrels of oil equivalent (boe), with additional potential. The reservoir consists of Mio-Oligocene age carbonates with excellent characteristics, located at approximately 3,000 meters below sea level, at a water depth of 60 meters. The best wells are estimated to produce over 150 million standard cubic feet per day (Mscfd) each.

The development of Perla has been planned in three phases to optimize time to market and investment pace: Phase 1 (Early Production) has a production plateau of about 450 Mscfd (corresponding to approx. 40,000 boed net to Eni) increased from the 300 Mscfd initially planned, Phase 2 has a plateau of 800 Mscfd from 2017 (corresponding to approx. 73,000 boed net to Eni) and Phase 3 has a plateau of 1,200 Mscfd from 2020 (corresponding to approx. 110,000 boed net to Eni).

According to Eni CEO, Claudio Descalzi, “Eni has reached another milestone with the production start-up of the Perla offshore field, in line with the timing presented to the market in March during the Strategy presentation. Perla was for Eni one of the most significant start-up projects of 2015, and the today result confirms the validity of our development model that allowed us to reach production in an industry-leading time to market”.

The development plan includes four light offshore platforms linked by a 30‘ pipeline to a Central Processing Facility (CPF) located onshore at Punto Fijo (Paraguaná Peninsula) and 21 producer wells. In the CPF two treatment trains have been installed with the capability of handling 150 Mscfd and 300 Mscfd each.

The development of the field, discovered in late 2009, was completed in 5 years, an industry-leading time to market. This excellent performance was achieved thanks to an extensive use of pre-pack modules in the realization of the onshore gas treatment trains, in order to minimize construction works.

Cardón IV signed a Gas Sales Agreement with PDVSA for all three phases, until 2036. The gas will be mainly used by PDVSA for the domestic market.

Eni said its other operations in Venezuela include the Junín-5 heavy oil block (PDVSA 60%, Eni 40%), located in the Orinoco Oil Belt, which holds 35 billion barrels of certified oil in place. Junín-5 production started in March 2013. In addition, Eni holds a 26% stake in PetroSucre, the operating company which operates the offshore Corocoro oil field, (PDVSA holds the remaining 74%).

Eni said its current net production in Venezuela is approximately 12,000 boed and is expected to exceed 50,000 boed by year end, mainly due to the increase in production from Perla.

The post Venezuela: Eni Starts Production At Giant Offshore Perla Gas Field appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Marika Sosnowski*

The coalition of several dozen local insurgent groups, known as ‘the Southern Front’, is consolidating its control in and around Daraa and the Houran Plain in Syria. While the Southern Front is not a cohesive organization but instead an alliance of units that are each individually linked to and funded by the Western- and Arab-backed Military Operations Center (MOC) in Amman, the coalition has in recent months shown itself to be adept in understanding the importance of establishing and maintaining a legitimate and authoritative justice provider. This is because a strong judiciary shows Syrians, and the world, that the Syrian opposition can effectively govern areas under its control. A strong judiciary also makes the Southern Front one of the few viable alternatives to the Assad regime that has emerged from this crisis.

Around November 2014, financial and military setbacks forced Jabhat al-Nusra, which also has a strong presence in the south, into an alliance with the Southern Front and other Islamists. The alliance consolidated the various Hay’at Al Sharia, or Islamic Justice Committees, that had been operating in the Southern Front’s area of control, into one Dar al-‘Adl known as the Dar al-‘Adl fi al-Hawran, or the Houran Courthouse, which is located in Gharz, southern Syria. Before that, the Islamic Justice Committees of the Southern Front had used a mix of tribal, Islamic, and customary law to maintain order, with some success.

While in many ways the union is borne out of strategic necessity the real difference with the formation of the Dar al-‘Adl is that nearly all the factions seem to back it, whereas the courts in the north are more fragmented and affiliated with smaller sets of armed groups. As such, the northern courts do not command the same authority or legitimacy with Syrians that the southern court seems to be garnering. Additionally, the relative strength of the Southern Front, gained in part through the consistent coordination and backing of the MOC, have enabled the creation of a unified court that includes groups such as al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham. The formation of the court draws on lessons learned from the north in seeking to prevent the Islamists from creating their own systems of governance.

In a display of both military power and good faith, the groups negotiated to appoint sixteen judges to the court. Half were chosen by the Southern Front with al-Nusra appointing four and the remainder selected by other Islamist groups that are part of the alliance, Harakat al-Muthana and Ahrar al-Sham. It is not clear whether the judges are independent or simply members of their respective factions. However, the Courthouse is not wholly religious or civil, following the original Justice Committees by using tribal, Islamic, and customary law to deal with cases common in rebel-held Syria. These include military, criminal, and administrative matters, as well as reconciling disputes involving civilians and armed factions. For example, once the court was established detainees being held by the various factions were handed over to the court for sentencing and detention. The Court also seems to be playing an active mediation role between armed factions, such as the Shohadaa al-Yarmouk Brigade and Jabhat al-Nusra. In the aftermath of a military operation in April to secure the Nasib border crossing with Jordan, the Court was also charged with establishing a judicial committee to record the claims of people affected during the operation.

While each faction would certainly prefer sole-control, the establishment of the Houran Court reflects a necessary practicality. With all sides unable to decisively establish dominance over the others on the battlefield, they have been compelled into compromise. Additionally, the establishment of one main justice provider is part of a pragmatic effort by the Southern Front to win civilian hearts and minds. External backers of the revolution may also see the Court as a relative success story for pragmatism showing that the Syrian opposition can create, ‘a “third way” of local governance that threatens Bashar al-Assad’s depiction of the Syrian opposition movement as extremists and terrorists.’

The effectiveness of the Courthouse in Houran in upholding and enforcing the law is in stark contrast to the situation in the north of Syria. In rebel-held Idlib and Aleppo, many courts have been essentially white-anted by the armed groups or other power brokers in town making it impossible for them to enforce the law. While some courts operating in rebel-held areas, such as those established in the image of armed groups like the Islamic Front’s Aleppo Sharia Court, have the ways and means to enforce their rulings, other courts, such as the Unified Judicial Council that operated until February 2014 in Aleppo and northern Idlib, have little to no ability to implement the law without the support of an armed group.

Additionally, because a cohesive legal structure is essential to effective governance, local communities need to establish and develop one main justice provider (and an associated legal hierarchy) as well as decide on one consistent body of law to deal with legal issues. In Kafr Nobel and Saraqib in northern Idlib province, for example, there are as many as five justice providers including a Sharia Court, the local police force and a Security Committee. Additionally, there is as yet no opposition agreement on whether pre-Ba’athist Syrian Law, the Unified Arab Code or Sharia law should be used to arbitrate disputes. Particularly regarding civil matters, the opinion of local tribal leaders also remains authoritative.

The obstacles that plague the establishment of the rule of law in northern Syria don’t seem to be happening with the Dar al-Adl in the south. Groups have so far honoured the courts decisions including cases of criminal allegations against their own members. The Court also seems to be using a consistent body of law that builds on the work of the Southern Front’s original Justice Committees. However, at this stage, the Court remains firmly wedded to its armed backers.

In wartime, fortunes are won and lost on the battlefield. As the most recent battle for control of Daraa unfolds, it will be interesting to see how military results affect the Southern Front’s relationship with its Islamist partners. If the Southern Front gains militarily, its professed nationalist and democratic agenda could offer new hope for a Syrian opposition that, until relatively recently, was considered by many as either extremist or fratricidal.

*Marika Sosnowski is a Middle East researcher. She has taught the history and politics of the region at a number of universities and is a regular guest on Melbourne radio station Triple R.

The post Syrian Southern Front: Why It Offers Better Justice And Hope Than Northern Front – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Introduction

Class conflict is always present, endemic, in Latin America. What changes, over time, is the character of the class struggle. By ‘character’ we mean, the principal classes and leaders, who direct in the struggle, set the political agenda and define the parameters of socio-economic changes.

What is striking about the class struggle in Latin America, over the past decade and a half, is its changing character. Though different forms of class struggle overlap in most periods, one or another of three forms of class struggle predominate. Though there is no uniform pattern of class struggle throughout Latin America, for analytical purposes, we can identify the predominance of one type or another in different time frames.

We will examine class struggle in four countries, which best illustrate the variety of class struggles, the changes in class struggle and the dominant tendencies in the current period.

We have chosen to examine the class struggle in five countries: Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador. Each of these countries illustrates the swings and changes in the nature of the class struggle.

Analytical Categories

We develop our conception of class struggle along two dimensions; according to the leading class and the time frame in which it exercises predominance; and secondly, the scope and depth (degree of change) of the class struggle.

According to our typology, there are three types of class struggle:

1. The advance class struggle led by popular classes from below (by popular classes, we including workers, peasants, self-employed, artisans.

2. The moderate class struggle led by the middle class (professionals, middle and high – level public employees, local, medium and small business people and farmers).

3. The regressive class struggle led by the upper class and affluent middle class (multi- national corporations, bankers, international financial institutions, agro-mining elites, the imperial state and the military elite).

Over the past decade and a half a rough pattern has emerged, in which one or another type of class struggle has predominated. Between 2000-2005 the class struggle from below predominated. The popular classes led a struggle for radical structural change via militant methods – including popular uprisings.

Between 2006-2013 moderate class struggles predominated, as middle class center-left politicians took the lead and mediated demands between capital and labor, diverting popular struggles from structural changes to wage salary and pension issues,to increases in social expenditures and private consumtion and developing public-private partnerships.

From 2013 to the present ,(2016), the upper class struggle has predominated imposing austerity programs, increasing subsidies and incentives for the MNC, repressing class struggles from below, liberalizing the economy and moving toward free trade agreements with the imperial countries.

We will proceed to apply this typology to the four case studies. We will begin by examining the historical antecedents (prior to 2000) which established the framework for the more recent (15 year) cycle of class struggle.

Brazil: Corporatism and Class Struggle

Two types of class struggle have dominated Brazilian social relations in recent decades. For over two decades of military dictatorships(1964-1984), the dominant classes waged war on the workers, employees and peasants, imposing tripartite agreements between state, capitalists and appointed “union” leaders. The absence of authentic class based unions and the economic crises of the early 1980’s, set in motion the emergence of the ‘new unionism’. The CUT, based on heavy industry and the MST, the rural landless workers movement, in the rural areas, emerged as leading forces in the class struggle. The deteriorating political control of the military, led to opposition from two directions: (1) the agro-mineral and export bourgeoisie which sought to impose a civilian-electoral regime to pursue a neo-liberal economic development strategy, (2) the new class based unionism which sought to democratize and expand the public ownership of the means of production.
The class based CUT allied with the liberal bourgeoisie and defeated the corporatist, military backed candidates of the Right. In other words the combined class struggle from below and from above, secured electoral democracy and the ascendancy of the neo-liberal bourgeoisie.

Under the neo-liberal regimes three changes took place which further conditioned the class struggle from below.

1. The CUT secured legality and collective bargaining rights and became institutionalized.

2. The CUT and the MST backed the newly formed Workers Party (PT), a party which was dominated by leftist middle class professionals’ intent on taking power through electoral processes.

3. The CUT increasingly depended on financing by the Ministry of Labor, while the PT increasingly looked toward private contractors to finance their election campaigns.

From the mid-nineties to the election of Lula DaSilva in 2002, the CUT and the MST, alternated direct action and (strikes and land occupations) with electoral politics – backing the candidates of the PT, which increasing sought to moderate class disputes. Class struggle from below intensified during the impeachment of neo-liberal President Collar. However, once ousted, the CUT moderated the struggle from below.

With the hyperinflation of the 1990’s, the CUT and MST engaged in defensive class struggles opening the way for the election of hardline neo-liberal Fernando Henrique Cardoso.

Under his presidency a severe “adjustment” prejudicing workers was implemented to end inflation. Strategic sectors of the agro-mineral sector were privatized. Lucrative public oil and mining enterprises were privatized and banks were denationalized; agro-business took center stage.

The class struggle from ‘below’ intensified , while Cardoso supported the class struggle from above for capital.
MST led land occupations intensified as did violent repression; workers strikes and popular discontent multiplied.
The PT responded by harnessing the class struggle to its electoral strategy. The PT also deepened its ties to private contractors; and replaced its social democratic program with a clientelistic version of neo-liberalism.

The rising tide of class struggle from below lead to the Presidential victory of the PT, whose economic program was based on IMF agreements and ties to the dominant classes.

Under the PT, the class struggle from below dissipated. The MST and the CUT subordinated their struggles to the PT which promoted negotiated solutions with the capitalist class. “Moderate class struggle” excluded structural changes and revolved on incremental changes of wages and consumption and increases in poverty spending.

The electoral success of the PT depended on ever greater financing by private contractors based on awarding billion reales public contracts for multi-million bribes. The lower class vote was secured by a billion dollar antipoverty program and the vote-getting campaigns of the CUT and MST. The high price of export commodities based on the booming Asian market, provided a vast increase in state revenues to finance capital loans and social welfare.

“Moderate class struggle” led by the PT ended with the bust of the mega-commodity boom. After the second election of Dilma Rousseff(2014), the exposure of massive corruption involving the PT further exacerbated the crises and mass support.
As the economy stagnated, the PT adapted to the crises by embracing the structural adjustments of ruling class. As the PT leaders shifted to the class struggle from above they ignited protest from below among the middle class , workers and employees –and even within the PT itself. Mass demonstrations protested over the decline of public services.

By 2015 the ‘middle’ or ‘moderate’ class struggle bifurcated into a class struggle from above and ‘from below’.

Argentina: High Intensity Class Struggle

Argentina has been the center of high intensity class struggle from above and below, over the last half century. A ruling class backed military dictatorship from 1966-73 harshly repressed trade unions and their political parties (mostly left Peronist formations). In response industrial workers led major uprisings in all of the major cities (Cordoba, Rosario included), ultimately forcing the military – capitalist rulers to retreat and convoke elections.

The period between 1973-76 was a tumultuous period of rising class and guerrilla struggle, high inflation, the emergence of capitalist based death squads and successful general strikes. A situation of ‘dual power’ between factory based committees and a highly militarized state, ostensibly led by Isabel Peron and death squad leader José López Rega were ended by a bloody US backed military coup in 1976.

Between 1976-83 over 30,000 Argentines were murdered and disappeared by the military-capitalist regime.The vast majority were working class activists in factories and neighborhood organizations. The military-capitalist class victory led to the imposition of neoliberal policies and the illegalization of all workers organizations and strikes. The high intensity class struggle from above ended the class struggle from below.

The loss of authentic factory and community based workers’ leaders was a historic defeat which impacted for decades.
The subsequent military defeat of the Argentine armed forces by the British in the battle of the Malvinas, led to a negotiated transition in which the neo-liberal economic structures and military elite remained intact. The electoral parties emerged and competed for office, but offered little support to the legalized trade unions.

Between 1984-2001, Radical and Peronist Presidents pillaged the treasury, privatized and denationalized the economy, while the re-emerging rightwing Peronist trade unions engaged in ritual general strikes to defuse discontent from below and collaborated with the state.

The economic crash of 2000-2001 led to an explosion of class struggle, as thousands of factories closed and over one quarter of the labor force was unemployed.

The middle class lost their savings as banks failed. A major popular demonstration in front of the Presidential Palace (Casa Rosado) was repressed resulting in three dozen killings. In response over 2 million Argentines engaged in general strikes and uprisings, seized the Congress and besieged the banks.

Millions of unemployed and impoverished workers and middle class assemblies representing nearly 50% of the population dominated the streets. But fragmentation and sectarian disputes, prevented a serious alternative government from emerging even in the midst of intense class struggle from below.

However intense class struggle from below toppled three presidents in less than two years (2001-2002); but the mass protest remained without leaders or a hegemonic party.

In 2003 a left of center Peronist, Nestor Kirchner was elected and under the pressure of the mass movements, imposed a moratorium on debt and financed an economic recovery based on rising commodity prices and rechanneling debt payments. Unemployment and poverty levels declined sharply, as did the class struggle from below.

Between 2003-2013, middle class led class struggle emerged as the dominant feature. Militant leaders of the unemployed workers and the trade unions were co-opted. The Kirchner regime ended military impunity. It tried and jailed hundreds of military officials for human rights crimes, gaining the support of all the human rights groups.

Middle class struggle stimulated labor reforms and the recovery of capitalism; ended the capitalist crises and de-radicalized the workers struggle.The Kirchner regimes (Nestor and Cristina Fernandez)channeled the revenues from the mega-commodity boom, to increases in wages, salaries and pensions. It also subsidized and attracted foreign and domestic agro-business and mining capitalists.

By the end of the decade (2003-2013) the capitalist class felt secure – the threats from below were diluted. High growth led to increases in class struggle from above. Agro- business organized boycotts to lessen taxes; Buenos Aires business and professional groups regrouped and organized mass protests. Left parties and trade unions, co-opted or fragmented, engaged in economistic struggles. Some sectarian leftist groups, like the Workers Party even joined the rightwing demonstrations.
By 2012 the commodity boom came to an end. The rightwing dominated the political horizon. The Kirchner- Fernandez regime leaned to the Right, embracing extractive capitalism as the economic paradigm.

Between 2013-2015, the center-right and right dominated electoral politics. The trade unions were once again under the leadership of rightwing Peronists (Moyano, Barrionuevo etc.). Poplar movements were in opposition but without any significant political representation.

After a decade and a half, the cycle of the class struggle had gone round. From intense class struggle from below, to middle class mediated class struggle, to the re- emergence of the class struggle from above.

Bolivia: From Popular Uprisings to Andean Capitalism

For the better part of a half century, Bolivian had the reputation of prossessing the most combatative working class in Latin America. Led by Bolivian Labor Confederation (COB) and the mine workers, dynamite in hand, they led the revolution of 1952 which overthrew the oligarchy, nationalized the mines and, with the support of the peasantry carried out a far-reaching agrarian reform. However, in the aftermath, of the revolution, the workers and trade unions disputed power with an alliance of middle class politicians, the National Revolutionary Movements (MNR) and peasants.

The uprising and revolution were aborted. Over the following decade, pitched battles between leftist miners and a re-assembled military-peasant alliance lead to a US backed coup in 1962. The US backed Rene Barrientos as “President”. Between 1964-68 the dictatorship imposed draconian measures on the mining communities and liberalized the economy, by decreeing IMF structural reforms.

In reaction a nationalist –military revolt led by General Ovando succeeded to power and proposed to nationalize Gulf oil.
In 1970 a major working class revolt installed J. J. Torres to power. Even more important the uprising installed a worker-peasant legislative assembly. With a majority of worker legislators and a substantial minority of peasants, the ‘”Popular Assembly” proceeded to pass radical legislation, nationalizing major banks, resources and factories. A sharp polarization resulted. While civil society moved to the radical left, the state apparatus, the military, moved toward the right. The workers’ parties possessed radical programs, the right monopolized arms.

In 1971 the Torres regime was overthrown, the workers’ Assembly dissolved, the trade union illegalized, many militants were killed, jailed and exiled.

From 1972-2000, military rulers, rightwing and center-left regimes alternated in power ru and reversed the changes instituted by the 1952 revolution. Radical or revolutionary movements and trade unions demonstrated a great capacity for class struggle and ability to overthrow regimes, but were incapably of taking power and ruling. A practice which continued in the new century.

Between 2000-2005 major popular rebellions took place, including the ‘water-war’ in Cochabamba in 2000; a mass worker peasant uprising in La Paz in 2003 which ousted neo- liberal incumbent President Sanchez de Lozado; and a second uprising in 2005 which drove incumbent President Carlos Mesa from power and led to new elections and the victory of radical coca peasant leader Evo Morales to the Presidency.

From 2006-2015 and continuing forward. Morales and his MAS party (Movement to Socialism) ruled, ending the period of intense class struggle and popular uprisings.

Morales’ government implemented a series of piecemeal socio-economic reforms and cultural changes, while incorporating and co-opting peasant movement and trade union leaders. The net effect was to de-radicalize popular movements in civil society.

The key to the stability, continuity and re-election of Morales was his ability to separate socio-economic and culture reforms from radical structural changes. In the process, Morales secured the electoral support of the mass of peasants and workers, isolated the more radical sectors and ensured that the class struggle would revolve around short term wage and salary issues that would not endanger the stability of the government.

The key to the recurrent revolutionary class struggle in Bolivia was the fusion of a multiplicity of demands. High intensity class struggle resulted from the multiple points of social-ethnic, national and cultural oppression and class exploitation. Immediate economic demands were linked to class struggles for long-term, large scale systemic changes.

The major protagonists of the social upheavals suffered from and demanded an end to deep and pervasive ethno-racial discrimination and indignities. They rejected foreign capitalist pillage of natural resources and wealth which provided no positive returns for the mining and rural communities. They fought for Indian self-rule and presence in government. They resented the denial of symbolic Indian presence in public or private spaces.

Low wages relative to profits and hazardous employment with no compensatory payments radicalized the miners. In this context where workers and Indians were denied governmental access and representation, they relied on direct action- popular upheavals and demands for social revolution were the route to secure social justice.

The coming to power of Evo Morales opened the door to a new kind of mass politics, based essentially on his ability to fragment demands. He implemented cultural and economic reforms and neutralized demands for socio-economic revolution.

President Morales convoked a new constitutionals assembly which included a strong representation of Indian delegates.Bolivia was renamed a ‘Plurinational’ State. Formal recognition and approval of the ‘autonomy’ of Indian nations was approved. He frequently met and consulted with Indian leaders.Symbolic representation deradicalized the indian movements.

The government took majority shares in joint ventures with gas and oil corporations and increased the royalty and tax rates on profits of mining companies.Morales rejected outright nationalization under workers’ control.

Morales denounced imperialist intervention in Bolivia and elsewhere, and expelled US Ambassador Goldberg for plotting a coup with the extreme right opposition in Santa Cruz. He expelled the Drug Enforcement Agency and the US military mission for meddling in internal affairs.

He increased salaries and wages, including the minimum incrementally each year between 5% and 10%, and social spending.

These reforms were compatible with long-term contracts with dozens of major foreign multi-national mining companies which continued to reap and remit double digit profits. Though the government claimed to ‘nationalize’ foreign owned mining companies, in most cases it meant simply higher tax rates, compatible with the rates in the major capitalist countries. The revolutionary demands to socialize the ‘commanding heights of the economy’ faded and revolutionary mass energies were diverted into collective bargaining agreements.

While the government paid lip service to and celebrated indigenous culture, all the government’s major decisions were made by mestizo and “European” descended technocrats. MAS bureaucrats over-ruled local assemblies in the selection and election of candidates.

While government legislation proposed ‘land reform’ the ‘hundred families’ in Santa Cruz still controlled vast plantations, dominating the agro-export economy.They continued recibing the vast majority of government credits and subsidies Poverty and extreme poverty was reduced but still affected the majority of Indians. Public lands, offered for Indian settlement were located far from markets and with few support resources.As a result few families were resettled.

While Evo articulated an anti-imperialist discourse to the people he constantly travelled abroad to Europe seeking and signing off on lucrative private investment deals.

Corruption crept into the MAS party and pervaded its officials in Cochabamba, El Alto and La Paz.

The net effect of Evo’s domestic reform and cultural inclusive agenda was to neutralize and marginalize radical critiques of his macro-economic adaptation to foreign capital.

His affirmation of Indian culture neutralized the opposition of Indian-peasants and farmworkers to the euro-Bolivian plantation owners who prospered under his ‘extractive export strategy’.

The class struggle focused on narrow economic issues directed by trade union leaders (COB) who consulted and negotiated agreements in accordance with Evo’s economic guidelines.

Under President Morales, the class struggle from below diminished; popular rebellions disappeared; and collective bargaining took center stage. The Morales decade witnessed the lowest intensity of class struggle in a century.

The contrast between the 1995-2005 decade and the 2006-2015 period is striking. While the earlier period under euro-Bolivian rulers witnessed at least several general strikes and popular uprising. During the later decade there were none. Even the hostile, racist landed and mining oligarchy of Santa Cruz eventually came to political agreements and ran on joint electoral slates with the MAS, recognizing the benefits of fiscal conservatism, social stability, capitalist prosperity and class peace.

Under Morales conservative fiscal regime, Bolivia foreign reserves increased from under $4 billion to over $15 billion – an achievement which pleased the World Bank but left the vast majority of peasants still below the poverty line.

In large part the success of Evo in defusing the class struggle and channeling ‘radicalism’ into safe channels was due to the incremental changes which were underwritten by the mega- commodity boom – the decade long rise in commodity prices.
Iron, oil, tin, gold, lithium, soya prices soared and allowed Morales to increase state expenditures and wages, without affecting the wealth and profits of the agro-mineral elite. As the mega boom ended in 2013-2015, and nepotism and corruption in official circles flourished, the MAS party lost provincial and municipal elections in major cities. The MAS regime plagued by corruption scandals attempted to foist unpopular candidates on the mass base and lost. The main opposition was from the center-right middle class. The dormant and copted COB and peasant movements continued to back Morales but faced an increasingly rebellious rank and file. The electoral decline may to foretell a revival of the radical class struggle.

Ecuador: The Emergence of Middle Class Radicalism

Ecuador has a long history of palace coups of little social-economic consequences, up until the first half-decade of the 21st century.

The prelude to the popular upheavals of the recent period was a ‘decade of infamy’. Rightwing oligarchical parties alternated in power, pillaging billions from the national treasury. Overseas bankers granted high risk loans which were transferred to overseas accounts. Major oil companies, namely Texaco, exploited and contaminated large tracts of land, and water, with impunity. Client regimes granted the US a major military bases in Manta, from which it violated Ecuadorean air and maritime sovereignty. Ecuador surrendered its currency and dollarized the economy, eliminating its capacity to elaborate sovereign monetary policy.

The class-ethnic struggle in Ecuador is deeply contradictory. CONAIE (Indigenous, Nationalities Confederation of Ecuador founded in 1986), led major uprisings in the 1990’s and was the driving force in toppling oligarch Jamil Mahuad in 2000. Yet it allied with rightwing Colonel Lucio Gutiérrez and formed a three person junta which eventually gave in to US pressures and allowed vice president and oligarch, Gustavo Noboa to assume the Presidency.

In the run-up to the Presidential elections of 2002, CONAIE and the trade union led by the oil and electrical workers unions intensified the class struggle and mobilized the working class and Indian communities. However, in the 2002 presidential elections CONAIE’s political arm Pachakutik and most of the militant trade unions backed Lucio Gutierrez. Once elected Gutierrez embraced the agenda of the Washington Consensus, privatized strategic sectors of the economy and backed US policy against Venezuela and other progressive governments in the region. Gutierrez arrested and dismissed militant oil worker leaders and promoted agro-mineral exploitation of Indian territory.

Despite CONAIE’s eventual disaffection, Pachakutik remained in the government up until Gutierrez was ousted in 2005 by a movement largely made up of a disaffected middle class ‘citizens movement’.

Subsequently,during the 2005 elections, the trade unions and CONAIE backed Rafael Correa. Less than two years later they denounced him for supporting petroleum company exploitation of regions adjoining Indian nations.

CONAIE and the trade unions intensified their opposition in 2008 precisely when Correa declared the national debt illegitimate and defaulted on Ecuador’s $3 billion dollars debt and reduced bond payments by 60%.CONAIE and Pachakutik were marginalized because of their opportunist alliances with Gutierrez. Their attacks on Correa, as he proceeded to increase social expenditures and infrastructure investments in the interior further diminished their strength. In the elections for a Constituent Assembly, Pachakutik barely received 2% of the vote.

While the trade unions and CONAIE continued to mobilize in support of ethno-class demands, Correa increased support among Indian communities via infrastructure programs financed by the mega-commodity boom, large scale loans from China and the reduction of debt payments.

Faced with declining support from the popular classes, CONAIE and sections of the trade unions supported a US backed police coup attempt on September 30, 2010. Pachakutik leader Clever Jimenez called the right wing coup a “just action”, while tens of thousands of people demonstrated their support for Correa and his Country Alliance Party (Alianza PAIS).
Correa’s “Citizen Revolution” (Revolucion Ciudadana) is essentially based on the deepening of the extinctive capitalist developmental model rooted in mining, oil, hydro electrical power and bananas.

During the mega commodity boom between 2006-2012, Correa expanded health, education and welfare provisions, while limiting the power of the coastal elite in Guayaquil.

With the end of the boom and decline in prices, Correa attempted to weaken left and trade union opposition by passing restrictive labor legislation and extending petrol exploration into the Indian highlands.

In November 2013, trade unions, especially in the public sector formed a ‘United Workers Front’ to protest against Correa’s legislation designed to curtail the organization of independent public sector unions.

In the 2014 municipal elections the rightwing oligarchical parties defeated Correa in the major cities, including Guayaquil, Quito and Cuenca. Once again CONAIE and the trade unions focused their attack on Correa and ignored the fact that the beneficiaries of his decline was the hard neo-liberal right.

In June 2015 the hard right led by the Mayor of Guayaquil Jaime Nebot and millionaire banker Guillermo Lasso led a series of massive protests, over a progressive inheritance tax. They sought to oust Correa via a coup. Pachakutik supporters participated in the protests CONAIE attacked Correa and called for an uprising. instead if backing his progressive inheritance tax.

In other words the anti-extractive Indian-labor coalition, the United Workers Front and CONAIE, favored the ousting of post neo-liberal extractive capitalist’ Correa, but in reality facilitated the ascent to power of the traditional oligarchical Right.

Conclusion

The class ethnic alliances in Bolivia and Ecuador have had divergent outcomes. In the former, they brought to power the Center-left government of Evo Morales. In the latter they led to opportunist alliances, political defeats and ideological chaos.
The class struggle from below has led to a variety of political outcomes, some more progressive than others. But none have resulted in a worker-peasant-Indian regime, despite the claims of some popularly elected presidents like Evo Morales.

The class struggle has demonstrated a cyclical pattern, rising in opposition to rightwing neo-liberal regimes, (De la Rua in Argentina, Cardoso in Brazil, Sanchez de Losado in Bolivia, Mahuad in Ecuador), but ebbed with the coming to power of center-left regimes. The exception is in the case of Ecuador where the main protagonists of the class struggle backed the rightist regime of Lucio Gutierrez – and fell in disarray.

The key to the success of the center-left regimes was the decade long boom in commodity prices, which allowed them to dampen the class struggle by piece meal reforms,and increases in wages and salaries. The incremental reforms weakened the revolutionary impulses from below.

The de-compression of the class-struggle and the channeling of struggle into institutional channels, led to the co-option of sectors of the popular leadership, and the separation of economic demands from struggles for popular political power.
From a historical perspective the class struggle succeeded in securing significant reductions in unemployment and poverty, increases in social spending and the securing of legal recognition.

At the same time the leaders of the class based movements, more or less abided by the extractive capitalist model, and its devastating impact on the environment, economy and communities of indigenous peoples’.

Minority sectors of the popular movements in Brazil struggled against the Workers’ Party regime’s devastation of the Amazon rain forest and the displacement of Indian communities.

In Bolivia, President Evo Morales spoke at international forums in defense of the Mother Earth (Pacha Mama) and in Bolivia opened the Tipnis national reserve to oil and mining exploitation, committing Matricide!

Likewise in Argentina President Cristina Fernandez faced no trade union opposition when she signed a major agreement with Monsanto, to further deepen genetic altered grain production and a major oil agreement with Chevron-Exxon to exploit oil and gas exploitation by fracking in the Vaca Muerto (Dead Cow) complex.

In Ecuador the CONAIE-Gutierrez agreement and subsequent support of Correa led to a deepening of ecological exploitation and diminished opposition to Correa’s extractive capitalism.

The biggest blow to the extractive capitalist model did not come from the class struggle but from the world market. The decline of commodity prices led to the large scale reduction of the flow of overseas extractive capital.

However, the decline of commodity prices weakened the center-left and led to a resurgence of the class struggle from above. In Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador and Brazil, the upper classes have organized large scale street protests and were victorious in municipal and state elections. In contrast the class struggle organizations remain wedded to defensive economic struggles over wages and welfare cuts by their former center-left allies.

The rise of the class struggle from above occurs during: 1)the demise of center-left regimes, 2) the economic crises of a commodity based extractive capitalist development model, 3) the co-optation and or demobilization of the class struggle organizations.

In Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador and Bolivia, the rightwing led class struggle from above, aims for political power: to oust the center-left,and the reimposition of neo-liberal free trade policies. They seek to reverse social spending and progressive taxation, dismantle regional integration and reinstate repressive legislation.

Over the next five year period 2015-2020, we can expect the return of the hard neo-liberal right, and the break-up of tripartite (labor, capital, government) cooperation, and the return of bi-partite capital-state rule.

Cut loose from easy negotiations involving steady incremental gains, the popular movements are likely to combine the struggle for short term gains with demands for long-term structural changes. Revolutionary class consciousness is likely to re-emerge in most cases.

The return of the Right, will intensify class struggle, and regressive socio-economic measures across the board. It may unify disparate sectors of the urban and rural working population. Once again the stage may be set to put in motion the dynamics of social revolutionary class struggle.

The post Comparing And Contrasting Class Struggle In Latin America: 2000-2015 – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Why did Kyiv invade the Donbass region? To that question you might respond quizzically: who did WHAT? Everyone knows it was Russia that invaded Ukraine, right?

Not only that, but Russia isn’t going to stop in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. We all know of Putin’s aggressive territorial ambitions. He wants to recreate the Soviet Union, right?

If you have no personal knowledge of these facts, you can take it from President Barack Obama. Recently he issued a warning at the June 7 summit of the G7. He admonished the world to “stay vigilant and stay focused on the importance of upholding the principles of territorial integrity” regarding Ukraine.

Obama explained that Putin is “in pursuit of a wrong-headed desire to recreate the glories of the Soviet empire.”

However, the president failed to disclose how he knows that Putin has territorial conquest on the agenda. Putin denies it. How do we know who’s right?

The rhetoric of Obama about Ukraine reminds me of the commonly-accepted version of the 2008 war between Russia and Georgia. Reportage then was replete with unsubstantiated allegations, too. Typical headlines exclaimed “Russia Invades Georgia.” Territorial expansion was in the news. President Mikheil Saakashvili was out in front bemoaning the tragedy that was inflicted upon his country.

That’s what set me comparing the ongoing Ukrainian crisis with what happened in Georgia. Despite the assertive headlines, Georgia was another case where reliable facts were hard to find. There were a lot of confident allegations, but few hard facts on the Georgian side of the story.

It came down to a question of who shot first. The Russian counter-version of the story claimed the Georgians started the conflict and that Russia was merely being reactive. The Russian argument was greeted with quite a lot of disbelief.

Later, however, a multinational EU fact-finding mission issued a report that blamed Georgia for the war. A Spiegel Online headline proclaimed, “EU Investigators Debunk Saakashvili’s Lies.” The Russia-Invades-Georgia story was a highly successful fabrication.

Now in Ukraine the question is not who shot first. It’s who invaded who. If we take Obama’s word for it, the headline would be “Russia Invades Eastern Ukraine.”

But I think there’s another side to the story. What is it? It is that maybe Kyiv invaded Donbass, the area in which thousands of Ukrainians have died in horrific battles.

You see, if you think about it, there are two Ukraines. To justify that statement let me paraphrase a Clintonism: it depends on what the meaning of the word Ukraine is. There is a “former Ukraine.” That’s the country that existed before the Maidan uprisings. It was territorially whole, constitutional, and not beset by bloody internal war.

Now there is the new Ukraine, the Ukraine created by the Maidanists. Many observers, like Obama, automatically equate the borders of the new Ukraine with those of the former Ukraine. But that equivalence does not seem to be rooted in reality.

The notion that the new Ukraine is entitled to all the territory of the former Ukraine is quite tenuous. There was no constitutional transfer from the former to the new. Instead, an armed junta took over in Kyiv by force. It chased the democratically-elected president Yanukovych out of the country under threats of death. And it nullified the democratically-instituted constitution.

A so-called interim government was put in place by the junta. It ruled from February 27, 2014 until June 7, 2014 when President Petro Poroshenko assumed office following a democratic election. In the meantime, however, two areas of former Ukraine, Donbass and Crimea, declined to become parts of the new Ukraine. The new Ukraine never had controlled those territories, and the majority of the inhabitants wanted no part of the new Ukraine.

I find it is hard for many people to wrap their minds around the foregoing explanation. The media drumbeat has constantly sounded out the Kyiv-centric version of things. Most casual observers have accepted it as gospel. Passions run high among those immersed in the news reports.

So it might be helpful to strip away the polarized positions that many have taken regarding Ukraine. To sidestep those entrenched views, let’s explore the relevant issues with a hypothetical parallel:

Just say that in Spain there is a revolution whereby people who feel antagonistically toward Catalonians take over by force in Madrid. They throw out the Spanish constitution. There is no legal continuity of government. The junta immediately advances threats that diminish the cultural and linguistic heritage and practices of Catalonians.

In response the Catalonians take charge of their own territory. That region was never under control of the junta. What in the world would broadly legitimize a junta’s claim of a right to control Catalonia?

And what just person would not condemn the junta if it invaded Catalonia, causing thousands of deaths and much economic destruction?

Of course the situation in Ukraine is much more complicated due to the Soviet background, differing World War II related sentiments and legends, and a long-running and well-crafted demonization of Putin in the press. But the principle seems the same to me. The hypothetical Catalonian scenario is the reality of Ukraine today. All of it. Donbass is the real Catalonia.

What this adds up to is that Kyiv indeed invaded Donbass.

All the flap about Russia sending troops and weapons into Eastern Ukraine has things backwards. What’s being called Eastern Ukraine in the press is in reality Donbass. Russia actively denies that it has supported Donbass with military personnel and equipment. I don’t know whether it has or not.

But isn’t whatever Russia might be doing really a moot point? The real issue is that Kyiv invaded Donbass. That’s the source of all the death and destruction. Once again, Russia didn’t shoot first. It was just made the villain by a skillful campaign based on fabrications.

Unfortunately, world attention has been diverted from Kyiv’s transgressions and the horror they have wreaked. It’s been redirected to the reported Russian aggression. I’ve documented in my book Ukraine in the Crosshairs (www.UkraineInTheCrosshairs.com) how those allegations are not fact based.

I think it is very important to question why the press, the US, NATO, and the EU have so contorted their depiction of the Ukrainian crisis. Their actions have worked to the detriment of the Ukrainian people.

Ostensibly, the Maidanists claimed from the start to be seeking greater democracy and closer ties to Europe. The junta argued that a proposed EU association agreement was the key. Not everyone agreed. And that divisive issue spawned the internal conflict that precipitated the great Ukrainian crisis.

Look at what’s happened in the junta’s wake:

• Before the escalation of the Maidan protests, there was no threat of a Russian invasion, there were no fighting “separatists,” there was no war in Donbass. Ukraine was whole.
• Sanctions were not causing ruinous economic damage to many countries. Relations between the US and Russia were not in dangerous disarray.
• There were no war-torn Donbass cities, towns, and villages. Thousands of now deceased Ukrainians were still alive.
• And the opportunity for replacing the unpopular leader Yanukovych through a democratic election was on the immediate horizon. Change was in the offing without any need for war.

Take a good look at what’s transpired and tell me what tangible benefit has accrued to the Ukrainian people. The Maidanists set out to improve the population’s lot. But things have gotten worse. Much worse.

It is difficult to imagine why anyone would believe that association with the EU will undo all the damage that conflict has caused. Claims it will help seem illusory. In the end, the horrors inflicted upon Ukrainians by the junta were totally unnecessary, ineffectual, and counterproductive.

What on earth are the motives of the people and governments that promoted and supported all this needless death and destruction?

The post Ukraine: Who Invaded Who? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Political confrontation between Greece and its creditors has greatly heightened the possibility of the country exiting from the eurozone. But, at the end of the day, economics and common sense will prevail, and Greece will continue to be a member of the exclusive single-currency club.

By Pradumna B. Rana*

The relationship between Greece and its creditors which has been tense since the crisis began in 2010 ago has worsened significantly in the past few months and reached a breaking point. Last Wednesday the creditors gave the country a final chance to come up with a “credible” reform program in five days or else to exit from the eurozone (Grexit).

Five years after the crisis and two bailout packages later, the cost of austerity has been high. Greek GDP has contracted by 25 per cent while the unemployment rate has soared to 25 per cent – or 50 per cent among the youth. Nominal wages have fallen by 20 per cent on average and pensions by 20 to 60 per cent. Such adjustment costs have not been seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. No wonder anti-austerity sentiments are rising in Greece.

Recent Political Developments

In January 2015, the Syriza party won the elections on a platform to end austerity and its left-wing leader Alexis Tsipras vowed that he would negotiate Greece’s debt. Since then Tsipras has driven a series of hard bargains with his creditors.

Deepening ties between Greece’s new government and Russia have also set off alarm bells across Europe. Is Tsipras committed to the European project? Many Europeans fear that Greece is inexorably moving away from Europe, towards Russia which could be a more benevolent ally, a potential investor and a creditor that might require less austerity. The first official to visit the newly-elected Prime Minister last January was the Russian ambassador, whereas it took two days for German Chancellor Angela Merkel to congratulate him with a rather frosty telegram.

On 27 June, Tsipras broke-off negotiations with creditors and called for a referendum for voters to decide whether to accept a bailout deal offered by the creditors. An unexpectedly high 60 per cent voted “no” and supported the government. The International Monetary Fund also came out with a report supporting the Greek position and calling on Europe to grant the country “comprehensive” debt relief, arguing for the doubling of the maturities from 20 to 40 years.

Armed with a fresh mandate, Tsipras went back to his creditors once again. But the creditors, upset with the “no” vote, were in no mood to negotiate. The new Finance Minister also did not have a written rescue proposal that many had expected. He instead gave a verbal outline of what the government was intending to submit to its creditors. In the strongest language used in recent months the creditors warned that any new bailout deal to Greece would include much tougher conditions than those that would have been gotten before the referendum.

Greece was asked to submit a new “credible” reform plan and reach a deal with its creditors on Sunday or face bankruptcy and exit from the eurozone. An emergency meeting of the leaders of all 28 EU members has been called to decide on Greece’s fate.

Will there be a Grexit?

The answer is, no. This is because the decision of a country to join a monetary union is effectively irreversible for three reasons which are mainly economic in nature:

• First, a country that leaves the euro because of problems with competitiveness would be expected to devalue it newly-reintroduced national currency. But workers would know this and demand higher wages which would neutralize any benefits in terms of external competitiveness.
• Second, leaving the euro and reintroducing the national currency would require that all contracts governing wages, bank deposits, bonds, mortgages and taxes to be re-denominated in the new domestic currency. Computers would have to be reprogrammed. Vending machines would have to be modified. This is a costly exercise. One needs to only recall the extensive planning that preceded the introduction of the physical euro in 1999.
• Third and most importantly, Grexit will introduce the possibility of destabilizing speculation, a permanent source of instability for a monetary union. It was this possibility that had led the founding fathers of the eurozone to not consider an exit option from the eurozone in the first place. Having a monetary union with an exit option would mean that Europe goes back its old exchange rate mechanism of the 1980s which ended because of speculative attacks with disastrous consequences.

Barry Eichengreen has, in fact, warned that a Grexit could have consequences for the European and global economy that would dwarf the panic following the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers.
What will happen on Sunday?

Although in the past week an increasing number of European leaders have started to talk openly about the possibility of a Grexit, it is still possible that a political comprise can still be struck given the high economic costs of Grexit and the permanent instability that such a move would introduce to the currency union. If so, Grexit can be avoided.

*Pradumna B. Rana is Associate Professor and Coordinator of the International Political Economy Programme in the Centre for Multilateralism Studies at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

The post Will Greece Exit From The Eurozone? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Greece’s parliament has backed a debt restructuring deal, sealing that which is a “national responsibility,” PM Tsipras said during passionate debates. The reform package has already received ‘positive’ reviews from creditors ahead of a crucial EU summit.

Following lengthy Friday night debates in the Greek parliament, the lawmakers have voted to authorize the Greek delegation’s sealing of a deal with the country’s international creditors in accordance with conditions presented earlier this week.

For the first time, we have on the table a substantial discussion for a debt restructuring,” Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras told the parliament ahead of the vote on bailout terms the country put forward on Thursday.

“It is a choice of high national responsibility, we have a national duty to keep our people alive … we will succeed not only to stay in Europe but to live as equal peers with dignity and pride,” Tsipras said.

The PM insisted that with the latest proposals he had won important concessions from the creditors, and the new deal was better than the one rejected by the Greek public in last week’s referendum.

Meanwhile an EU source told AFP that Greece’s international creditors reviewed the Athens’ proposals and considered it a good basis for a new bailout.

“There has been [a] positive evaluation of the Greek programme,” the source was cited as saying. The European Stability Mechanism is reportedly ready to consider allocating €58 billion ($64.7 billion) to Greece with additional €16 billion ($17.85 billion) possibly coming from the International Monetary Fund as part of a three year bailout program proposed by Greece.

The European Commission, the ECB and the IMF have all given a positive assessment of the proposals, Reuters reported citing a source close to negotiations. The Eurogroup of eurozone finance ministers will consider these recommendations at a meeting in Brussels on Saturday.

Meanwhile the new Greek Finance Minister Euclid Tsakalotos warned that “if the current deal comes to pass, it will be a difficult deal.” But at the same time he admitted that “If nothing changes on Monday, and if we don’t all play a part in a new day dawning, then we will have a major problem.”

Withdrawals from Greek banks are reaching as high as €100 million ($2.13 million) a day, and the country’s banking system may end up bankrupt on Monday if no deal with creditors is reached, and the European Central Bank (ECB) doesn’t agree to extend its emergency liquidity assistance (ELA) program. The capital controls and bank closures imposed on June 29 were prolonged this week to maintain liquidity until politicians hopefully strike the deal over the weekend.

The post Greece: Parliament Backs Debt Restructuring Deal appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Bedouin residents of the Negev are gearing up to take last minute measures as the Israeli Knesset is slated Sunday to discuss a plan to forcibly relocate tens-of-thousands of Bedouin Palestinians.

The Prawer Plan was approved by the Israeli government in 2011 but shelved in 2013 amid widespread protest among Palestinians within Israel and international condemnation.

Israeli minister of agriculture Uri Ariel of the Habayit Hayehudi party (Jewish Home) has since reintroduced the plan to the Knesset .

Palestinian Bedouin MK Talab Abu Arar on Saturday urged a committee representing Bedouin residents of the Negev to have an emergency meeting to discuss preventive measures that could be taken to prevent displacement.

“We call upon our people to roll sleeves up and join the struggle,” Abu Arar said.

Approved without any consultation with the Bedouin community, the plan would evict nearly 40,000 Bedouins from their villages and force them to live in concentrated areas that critics called “reservations.”

Israel currently refuses to recognize 35 Bedouin villages in the Negev, which collectively house nearly 90,000 people.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition pieced together last spring is largely made up of MKs notorious for supporting settlement expansion throughout the West Bank, at the expense and displacement of local Palestinians.

In May, Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked said that a High Court ruling to destroy the Bedouin village of Umm Hiran and replace it with Jewish housing was “not discriminatory,” according to Israeli media.

Shaked is also member to the Habayit Hayehudi party which conditioned joining Netanyahu’s coalition on reinstating the Prawer Plan.

UN officials have repeatedly called on the Israeli government to halt the plan.

Constant threat of demolition

While the Prawar Plan has yet to be instated, evictions notices in the E1 zone have already been issued, following a pattern of Israeli policies which regularly result in the displacement of Bedouin communities and demolition of their homes.

On Thursday, Israel’s Civil Administration delivered dozens of eviction and stop-work orders to Palestinian Bedouins living in Abu al-Nawwar east of Jerusalem.

The Bedouin residents were told that they must move to the Bawwabat al-Quds (Jerusalem Gate) area within a month.

The area is on the outskirts of Abu Dis where Israeli authorities plan to relocate Bedouin families currently living in the E1 zone, an area northeast of Jerusalem and west of the illegal Israeli settlement of Maale Adumim.

Israeli plans for settlement construction in the area have been strongly opposed by the international community, including the US.

Critics say Israeli settlement construction in E1 would divide the West Bank in two and make the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state virtually impossible.

In May, the Israeli Supreme Court approved military orders to demolish the Bedouin village of Susiya south of Hebron and relocate its 340 Palestinian residents, and registered 1,000 dunams (250 acres) of land belonging to a Bedouin resident under the name of the Israeli development authority.

“It is a sad day when Israeli Supreme Court decisions provide legal cover for forced evictions, as in the case of these two villages,” Sarah Leah Whitson, Human Rights Watch’s (HRW) Middle East and North Africa director said in a statement following the court decision.

According to HRW, there are thousands of Bedouins in Israel living in unrecognized Negev villages that are under constant threat of demolition.

The UN reports that 70 percent of Bedouin communities are refugees, driven from their land during the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948.

The post Israel: Knesset To Address Shelved Plan To Relocate Negev Bedouins appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Everbody has already voiced his (or her) opinion on the Greek crisis, whether he (or she) has an opinion or not. So I feel obliged to do the same.

The crisis is immensely complicated. However, it looks to me quite simple.

The Greeks spent more than they earned. The creditors, in their incredible impertinence, want their money back. The Greeks have no money, and anyhow, their pride does not allow them to pay.

So what to do? Every commentator, from Nobel prize-winning economists to my taxi driver in Tel Aviv, has a solution. Unfortunately, no one listens to them.

Angela Merkel and Alexis Tsipras go on fighting World War II. But the relations between the two nations played a role in my family long before that.

As a boy, my father was a pupil in a German “humanist” high school. In these schools, pupils learned Latin and ancient Greek instead of English and French. So I heard Latin and Greek sayings before I went to school and learned Latin myself – for half a year before we fortunately left Germany for Palestine in 1933.

Educated Germans admired the Romans. The Romans were straight-minded people who made laws and obeyed them, almost like the Germans themselves.

Germans loved the ancient Greeks and despised them. As their most important poet, Wolfgang von Goethe, said: “Das Griechenvolk, es taugte nie recht viel” – the Greek people never amounted to very much.

The Greeks invented freedom, something the ancient Hebrews did not even dream of. The Greeks invented democracy. In Athens, everybody (except slaves, women, barbarians and other inferior folk) took part in public discussions and decision-making. This did not leave them much time to work.

That was the way my father looked at them, and this is the way decent Germans look at them now. Nice people to have around on vacation, but not serious people to do business with. Too lazy. Too life-loving.

I suspect that these ingrained attitudes influence the opinions of German leaders and voters now. They certainly influence the attitudes of Greek leaders and voters towards Germany. To hell with them and their obsession with law and order.

I have stayed several times in Greece, and always liked the people.

My wife, Rachel, loved the island of Hydra and took me there. To find a ship to go there from Piraeus was quite an ordeal. That was of course before the internet. Every shipping agency had a timetable for its boats, but there did not exist a general timetable. That would have been too orderly, too German. (If Piraeus had been Haifa, there would have been an all-inclusive timetable in every shop window.)

I was invited to several international conferences in Athens. One was presided over by the wonderful Melina Mercouri, so intelligent and so beautiful, who served at the time as a cabinet minister. It concerned Mediterranean culture, and was mixed with a lot of good food and folk dances. I once helped to host Mikis Theodorakis in Tel Aviv.

So I have no prejudices against the Greeks. On the contrary. Before the last Greek elections I received an e-mail message from a person I did not know, asking me to sign an international statement of support for the Syriza party. After reading the material, I did. I sympathize with their heroic fight now.

I am reminded of the “Sailors’ Revolt” in Israel in the early 1950s. It was an uprising against the governing bureaucracy. I supported it with all my heart and was even arrested for a few hours. When it all ended in a glorious defeat, I met a famous leftist general and expected to be lauded. He said: “Only fools start a struggle they cannot win!”

It boils down to this: the Greeks owe a lot of money. A huge lot of money. It is now immaterial how this huge debt came about, and who is to blame. Europe (the very name is Greek) has no chance of getting the billions back. But they’ll be damned if they will pour more money into this bottomless pit. How can Greece survive without more money?

I don’t know. I strongly suspect that no one else does, either. Including the Nobel Prize laureates.

For me, the most important aspect of the disaster is the future of the two great experiments: the European Union and the Euro currency.

When the European idea gained ground on the continent after the fratricidal World War II, there was a great debate about its future contours. Some proposed something like the United States of Europe, a federal union on the lines of the USA. Charles de Gaulle, a very influential voice at the time, objected strenuously and proposed l’Europe des Nations, a much more loose confederation.

Much the same debate took place in America before the final decision to create the United States, and again at the time of the civil war. In the end, the federalists won, and the confederate flags are being burned even now.

In Europe, de Gaulle’s idea won. There was no strong will to create a united European state. National governments were ready, after some years, to create a union of independent states, which grudgingly transferred some sovereign powers to the super-government in Brussels.

(Why Brussels? Because Belgium is a small country. Neither Germany nor France was ready to allow the union’s capital to be located in either of them. It reminds one of the Biblical King David, who moved his capital to Jerusalem, which belonged to no tribe, so as to avoid the jealousy between the powerful tribes of Judah and Ephraim.)

The Brussels bureaucracy seems to be heartily hated by all, but its power is inexorably growing. Modern reality favors larger and larger units. No future for small states.

This brings us to the Euro. The European idea led to the formation of a huge bloc, in which a common currency could flow freely. To a layman like me, it seemed like a wonderful idea. I don’t remember a single prominent economist warning against it.

Today it is easy to say that the Euro bloc was flawed from the beginning. Even I understand that you cannot have a single currency when each member state shapes its national budget according to its own whims and political interests.

That is the fundamental difference between a federation and a confederation. How would the USA operate if each of its 50 member states ran its own economy independently of the other 49?

As the economists teach us now, something like the Euro crisis cannot happen in the US. If the state of Alabama is in bad financial shape, all the other states step in automatically. The central bank (or Federal Reserve) simply shuffles money around. No problem.

The Greek crisis arises from the fact that the Euro is not based on such a federation. The Greek economic breakdown would have been stopped by the European central bank long before it had reached the present point. Money would have flowed from Brussels to Athens without anybody even noticing. Tsipras could have embraced Merkel in her chancellery and happily announced “Ich bin ein Berliner!” (I can’t really imagine Merkel going to Athens and proclaiming “Ich bin eine Griechin!”)

The first lesson of the crisis is that the creation of a currency union presupposes a readiness of all member states to give up their economic independence. A country that is not prepared to do so cannot join such a union. Each country can keep its precious football team, and even its sacred flag, but its national budget must be subject to the joint economic super-government.

Today that is quite clear. Unfortunately, it was not clear to the founders of the Euro bloc.

In this respect, a giant nation like China has a huge advantage. It is not even a federation, but in practice a unitary state, with a unitary currency.

Small states, like Israel, lack the economic security of belonging to a large union, but enjoy the advantage of being able to maneuver freely, and to fix our currency, the Shekel, according to our interests. If export prices are too high, you just devalue. As long as your credit rating is high enough, you can do what you want.

Fortunately, nobody invited us to join the Euro bloc. The temptation would have been too strong.

This being so, we can follow the Greek crisis with some equanimity.

But for those of us who believe that after achieving peace with the Palestinian people and the entire Arab world, Israel must become a part of some kind of a regional confederation, this is an instructive lesson.

I wrote about this even before the State of Israel was born, calling for a “Semitic Union”. It probably won’t happen while I am still around, but I am fairly sure that it will come about before the end of this century.

It cannot happen while the economic gap between Israel and the Arab countries is as immense as it is now – with per capita income 25 times higher in Israel than in Palestine and many Arab countries. But once the Arab world overcomes its present turmoil, they can hope for rapid progress, as is happening in Turkey and Muslim countries in East Asia.

Sometime in the not too remote future, in historical terms, the world will consist of large economic units striving to create a working economic world order, with a joint currency.

It may seem silly to think about this in the present situation. But it’s never too early to think.

Always remembering what Socrates said: “The only true wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing.”

The post To Be Greek – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Sylvia Mishra*

On 26 May 2015, Sen. Bernie Sanders from Vermont (Independent) officially announced his decision to run the White House race. Though Bernie Sanders announced his bid for Democratic Party nomination amid little fanfare—in a press conference at Waterfront Park in his hometown, Burlington—his campaign has already gained momentuma month after his announcement. Sanders has managed to pique the interest of voters, drawing large crowds with his message on bridging economic inequalities in America. Sanders is gradually being viewed as a credible voice for middle-class America and presents an increasingly strong alternative for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party nomination.

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, entered the presidential race a bit later, in April 2015. In almost all the surveys conducted so far by Fox News, CNN Opinion Research, ABC News/Wash Post and Quinnipiac, Clinton has been leading by a wide margin with a staggering gap between Bernie Sanders and herself. Slowly, however, the 73-year-old, self-declared democratic socialist Sanders hasbeen been able to change his initial measly ratings into more favourable ones, albeit in small increments. In a latest Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll conducted 25 to 29 May of likely Democratic caucus-goers, Sen. Sanders (I-VT) polled 47 percent favourable to 12 percent unfavourable. Unlike the Republican presidential nomination field which is crowded and competitive, for a long time the Democratic field looked empty with only Hillary Clinton running for presidency. The strong entry of Sanders in the Democratic nomination has given the American voters a fair choice between Clinton and Sanders’ respective brands of politics.

Bernie Sanders has been a staunch advocate of the American middle-class. His public pronouncements have often decried what he referred to as “the disappearance of the great middle class” in America. He has pointed to estimates that 99 percent of all new income that is being generated by the American economy goes to the top one percent of the population. He has gone on to question the morality of such an economy where the top one percent owns as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. Sanders believes that the middle class is getting tired of working longer hours for low wages while the American economy is sliding into economic and political oligarchy. His populist economic measures talk about providing assistance to workers who wish to purchase their own businesses by establishing worker-owned cooperatives instead of giving huge tax breaks to corporations. Sanders stands for developing new economic models to increase job creation and productivity; he also gives an impetus to the idea of workers’ unions. According to Sanders, America needs legislation which makes it clear that when a majority of workers sign cards in support of a union, they can form one. Sanders also takes a populist position on the issue of raising workers’ minimum wage to a living wage, as well as empowering women workers with equal pay for equal work. These populist economic measures have struck a nerve with the American middle-class, enabling Sanders to draw a huge voters’ support base. Although, in recent weeks, what has put him back on the Democratic presidential nomination map is his strong opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement.

Strong opponent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership

On 24 June 2015 the Republican-controlled Senate finally passed legislation that gives the President of the United States the power to expedite negotiations with 11 other countries that are party to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). The vote, which passed 60-38, was a significant victory for multinational corporations which have been lobbying hard for a trade agreement. TPP is expected to lower tariffs and create new regulations for sectors as diverse as agriculture, banking and the pharmaceutical industry. This trade promotion bill has met with strong opposition from different quarters and presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders has made opposing this trade bill a vibrant part of his election campaign. In opposing the TPP, Sanders has outlined his position by stating that former trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and the granting of Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China, have all been abysmal failures. In a recently published op-ed piece, Sanders writes that free-trade agreements have only allowed corporations to shut down operations in the US and move work to low-wage countries where people are forced to work for pennies an hour. He further adds that due to free-trade agreements, America has lost almost 60,000 factories and millions of good-paying jobs since 2001. Sanders’ position on the TPP and his work against unfair trade deals has appealed to millions of voters. He has been able to re-energise his vote base which is down by just 8 points vis-a-vis Clinton in New Hampshire and has gained tremendous momentum in Iowa. As large numbers of Democrats have come together to oppose the TPP, Sanders’ opponent Hillary Clinton has found herself in a difficult position as she previously had expressed support for the deal. Sanders’ position on trade deals has galvanised his support base, catapulting him to the forefront of the Democratic Party nominations while Clinton continues to grapple with her defense against email and foreign donor scandals.

Meeting the challenges

Supporters have acknowledged that Sanders can create serious damage to Clinton’s votes, coupled with Sanders’ display of confidence on winning the primaries. He has recently stated, “We are going to win New Hampshire. We’re going to win Iowa, and I think we’re going to win the Democratic nomination, and I think we’re going to win the presidency”. In spite of his increasing voters’ base, however, it appears that his dream of occupying the Oval Office will not be a walk in the park. For example, a recent poll indicates that he has a low support base among non-white voters. Responding to questions about this, Sanders emphasisedthat he has spent years fighting for civil rights. It is his firm belief that his economic message would resonate well with the minority communities as well. He also added that his long history of fighting for the rights of the middle class would be viewed favourably among the Hispanic and other minority populations. Several critics have also raised concerns regarding his age: on Election Day, he would be 75 years old. Sen. Sanders’ response is straightforward: that he has been blessed with good health and endurance and is completely prepared to undertake all the responsibilities of the Oval office. Another criticism against the Senator is that he lacksexperience in foreign policy and has been mostly silent on important foreign-policy issues. Compared to Clinton’s vast foreign policy experiences, Sanders has only made few statements on foreign policy. One of those proclamations was related to the Middle East:in a recent interview, Sanders argued that the Middle Eastern nations should do the bulwark of fighting against the Islamic State.He has also declared his opposition to the Iraq war.

Sanders has been able to successfully attract a huge number of supporters due to his ideological credentials and populist measures of narrowing existingincome inequalities. It is reported in the Boston Herald that a recent CNN/WMUR poll showed Sanders nipping at the heels of once-dominant Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, with a margin of just eight points between them. These are significantly positive signs for Bernie Sanders as several American voters view Clinton as an embodiment of the existing political establishment and indicate American voters’ willingness to understand Sanders’ brand of politics.

*The writer is a research scholar with Observer Research Foundation, Delhi

The post Sanders Narrows The Gap With Clinton – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

(Civil.Ge) — Georgia has signed a contract with European missile manufacturer MBDA to buy the “state-of-the-art defense system”, according to the Georgian Defense Minister, Tina Khidasheli.

The agreement was signed in Paris on July 10 by the Georgian Defense Minister and Antoine Bouvier, CEO of MBDA, a consortium that includes Italy’s Finmeccanica SpA, Airbus Group and Britain’s BAE Systems Plc.

It comes less than a month after Georgia signed a separate deal with ThalesRaytheonSystems, a producer of ground-based surveillance radars and air defense command and control systems.

Neither values nor content of the two contracts are reported by the officials, who are citing confidentiality of security related matters.

Defense Minister Khidasheli said after signing of the contract with MBDA, that these two deals will “guarantee” Georgia’s air defense.

“The main goal has been achieved – we have bought a foundation to guarantee Georgia’s air defense, which will be completely compatible with NATO systems, and we have bought weaponry, defense system, which is the most state-of-the-art currently available in the world,” Khidasheli said.

“I am very satisfied with these two agreements – in terms of political importance, as well as in terms of their content and price,” she said, suggesting that these deals signal the end of so called de facto arms embargo, when Georgia’s western partners were reluctant to sell defensive weapons to Tbilisi after the August, 2008 war with Russia.

“The French partners demonstrated incredibly high level of partnership and desire to help us. Such decisions of course are not made without a political will,” she said.

Implementation of the contract will start from January 1, she said.

Khidasheli also said that she personally thinks some parts of the agreement should be made public.

But at first, she said, she has to report about the deals to President Giorgi Margvelashvili, who is the commander-in-chief, and to the Group of Confidence – a team of five lawmakers in charge of parliamentary oversight on classified defense spending.

Negotiations on procurement of air defense systems became a source of political accusations between ex-defense minister Irakli Alasania’s Free Democrats party and the government three months ago.

In early April, Alasania claimed the government abandoned preliminary deal – a non-binding memorandum of understanding, which he negotiated in France in late October, shortly before being sacked from the cabinet. The allegation was strongly denied at the time by then defense minister Mindia Janelidze, who is now secretary of the State Security and Crisis Management Council, and who was replaced on defense minister’s post by Khidasheli in early May.

The post Georgia Signs Defense Contract With Missile Manufacturer MBDA appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Reuters reports that an Israeli drone has crashed in Tripoli.  It was a Hermes 450.

Though they say it crashed in the sea, this video footage clearly shows it on land. Hezbollah in the past has had success in commandeering Israeli drones via hacking. Israel has also admitted destroying drones with which it lost contact (or which were hacked) in order to prevent their falling into Hezbollah hands.

It appears that the Lebanese have earned a rich harvest with the capture of this vehicle.  Though it’s unclear that it will benefit Hezbollah or Iran, since Tripoli is not one of their strongholds.

An interesting question is why the Israelis were spying there.  It’s a northern Sunni city outside the Shia geographical sphere of influence.  It is possible the drone’s mission lay elsewhere (Syria or the Bekaa), that it was hacked or stopped responding there and flew itself to Tripoli, where it crashed.

This article was published by Tikun Olam

The post Israeli Spy Drone Crashes In Lebanon – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

As the Greeks have rejected the EU “fixes” to their country fiscal crisis and Greece’s expulsion from the Eurozone appears imminent, there are political analysts who are now asserting that Putin is ready to reap the benefits of the crisis and that secretly he is already calling the shots. How plausible is such an analysis? Let’s see.

When one considers Putin’s incessant efforts to undermine both the EU and NATO the daring analysis should not come as a big surprise. After all, PM Tsipras called Putin a day ahead of Obama to discuss the crisis’ fallout. One notices an almost reflexive knee-jerk anti-American, anti-Nato and “anti-imperialist” rhetoric in much of the EU, which fits perfectly in Putin’s worldview. We have seen it in Ovi, with an article, with which I took issue, which instead of focusing on this issue of Greece’s links with Russia and the danger of it falling into Moscow’s orbit of influence, focused instead on the analysis of America’s persistent racism as dangerous to democracy and something the Europeans should shy away from, never mind that losing one’s freedom may well be a greater calamity than losing one’s democratic capitalistic system based on free-markets, the banking system and entrepreneurship.

Be that as it may, I don’t think we’d be too far off the mark in declaring that anti-EU and anti-American sentiments run deepest in Greece when compared to the other NATO partners. On the other hand, ties between Athens and Moscow are nothing new. They are based on an historical sharing in the “Greek-Russian Orthodox” tradition which then translates easily in anti-Western values and the appeal to common Orthodox religious roots. Moreover, it is a well known fact that Greece has long been a playground for Kremlin spies. During the Cold War, KGB operatives, Putin’s colleagues, worked in Greece with a degree of impunity they found in no other NATO country, while Soviet spies penetrated Greek politics and society very deeply.

Under Putin, such covert linkages have been reestablished, and secret Russian activities in Greece today enjoy a degree of openness they never had in Soviet times. Defense Minister Panos Kammenos, shortly after a visit to Moscow last fall, signed a memorandum of understanding between his Athens think tank, the Institute for Geopolitical Studies, and a Moscow counterpart, the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, known as RISI. However, RISI is not your average think tank. It is headed by Leonid Reshetnikov—a career KGB officer who retired as a lieutenant-general and the head of analysis for the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, or SVR—RISI is a Kremlin outfit, a sort of governmental NGO that functions as the public face of Putin’s vast intelligence apparatus. Officially RISI is no longer part of the SVR, falling under the presidential administration, but no Western intelligence services accept that claim at face value. Reshetnikov, a one-time communist but now a devout, militant, Orthodox Christian, is close to Putin and is one of the top movers and shakers in the Kremlin when it comes to spy matters. Speaking Greek and Serbian, he plays a large role in Russian activities in the Balkans, which have increased noticeably in recent months. Reshetnikov’s trips to southeastern Europe, where he denounces Western “imperialism” and does photo ops with senior Orthodox clergy, feature in local media, usually with praise.

The question arises: how does one square this circle? For, after all, if there is a West, it is due to the ancient Greeks who began making distinctions between Western and Eastern values some three thousand years ago. Western values were and have since been formulated and buttressed by democracy, philosophical thinking, transparency, and free speech, if rarely by solidarity and understanding of each others’ unique ethnic cultures. In any case, Greece remains solidly in the EU and NATO camp, and will presumably remain so in the foreseeable future even if it ends up exiting the Eurozone. So, time will tell if the Russians who are good at strategic political chess games, will be able to pull a check-mate out of Greece’s present dramatic chaos, at the expense of NATO and the EU and indeed the whole of Western civilization. If they win, it will surely be considered a positive development by Putin’s Russia to the chagrin of the EU myopic politicians and bankers intent on examining their banks’ bottom lines. Whether or not it will be a win for democracy in the EU is a rather more dubious proposition.

Note: This article appeared in Ovi Magazine on July 10, 2015 and is reprinted with permission.

The post On Greece, Democracy, Greek-Russian Orthodoxy, And Putin – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.