Tunisia protesters unite for democracy ⁠— but is it enough?

Growing discontent has led to a united national opposition against President Kais Saied. But could the pursuit of democracy backfire — and see the nation return to an iron fist rule?


While around 2,000 protesters is not yet anywhere near the Arab Spring demonstrations, it's a strong symbol

After 10 months of authoritarian rule by Tunisia's President Kais Saied following a power grab, many in the crisis-ridden country are united in pushing for a return to democracy.

Around 2,000 people of different political affiliations took to the streets on Sunday following a call by the newly-formed alliance National Salvation Front.

While the turnout was not comparable to the massive sit-ins in 2013 when thousands of people called for democratic elections, the meaning is nevertheless significant: A growing number of people, political parties and factions are joining forces to reject the political course on Saied's watch.

Who is the opposition?

One of the key players of this new alliance is the Islamist party Ennahda, one of Saied's fiercest opponents.

"Ennahda has become part of a civil political resistance that will use all civil and peaceful means to overthrow the coup and to push for the national dialogue that the country needs," Imed Khemiri, spokesman of the Ennahda party, told DW.

For him, this means, above all, dialogue between political parties. "The president does not want a dialogue except with himself," he said.

Another major player is a group of civil activists called Citizens Against the Coup.

"Since we began our struggle 10 months ago, we were able to convince many people that what happened was a coup, which symbolizes a great gain for collective awareness," Ezzeddine Hasgui, a political activist and founding member of the movement, told DW.
What prompted the protests?

In July last year, Kais Saied, a former law professor, had suspended the country's parliament, dismissed the prime minister, and issued an emergency decree, by which he has been ruling ever since.

Saied, however, insists that his political moves are democratic and have been necessary to guide the country to a new constitution, through a referendum in July 2022.

Yet, critics doubt the referendum will take place, as preparations are stalling.

The country has been sliding from one crisis into the next. Amid the political crisis, growing domestic debt, as well as rising inflation and increasing unemployment rates, the situation has been exacerbated by the war in Ukraine. The conflict in Eastern Europe saw a shortfall of up to 60% of wheat imports in Tunisia — severely impacting food security in Tunisia.

Moreover, the initial wave of public support Saied rode due to his promises to clamp down on corruption, has been fading.

Until this week, the Tunisians had not united in calling for a return to democracy.

Tunisia, which imports up to 60% of its wheat, will suffer from grain shortages due to the war in Ukraine

More voices speak up

While Sunday's turnout is seen by some as a disappointment, the organizers argue that the opposition is gaining momentum.

They're also gaining influential voices.

"Ahmed Neijb Chebbi, a leftist progressive and long-time opposition figure, has come forward with his Al-Amel Party (Hope) to call for the National Salvation Front," Alyssa Miller, a researcher who is based in Tunis for the German think tank GIGA Hamburg, told DW.

For her, Chebbi is worth watching, as "he could position himself as an important unifying force to broaden the opposition beyond Ennahda and pro-Ennahda forces."

The Ennahda party has been discredited by large portions of the population, as it has been blamed for corruption and political infighting in parliament prior to its dissolution on July 25 last year.

"In order to be successful, the anti-July 25 opposition must appeal to a broader base of political parties and civil society forces," Miller said

Therefore, she considers the latest statements by the country's influential union, the Tunisian General Labor Union (UGTT), as significant.

"In the past, the UGTT has been largely neutral or cautiously supportive of Kais Saied, and it was recently tapped by the president, along with the Tunisian League for Human Rights, to oversee the composition of a constituent assembly and to write a new constitution which would be put to a national referendum on July 25th," Miller said.

However, the two organizations have signaled they would not support Saied's process "unless it were inclusive," she added.

The inclusion of opposition voices, though, has been opposed by Saied.

The slogan is a promise — and could be a warning for President Kais Saied

History repeating itself?

It's unclear whether oppositional unity will evolve into a widespread movement, but the situation has similarities to the calls for democracy in 2013.

Back then, however, the overall situation was much closer to violent clashes than it is today.

And yet, just like this time, the Tunisian Confederation of Industry, Trade and Handicrafts (UTICA), the Tunisian Human Rights League and the Tunisian Order of Lawyers were asked to be on board of a new constitutional committee — along with the UGTT.

In turn, those four groups became famous as 'The National Dialogue Quartet' . It is widely believed that they averted a civil war, and their efforts were awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize in 2015.

Despite this similarity, the country's security situation was much worse.

"Along with the assassinations of the two popular leftist politicians, Chokri Belaid and Mohammed Brahmi, the country experienced a general rise in violence committed by Islamist insurgent groups in 2013," Miller explains.

Therefore, she doubts that tensions will rise to this extent again. "If we compare the situation with Tunisia today, we can see that the security situation is very, very different," adding that many of the violent insurgent groups that operated in northwestern Tunisia in 2013 have been "slowly brought under control under subsequent governments."

But she does see — yet again — some administrative powers meant to assist in the fight against terrorism are being used to target political opponents.

For Miller, this could indicate a return to an iron fist rule. "I think it is more likely that there is a return of authoritarian control of the type that was practiced and exercised in Tunisia under Ben Ali," she said.

Edited by: Stephanie Burnett

PRISON NATION USA

Decriminalized Marijuana Reinvents Racism and Poisoning

by Don Fitz and Susan Armstrong / May 14th, 2022

The change in marijuana laws across the US raises issues far beyond, “Hey, dude, we can blow a joint now without getting busted.” The racism that permeated the age of criminalization now lurks throughout the phase of decriminalization. The burgeoning business of growing pot raises the specter of corporate agriculture with its threats to human health and natural ecosystems. Are there ways to enjoy weed while challenging racism and corporate domination over the environment?

An Attack on Black and Brown Cultures

Spanish-speaking people, who have lived in the US since it stole half of Mexico’s land, have a tradition of smoking marijuana. Amid a growing fear of Mexican immigrants in the early twentieth century, hysterical claims about the drug became widespread, such as allegations that it caused a “lust for blood.” The term cannabis was largely replaced by the Anglicized marijuana, perhaps to suggest the foreignness of the drug. Around this time many states began passing laws to ban pot.

In “Why Is Marijuana Illegal in the US?” Amy Tikkanen wrote that in the 1930s, Harry J. Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, turned the battle against marijuana into an all-out war. He could have been motivated less by safety concerns—the vast majority of scientists he surveyed claimed that the drug was not dangerous—and more by a desire to promote his newly created department. Anslinger sought a federal ban on the drug, and initiated a high-profile campaign that relied heavily on racism. Anslinger claimed that the majority of pot smokers were minorities, including African Americans, and that marijuana had a negative effect on these “degenerate races,” such as inducing violence or causing insanity.

Furthermore, he noted, “Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.” Anslinger oversaw the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Although that particular law was declared unconstitutional in 1969, it was augmented by the Controlled Substances Act the following year. That legislation classified marijuana—as well as heroin and LSD, among others—as a Schedule I drug. Racism was also evident in the enforcement of the law. African Americans in the early 21st century were nearly four times more likely than whites to be arrested on marijuana-related charges—despite both groups having similar usage rates.

In her 2016 film, 13th Amendment, producer, Ava Duvernay documented drug laws and policies which increased incarceration rates of Black and brown people over the last six decades.

Year	US Prison Population
1970	300,000
1980	513,900
1985	759,100
1990	1,179,200
2000	2,015,300
2020	2,300,000

President Nixon’s “War on Crime” of the 1970s targeted protests by the anti-war movement as well as liberation movements by gays, women, and Blacks. “Crime” became a code word for race. Nixon’s Adviser, John Ehrlichman, admitted that the “War on Drugs” was all about throwing Black people into jail to disrupt those communities. These efforts were to gain southern voters.

In the 1980’s, President Reagan’s “War on Drugs” portrayed drugs as an “inner city problem,” allowed for mandatory sentencing for crack cocaine, and tripled the federal spending on law enforcement. The War on Drugs became a war against Black and Latino communities, with huge chunks of Black and brown men disappearing into prison for a “really long” time. The exploding mass incarceration rates felt genocidal. This was again pandering to racist voters.

In his effort to appear “tough on crime” during the 1990’s, President Bill Clinton pushed the $30 billion Federal Crime Bill which expanded prison sentences, incentivized law enforcement to do things we now consider abusive, and militarized local police forces. Increased incarceration rates due to the Clinton administration included introduction of the terms “super predators,” Mandatory Minimum Sentences, “Truth in Sentencing” (which eliminated parole), and “three strikes and you’re out” laws whereby those convicted of three felonies were mandated to prison for life. Such a criminal justice system needs constant feeding of young men and women of color.

Racism during Marijuana Criminalization

Poverty plays a central role in mass incarceration – people put in prison and jail are disproportionately poor. The criminal justice system punishes poverty, beginning with the high price of money bail. The median felony bail bond amount ($10,000) is the equivalent of eight months’ income for the typical defendant. Those with low incomes are more likely to face the harms of pretrial detention. Poverty is not only a predictor of incarceration – it is also frequently the outcome, as a criminal record and time spent in prison destroys wealth, creates debt, and decimates job opportunities.

It’s no surprise that people of color — who face much greater rates of poverty — are dramatically overrepresented in the nation’s prisons and jails. These racial disparities are particularly stark for Black Americans, who make up 38% of the incarcerated population despite representing only 12% of US residents.

Police, prosecutors, and judges continue to punish people harshly for nothing more than drug possession. Drug offenses still account for the incarceration of almost 400,000 people, and drug convictions remain a defining feature of the federal prison system. Police still make over one million drug possession arrests each year, many of which lead to prison sentences. Drug arrests continue to give residents of over-policed communities criminal records, hurting their employment prospects and increasing the likelihood of longer sentences for any future offenses. The enormous churn in and out of correctional facilities is 600,000 persons per year. There are another 822,000 people on parole and a staggering 2.9 million people on probation – 79 million people have a criminal record; and 113 million adults have immediate family members who have been to prison.

One in five incarcerated people is locked up for a drug offense. Four out of five people in prison or jail are locked up for something other than a drug offense — either a more serious offense or a less serious one. The terms “violent” and “nonviolent” crime are so widely misused that they are generally unhelpful in a policy context. People typically use “violent” and “nonviolent” as substitutes for serious versus nonserious criminal acts. That alone is a fallacy, but worse, these terms are also used as coded (often racialized) language to label individuals as inherently dangerous versus non-dangerous.

Decriminalization Reinvents Marijuana Racism

The decriminalization which is sweeping across the US carries with it the obvious facts that (a) pot is not and never has been a dangerous drug, and (b) criminalizing drugs has never brought anything positive. This suggests that those who have been victimized were done so wrongfully and therefore should be compensated for the wrongs done to them. However, victims have been predominantly people of color and American racism reappears during the decriminalization phase in the form of trivializing harms done and offering restitution that barely scratch the surface of what is needed.

Prior to addressing the shortcomings for wrongful damages for marijuana laws, the US should publicly apologize for the wrongheaded and thoroughly racist “War on Drugs” and pledge to compensate those who have suffered from it in ways that are comparable to cannabis-related issues below.

Victims should be compensated for time spent in jail. Prisoners might receive compensation for labor performed in prison; but it can be as low as $0.86 to $3.45 per day for most common prison jobs. At least five states pay nothing at all. Private companies using prison labor are not the source of most prison jobs. Only about 5,000 people in prison — fewer than 1% — are employed by private companies through the federal PIECP (Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program), which requires them to pay at least minimum wage before deductions. (A larger portion work for state-owned “correctional industries,” which pay much less. But this still only represents about 6% of people incarcerated in state prisons.)

There cannot be a serious discussion of compensating victims if many continue to rot in jail. They must be release immediately, regardless of what state they are in. Many of those released have not had records of their arrests, convictions and sentencing cleared (“expunged”). According to Equity and Transformation Chicago, there is a 5-8 year wait for expunging records. Records must be expunged as rapidly as would be done if it really affected people’s lives (because it does).

A core component of repairing harm done to those imprisoned would be prioritizing them (according to amount of jail time served) to receive licenses for growing, processing, transporting and dispensing marijuana. Various states have taken baby steps in the right direction. For example, Chicago’s Olive Harvey College is offering training in cannabis studies to those with past marijuana arrests. Participants receive “free tuition, a $1,000 monthly stipend, academic support and help with child care, transportation and case management.” As of March, 2022 there were 47 studying for jobs as growers, lab directors and lab or quality control technicians.

Another effort pointing forward is New York’s program to grant licenses for marijuana storefronts for individual or family members who have been imprisoned for a marijuana-related offense. An executive for the program expects 100-200 licenses to go to such victims.

Let’s put these model programs in perspective. Nice as they are, 47 students receiving study grants in Chicago and 100-200 retail licenses in New York do not even make a dent in the over 867,000 who have been arrested.

While current programs are infinitesimally small, barriers to legal victims are enormous. Missouri grants licenses only to those “having legal marijuana experience” (such as handling legal medical cannabis) to apply for licensing for growing, dispensing, and processing. Illinois denies licenses and loans to felons, even though 1 in 3 Chicago adults have a criminal record. Illinois also prevents those with cannabis-related convictions from entering the cannabis industry by its high application fees.

Financial barriers for marijuana victims to receive licenses seem insurmountable. People and communities negatively impacted by the War on Drugs have high incarceration rates and lowaverage salaries due to limited job opportunities by ex-felons. Therefore, they lack the financial resources for high non-refundable application fees ($10,000 to $50,000) awarded in lotteries to match the state-designated number of growers, dispensaries, processors, and transporters. In Illinois, access to credit and small business loans are difficultfor persons with criminal records to obtain. Each dispensing organization applicant must have at least $400,000 in liquid assets. That is why people of color cannot participate as owners of legalized marijuana businesses in Illinois.

Industrial Agriculture Poisons Marijuana Cultivation.

Unfortunately, even if all these barriers were to be overcome, there would be serious health issues throughout the marijuana industry, whether legal or illegal. If people of color receive priority in all phases of the industry, then a new form of environmental racism will emerge. People in that industry will become part of the environmental destruction to their communities while they experience damage to their own health from pesticide poisoning.

An excellent review of concerns with cultivation of cannabis by a team working with Zhonghua Zheng finds it heavily associated with environmental and health concerns whether it is grown outdoors or indoors. Needing considerable water, cannabis requires twice as much water as wheat, soybeans and maize. Diverting water to irrigate cannabis crops often results in dewatered streams affecting other vegetation. Water quality is also worsened (especially by illegal growers) by use of herbicides, insecticides, rodenticides, fungucides and nematodes.

Human health problems which can be linked to chronic pesticide exposure include memory and respiratory issues as well as birth defects. Other health effects are weakened muscle functioning, cancer and liver damage. The organization Beyond Pesticides documents serious threats due to two factors: (a) “Pesticide residues in cannabis that has been dried and is inhaled have a direct pathway into the bloodstream;” and, (2) up to “69.5% of pesticide residues can remain in smoked marijuana.”

Perhaps the most overlooked source of pesticide poisoning is due to the synthetic piperonyl butoxide (PBO), which is a synergist, used to boost the effectiveness of active ingredients in pesticides. PBO can itself damage health due to neurotoxicity, cancer and liver problems.

Fertilizers and pesticides make their way into surface water, groundwater and soil, where they threaten the food supply. The high demand for weed affects watersheds, having damaging effects at least for endangered salmonid fish species and amphibians including the southern torrent salamander and coastal tailed frog.

Outdoor cannabis farms disturb fine-sediment adjacent to streams, thereby threatening other rare and endangered species. Its cultivation can contribute to deforestation and forest fragmentation. Fertilizers used for cannabis hurt air quality due to the release of nitrogen. Excess nitrogen increases soil acidification and well as water eutrophication.

Growing cannabis indoors raises its own issues, most notably health risks from exposure to mold and pesticides. Mold in damp indoor environments is associated with wheeze, cough, respiratory infections, and asthma symptoms in sensitized persons.

Perhaps the most surprising problems with indoor cultivation of cannabis is its effects on climate change via electricity. This is due to its annual $6 billion energy costs in the US, making it responsible for at least 1% of total electricity. Inevitably, decriminalization will lead to increased use of energy.

The major sources of energy usage are lighting and microclimate control. High-intensity lighting alone accounts for 86% of electricity use for indoor cannabis. Dehumidification systems are used to create air exchanges, temperature, ventilation and humidity control 24 hours per day. Due to the complexity of indoor requirements, growing one kilogram of processed marijuana can result in 4600 kilograms of CO2 emissions!

Environmental and health problems with growing marijuana will intensify greatly if decriminalization allows control by corporate agriculture. The so-called “Green Revolution” emphasizes use of enormous monocultures which maximize ecological destruction from extreme use of irrigation and fertilizers.

As of early 2022, at least 36 US states have adopted some form of decrimalization of marijuana, adding to the explosion of businesses in every phase of its production. In 2018, Bloomberg reported “Corona beer brewer Constellation Brands Inc. announced it will spend $3.8 billion to increase its stake in Canopy Growth Corp., the Canadian marijuana producer with a value that exceeds C$13 billion ($10 billion).”

Coca-Cola has been eyeing the market for drinks containing CBD which eases pain without getting the user high. Pepsi may have jumped the gun on Coke. A New Jersey hemp and marijuana producer, Hillview, has an agreement with Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of New York to makes CBD-infused seltzers which would sell for $40 per eight-pack. The deal aims to cover Long Island, Westchester and all five New York boroughs.

With industrial giants like Coke and Pepsi jumping into the cannabis market, it is a sure bet that they will not be buying marijuana from thousands of mom-and-pop growers. Look for big soft drink to seek contracts with big ag.

The commercial growth of crops based on monoculture (a single or very few crops grown) becomes a breeding ground for pests, creating an artificial need for control via chemical poisons. A fundamental principle of organic agriculture is that growing 10, 15 more more plant species together reduces any need for chemicals. In the corporate ag model, if the single species grown is invaded by pests, then the entire crop can be lost. In the organic model the farmer anticipates that 1, 2 or 3 may be hurt by pests, but the majority will survive.

According to farmer Patrick Bennett, “for a fraction of the cost of a single bottle of synthetic liquid fertilizer, you can get the same, if not better yield, flavor, and cannabinoid content in your crop at home by simply using organic farming practices.” Marijuana has been grown for centuries (or millennia) without pesticides. Current organic growers have found five plant-based insecticides that protect their crops well:

• Neem oil is “extracted from the seeds and fruit of the tropical neem tree, [and] controls many insects, including mites, and prevents fungal infections, like powdery mildew.”
• Azadirachtin controls “control over many insects, including mites, aphids, and thrips” but does not provide fungal protection.
• Pyrethrums kills insects that attack cannabis plants, including thrips. Pyrethrins, however, the synthetic version of pyrethrums, should not be used due to their environmental persistence.
• Bacillus Thurengensis (BT) is very effective in controlling larval insects and fungus gnats.
• Beneficial Nematodes are microscopic organisms occurring naturally in soil, keeping it healthy while controlling soil-born pests such as fungus gnats.

Techniques such as these have proven effective. Mike Benziger told interviewer Nate Seltenrich that he grows fruits, vegetables and medicinal herbs along with cannabis. He includes multiple plants that attract insects like ladybugs and lacewings that gobble up harmful mites and aphids. Organic growers often rely on mulching and crop rotation. Such methods are especially critical for protecting workers growing the plants, neighboring wildlife, farm owners, distributors and, of course, marijuana users.

As of 2015, Maine was prohibiting use of any pesticides. Yet, its is important to remember that legislation can be weakened or repealed by subsequent laws, making it critical to have enduring guidelines. Such guidelines should include practices like those in Washington DC and Maine which require producers to demonstrate knowledge of organic growing methods.

Moving Forward

Since federal law classifies marijuana as a narcotic there are no federal guidelines for growing it. This makes it tempting to demand that it be declassified and brought under the auspices of bodies like the Environmental Protection Agency. This is a worthwhile goal, but the problem is that federal and state bodies are controlled by corporate powers seeking the weakest standards possible. Goals such as the following should be stated to counter racism and have genuine environmental protection with real (not fake) organic standards:

1. Restitution must begin with an apology which acknowledges that criminalization of marijuana included an attack on those cultures using it; was a part of a greater attack which used drugs as one of many weapons to destroy communities; and caused suffering for an enormous number of individuals.

2. All communities affected by criminalization of marijuana and the larger attack upon them should decide what financial and cultural restitution they should receive.

3. Individuals harmed by marijuana criminalization should receive financial compensation for any arrest, trial, incarceration and post-incarceration damages. Funds for growing, preparing and dispensing legalized marijuana should be made in direct proportion to the harm that individuals have suffered – those who have been harmed the most should receive the greatest compensation. In particular, the greater the harm an individual has suffered, the higher priority that individual should have for receiving a license related to dispensing marijuana.

4. Organic growing must be a core component of protecting the health of marijuana workers, producers and users. All who grow marijuana must receive free education on how to do so without the use of chemical poisons (“pesticides”). This must include how to intersperse marijuana with other crops so that pests are not as threatening as they are with monocultures. All who grow, process and disperse marijuana must obtain certification that their product is free of chemical contaminants. There should be no limitations on the number of marijuana plants an individual may grow, as long as those plants are grown with genuine organic principles.

Prior to decriminalization, health and environmental damages of growing and using marijuana were more or less similar for all ethnic and cultural groups. But that will not continue to be the case if restitution for damages from criminalization are put into place. If those hurt most by harassment and incarceration for marijuana receive priority for licenses to produce and distribute cannabis, they will receive the most pesticide poisoning if organic methods are not required. The only way to avoid continued harm to those previously victimized is to employ organic cultivation.

Abolition of exploitation of all agricultural workers requires similar restrictions on chemical use when growing all herbs, fruits and vegetables. Organic growing of cannabis should become a model for transferring production via corporate megafarms using mono cropping, chemicals, and exploited labor to organic methods based on small farms, chemical-free growing for local communities and good treatment for workers encouraged to form strong unions for collective self-protection.

[The Green Party of St. Louis adopted a marijuana perspective that synthesizes anti-racism with organic growing principles. You can read it at: marijuana-platform.]Facebook

TwitterReddiEmail

Don Fitz (fitzdon@aol.com) is on the Editorial Board of Green Social Thought, where a version of this article originally appeared. He was the 2016 candidate of the Missouri Green Party for Governor. His articles on politics and the environment have appeared in several online publications. His book, Cuban Health Care: The Ongoing Revolution, has been available since June 2020. Susan Armstrong, PE, LEED-AP (susan@susansnaturalspringwaters.com) is a licensed Civil Engineer, whose specialty is Health Safety and Environmental Engineering (HSE). Her life’s work is healthy sustainable systems in communities, workplaces, and environment – through science, engineering, policy, and activism. Read other articles by Don Fitz and Susan Armstrong.

This article was posted on Saturday, May 14th, 2022 at 9:32am and is filed under Crime, Drug Wars, Marijuana, Racism.

The ongoing saga of the privatization the Canadian Wheat Board

The certification of this class action will allow the courts to hear the case of potentially 70,000 Canadian farmers. These are farmers who sold grain through the Canadian Wheat Board and did not receive full payment for that sale.

These activist farmers are still standing, urging us to listen to the backstory and why this class action suit could potentially impact each of us.


by Lois Ross

RABBLE.CA

April 26, 2022

I think it is fair to say that family farmers are among one of the most hopeful, resilient, and persevering occupations.

I am not romanticizing the role of the farmer by any stretch — just stating what I have observed over the last several decades. Stamina!

One example is the longstanding legal battles waged by farmers over the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB).

Earlier this month, the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, certified a Class Action lawsuit brought by Manitoba farmer Andrew Dennis against the Government of Canada and G3 Canada Ltd. The lawsuit alleges financial irregularities occurred during the privatization of the Canadian Wheat Board.

“We will, at long last, have an opportunity to ask the Court to rule on whether the Government of Canada or Minister Ritz unlawfully manipulated CWB accounts, depriving farmers of money rightfully owing to them,” stated Andrew Dennis, in an April 9th media release announcing the successful certification of the class action.

The certification of this class action lawsuit has been a long time coming — close to 10 years. It is only the first step in the actual lawsuit. Certification means that Dennis, on behalf of these farmers which forms a legally recognized class, has the right to pursue this lawsuit. The lawsuit itself can now proceed.

Throughout the past decade there have been several dizzying legal twists and turns. There have also been several appeals, delays, denials and various forms of stonewalling, but these activist farmers are still standing, urging us to listen to the backstory and why this class action suit could potentially impact each of us.

Meanwhile, neither the former federal Conservative government, or the current federal Liberal government, have wanted to fess-up to what most of us watching this show already know or, at the very least, suspect.

The saga of the dismantling of the CWB is covered in a rabble.ca column which I wrote in 2019. Read it here for a detailed picture of the importance of the CWB, the legal issues, and how the loss of the CWB is impacting farm incomes and family farms.

There is also a timeline on the CWB Class Action where you can read the Statement of Claim and the April 5 certification of the class action.

Dennis is the Manitoba farmer who is the face of this lawsuit. He is accompanied by the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board (FCWB) and potentially tens of thousands of grain producers. This suit is the first step in the one remaining lawsuit among the several that were pursued in various jurisdictions across Canada by farmers challenging the privatization of the CWB. Along the way there have been wins and losses.

The certification of this class action will allow the courts to hear the case of potentially 70,000 Canadian farmers. These are farmers who sold grain through the CWB between August 1, 2010 and July 31, 2012 and did not receive full payment for that sale.

The dismantling of the CWB shows just how easily governments intent on pursuing their own agendas, often in the name of corporate concentration and privatization, bend the rules. They exercise authority through very questionable methods despite being holders of a public office and public trust, all the while insisting on the legitimacy of their actions.

It takes hope, and yes stamina, to avoid throwing up your hands in frustration and walk away.

The FCWB is a coalition of farmers and other Canadians who support a farmer-controlled CWB. In its April 9th media release about the court granting certification, it explained the crux of the lawsuit:

“The lawsuit alleges former Minister of Agriculture Gerry Ritz committed misfeasance in public office by unlawfully sheltering $145,000,000 of farmer’s money into an account that could be transferred to the Wheat Board’s purchasers in connection with the Wheat Board’s 2012 privatization. The Manitoba Court of Appeal accepted in a 2020 ruling that if this money had not been sheltered by the Government, it would have been paid to farmers. The claim also alleges that the CWB is liable to farmers by not paying them the full amount required under their contracts.”

-FCWB

Essentially the lawsuit calls for farmers to receive $145 million in moneys transferred from the CWB pooling accounts into a CWB contingency fund, along with $5.9 million used in the CWB transition to privatization. The lawsuit also calls for $10 million in punitive damages plus interest — an amount estimated, after 10 years, to be close to $190 million today.

In the end, the suit of $145 million might average out to an estimated $2,000 for each farmer. Exact amounts are dependent on the volume of grain each farmer delivered to the board during the 2011-2012 timeframe.

Meanwhile, just as importantly, and perhaps more-so many might argue, are the actions taken by then Minister of Agriculture Gerry Ritz. This is where this class action lawsuit could potentially affect each one of us and how we are governed.

The lawsuit alleges that the Minister of Agriculture, who through the use of Orders in Council, transferred farm payments into a general contingency fund, instead of paying out farmer contracts. In his ruling certifying the class action, the Justice’s clarity on the common issues startles. Read the decision here and skip to page 20 to read about the issues related to “misfeasance of public office” by the then Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

By the way, misfeasance is defined, more specifically, as the misuse of power; misbehaviour in office; the wrongful and injurious exercise of lawful authority.

Basically, the issue at the core of the class action lawsuit is whether then Minister of Agriculture withheld CWB contract payment to farmers using Orders in Council that overrode legislation passed by Parliament. Did the Minister of Agriculture, Gerry Ritz, have the authority to do so, and did he do so knowingly, and willfully?

As Stewart Wells, Saskatchewan farmer and chair of the FCWB notes in a recent interview for this column:

“There are very important legal questions to be solved, related to the nature of authoritarian governments. This case will turn on whether or not the Orders in Council that Gerry Ritz, then Minister of Agriculture and the rest of the Harper cabinet passed in October of 2011 were legal. These Orders in Council directed the Canadian Wheat Board to put every nickel they could find into the contingency fund –- a fund to be used for whatever they wanted it to be used for later on. If a minister of the government can override legislation passed in Parliament with just a Cabinet Order then you are in a real authoritarian system and laws and legislation are meaningless at that point — that is what we believe was done in October of 2011.”

-Wells, Chair FCWB

While this class action lawsuit is now certified and will be heard in court, there are still miles to go before final outcomes are known.

Meanwhile, Stewart Wells and the coalition of members belonging to the FCWB, understand their role and the importance of persistence on fundamental issues such as this one. Wells explains:

“Do we live in a democracy or some sort of authoritarian dictatorship, and does anybody have the temerity and perseverance to bring this kind of case forward and get it in front of the courts? Because if nobody had challenged this — and it would have been easy for all of the farmers just to walk away and say ‘well they did it and that is the end of it’ — But at some point you do not have a functioning democracy if people are not willing to stand up to have these matters adjudicated in a court.”

-Wells

By certifying this class action, Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Martin has directed that the questions and actions taken in October of 2011 surrounding the CWB finances must be answered and accounted for.

Wells emphasizes: “We have maintained for over a decade that the Government of Canada and CWB took money that belonged to farmers and sold it as part of the asset base taken over by the Crown and then provided to G3 Canada Ltd. the nominal legal successor to the CWB, and owned by the multinational Bunge and the Government of Saudi Arabia.”

For updates on the lawsuit, follow the Canadian Wheat Board Alliance.

Russia’s war heats up cooking oil prices in global squeeze

By DEE-ANN DURBIN, AYSE WIETING and KELVIN CHAN

1 of 11

A man uses cooking oil to fry Mandazi, a type of fried bread, on a street in the low-income Kibera neighborhood of Nairobi, Kenya, Wednesday, April 20, 2022. Global cooking oil prices have been rising since the COVID-19 pandemic began and Russia's war in Ukraine has sent costs spiralling. It is the latest fallout to the global food supply from the war, with Ukraine and Russia the world’s top exporters of sunflower oil. And it's another rising cost pinching households and businesses as inflation soars.

 (AP Photo/Khalil Senosi)


ISTANBUL (AP) — For months, Istanbul restaurant Tarihi Balikca tried to absorb the surging cost of the sunflower oil its cooks use to fry fish, squid and mussels.

But in early April, with oil prices nearly four times higher than they were in 2019, the restaurant finally raised its prices. Now, even some longtime customers look at the menu and walk away.

“We resisted. We said, ’Let’s wait a bit, maybe the market will improve, maybe (prices) will stabilize. But we saw that there is no improvement,” said Mahsun Aktas, a waiter and cook at the restaurant. “The customer cannot afford it.”

Global cooking oil prices have been rising since the COVID-19 pandemic began for multiple reasons, from poor harvests in South America to virus-related labor shortages and steadily increasing demand from the biofuel industry. The war in Ukraine — which supplies nearly half of the world’s sunflower oil, on top of the 25% from Russia — has interrupted shipments and sent cooking oil prices spiraling.

It is the latest fallout to the global food supply from Russia’s war, and another rising cost pinching households and businesses as inflation soars. The conflict has further fueled already high food and energy costs, hitting the poorest people hardest.

The food supply is particularly at risk as the war has disrupted crucial grain shipments from Ukraine and Russia and worsened a global fertilizer crunch that will mean costlier, less abundant food. The loss of affordable supplies of wheat, barley and other grains raises the prospect of food shortages and political instability in Middle Eastern, African and some Asian countries where millions rely on subsidized bread and cheap noodles.

Vegetable oil prices hit a record high in February, then increased another 23% in March, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. Soybean oil, which sold for $765 per metric ton in 2019, was averaging $1,957 per metric ton in March, the World Bank said. Palm oil prices were up 200% and are set to go even higher after Indonesia, one of the world’s top producers, bans cooking oil exports starting Thursday to protect domestic supply.

Some supermarkets in Turkey have imposed limits on the amount of vegetable oil households can purchase after concerns about shortages sparked panic-buying. Some stores in Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom also have set limits. German shoppers are posting photos on social media of empty shelves where sunflower and canola oil usually sit. In a recent tweet, Kenya’s main power company warned that thieves are draining toxic fluid from electrical transformers and reselling it as cooking oil.

“We will just have to boil everything now, the days of the frying pan are gone,” said Glaudina Nyoni, scanning prices in a supermarket in Harare, Zimbabwe, where vegetable oil costs have almost doubled since the outbreak of the war. A 2-liter bottle now costs up to $9.

Emiwati, who runs a food stall in Jakarta, Indonesia, said she needs 24 liters of cooking oil each day. She makes nasi kapau, traditional mixed rice that she serves with dishes like deep-fried spiced beef jerky. Since January, she’s had trouble ensuring that supply, and what she does buy is much more expensive. Profits are down, but she fears losing customers if she raises prices.

“I am sad,” said Emiwati, who only uses one name. “We accept the price of cooking oil increasing, but we cannot increase the price of the foods we sell.”

The high cost of cooking oil is partly behind recent protests in Jakarta. Indonesia has imposed price caps on palm oil at home and will ban exports, creating a new squeeze worldwide. Palm oil has been sought as an alternative for sunflower oil and is used in many products, from cookies to cosmetics.

The Associated Press has documented human rights abuses in an industry whose environmental effects have been decried for years.

Across the world in London, Yawar Khan, who owns Akash Tandoori restaurant, said a 20-liter drum of cooking oil cost him 22 pounds ($28) a few months ago; it’s now 38 pounds ($49).

“We cannot pass all the price (rises) to the consumer, that will cause a catastrophe, too,” said Khan, who also struggles with rising costs for meat, spices, energy and labor.

Big companies are feeling the pain, too. London-based Unilever — maker of Dove soap and Hellmann’s mayonnaise — said it has contracts for critical ingredients like palm oil for the first half of the year. But it warned investors that its costs could rise significantly in the second half.

Cargill, a global food giant that makes vegetable oils, said its customers are changing formulas and experimenting with different kinds of oils at a higher rate than usual. That can be tricky because oils have different properties; olive oil burns at a lower temperature than sunflower oil, for example, while palm oil is more viscous.

Prices could moderate by this fall, when farmers in the Northern Hemisphere harvest corn, soybeans and other crops, said Joseph Glauber, a senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute. But there’s always the danger of bad weather. Last year, drought pummeled Canada’s canola crop and Brazil’s soybean crop, while heavy rains affected palm oil production in Malaysia.

Farmers may be hesitant to plant enough crops to make up for shortfalls from Ukraine or Russia because they don’t know when the war might end, said Steve Mathews, co-head of research at Gro Intelligence, an agriculture data and analytics company.

“If there were a cease-fire or something like that, we would see prices decline in the short run for sure,” he said.

Longer term, the crisis may lead countries to reconsider biofuel mandates, which dictate the amount of vegetable oils that must be blended with fuel in a bid to reduce emissions and energy imports. In the U.S., for example, 42% of soybean oil goes toward biofuel production, Glauber said. Indonesia recently delayed a plan to require 40% palm oil-based biodiesel, while the European Commission said it would support member states that choose to reduce their biofuel mandates.

In the meantime, consumers and businesses are struggling.

Harry Niazi, who owns The Famous Olley’s Fish Experience in London, says he used to pay around 22 pounds ($29) for a 20-liter jug of sunflower oil; the cost recently jumped to 42.50 pounds ($55). Niazi goes through as many as eight jugs per week.

But what worries him even more than rising prices is the thought of running out of sunflower oil altogether. He’s thinking of selling his truck and using the cash to stock up on oil.

“It’s very, very scary, and I don’t know how the fish and chips industry is going to cope. I really don’t,” he said.

So far, Niazi has held off on raising prices because he doesn’t want to lose customers.

At Jordan’s Grab n’ Go, a small restaurant in Dyersburg, Tennessee, known for its fried cheeseburgers, owner Christine Coronado also agonized about price increases. But with costs up 20% across the board — and cooking oil prices nearly tripling since she opened in 2018 — she finally hiked prices in April.

“You hate to raise prices on people, but it’s just that costs are so much higher than they were a couple of years ago,” she said.

___

Chan reported from London. AP journalists Edna Tarigan and Fadlan Syam in Jakarta, Indonesia; Farai Mutsaka in Harare, Zimbabwe; Suzan Fraser in Ankara, Turkey; Mehmet Guzel in Istanbul; Anne D’Innocenzio in New York; and Sebabatso Mosamo and Mogomotsi Magome in Johannesburg contributed.

Crypto Bros Are Trying to Buy an Island in the Pacific

Crypto millionaires are attempting to buy an island in the Southwest Pacific. It’s the latest in a long line of schemes by libertarians asserting the rights of private capital above all else.

Tourist bungalows on Iririki island, Vanuatu.

 (Phillip Capper / Wikimedia Commons)

BY RAYMOND CRAIB

JACOBIN

04.22.2022

Utopian thinking is everywhere out of favor, except in the libertarian fantasies of crypto enthusiasts who dream of a world free from the regulatory state, law, and all other forms of external authority. Hucksterism and hostility to collective life are this movement’s defining features. The worldview underlying it is embodied nowhere more literally than in the schemes to exit from the territorial jurisdiction of the nation-state prevalent throughout the history of libertarianism. Crypto luminaries have even sought to buy and govern islands, using oceans to separate themselves from taxes and democracy.

Satoshi Island — named after the alleged creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, and located in the southwest Pacific archipelago of Vanuatu — is the most recent creation of crypto’s venture capitalists. “A real-life private island dedicated to the crypto community,” reads the promotional material. Measuring some eight hundred acres (just over one square mile), Satoshi Island is at this point almost entirely rainforest. Its main attraction: a rare species of giant coconut crabs. Other than flora and fauna, Satoshi boasts a small coastal clearing and a large house on its western edge facing the archipelago’s largest island, Santo. If plans go ahead, the tropical paradise will not remain pristine for long. Would-be crypto colonizers hope to transform the island into a “sustainable smart city.”

Much of the island’s promotional material, with its claims of private ownership and Satoshi citizenship, is misleading. Citizenship, for example, suggests Satoshi Island will be its own state and can confer political rights to its inhabitants. That is not the case. Rather, citizenship in this instance is a catchy way of acknowledging that you own one of the 21,000 Satoshi Island NFTs (non-fungible tokens) and thus can access the island community. But you would still need to hold a valid passport from another country in order to first enter Vanuatu, and no form of Vanuatu citizenship is attached to the island NFT.While the archipelago’s native inhabitants fought for independence, the libertarians advocated a very different form of self-determination . . . a new country governed entirely through contractual, market relations.

One could, in this broad sense, count oneself a citizen of Satoshi Island in the same way that one could, in a sense, count oneself a citizen of Disneyland. Even the use of the phrase “private island” is a misnomer. Since independence in 1980, all land in Vanuatu is held by custom owners — native Ni-Vanuatu (native inhabitants of the islands) — who can lease but not sell land. It is not a “private island” because foreign investors will not be able to enjoy freehold ownership. Even the island’s name is more complicated than the promoters would like to let on.

The brains behind the project, Anthony Welch, a retired property investor who now lives in Vanuatu, renamed the island, in grand imperial fashion, two years ago. Vanuatu’s government has pointed out that such an act has no force of law or real significance. According to the country’s director general of the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, in order to formally change the name — which is actually Le-Tharo — the government’s Place Name Committee would need to approve such request. This hasn’t happened. Satoshi Island is, for all intents and purposes, a fantasy island.
Hijacking Independence

All of this could be filed away under the growing folder of goofy grifts that characterize efforts to create private countries, all too often involving cryptocurrency advocates. The archetype for these libertarian adventures is Burning Man; more often they are closer to the infamous Fyre Festival. There is, however, more at stake in these schemes then the money of naive investors. The language of citizenship and private property may be disingenuous, but it points toward how libertarian schemes dream of asserting the rights of private capital over those of sovereign states and their populations.

Although the distinctly modern form that these encroachments have taken may seem new, they have a long history, even in Vanuatu itself. In the 1970s, a group of US-based libertarians looked to Vanuatu — known as the New Hebrides and jointly colonized by the British and the French at the time — as a site to create a new country.


While the archipelago’s native inhabitants fought for independence, the libertarians advocated a very different form of self-determination: the creation of a new country governed entirely through contractual, market relations. Inspired by the fictions of Ayn Rand and the myth of Robinson Crusoe, men such as Nevada coin dealer and land developer Michael Oliver, University of Southern California philosophy professor John Hospers, Rand’s former acolyte and paramour Nathaniel Branden, and international finance guru Harry Schultz founded the Phoenix Foundation with the hopes of forging their own private archipelago.

Fantasies of libertarian exit from society were not uncommon at the time. The 1960s in the United States was as much the heyday of market libertarianism as it was of New Left anti-capitalism. Fears of demographic, ecological, and monetary collapse, combined with anxieties over the activities of social movements seeking racial, gender, and economic justice and redress, hastened efforts to find ways to abandon the sinking ship of state and to start anew elsewhere. But where?Given the uncertainties that would accompany processes of decolonization, libertarian exiters saw an opportunity to pursue individual self-determination in the very places struggling against colonial rule.

In seeking new places for a new country, exiters found their efforts frustrated by the territorial realities of state sovereignty. They soon turned to new far-away locales in which to realize their utopian dreams. Islands have long served as the basis for libertarian political ecology — the ideal space upon which the drama of individualism, of man alone, could be staged — but more important, perhaps, is that Oceania and the Caribbean were places of incipient decolonization.

Michael Oliver, one of the foremost exit advocates of the period and author of both A New Constitution for a New Country (1968) and the Capitalist Country Newsletter (1968–1970), made this clear:


A surprising number of nearly uninhabited, yet quite suitable places for establishing a new country still exist. . . . Many such places are scarcely developed colonies whose governmental or other activities are of little or no concern at all to their “mother” countries. There will be little problem in purchasing the land, or in having the opportunity to conduct affairs on a free enterprise basis from the very beginning.

Oliver was observant. This was, after all, the high point of decolonization. United Nations Resolution 1514 on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples enshrined national self-determination as a fundamental right of colonized peoples. Given the uncertainties that would accompany processes of decolonization, libertarian exiters saw an opportunity to pursue individual self-determination in the very places struggling against colonial rule. The ugly and ironic perversion of Resolution 1514 should not be overlooked: in the era of self-determination, selfish-determination arrived in the Southwest Pacific.

Oliver had garnered some hard-earned experience at countrymaking. With support from wheat and housing magnate Willard Garvey, horologist and yachtsman Seth Atwood, and famed investor John Templeton, Oliver had first tried to build an island on an atoll south of Tonga. Tongan assertions of territorial water rights ended the project abruptly in 1972. They then sought to colonize, rather than build, an island by plotting to invade Abaco in the Bahamas. Although allied with an English lord, an American arms merchant, and three ex-CIA agents, Oliver’s efforts failed when Abaconian supporters withdrew and the FBI intervened. The Phoenix Foundation thus turned to the New Hebridean island of Santo, a place where Oliver had previously made contact with a chief named Jimmy Stevens.Masses of working people . . . worried that a transfer of power from colonial to national rule would constitute little more than a shift from external to internal colonialism.

By 1975 New Hebridean independence appeared not only possible, but probable. The British wanted out; the French held slim hopes of maintaining some presence in the archipelago. New Hebrideans themselves led the way to independence, through the Santo-based movement known as Nagriamel and the largely Anglophone Vanua’aku Pati (VP) — led by Anglican priests and intellectuals such as Walter Lini, Barak Sope, and Grace Mera Molisa — which formed in the early 1970s and drew inspiration from the examples of Ghana, Tanzania, and the United States’ Black Power movement.
Failed Rebellions

The VP and Nagriamel should have been natural allies. They shared many commitments: land to Ni-Vanuatu, the end of colonial rule, and self-determination. Up to this point, they had hardly been rivals. And yet Jimmy Stevens turned away from the VP and toward the Phoenix Foundation. Why? For one, the VP’s base was in the Anglophone Protestant church, which often found itself at odds with those in Nagriamel who tended to come from the bush and embraced kastom (custom), what anthropologist Margaret Jolly defines as a “self-conscious perpetuation of ancestral ways and resistance to European values and practices.”

Stevens equated custom with bush people, but leaders in the VP understood that the equation was not so simple. The Phoenix Foundation had mobilized around the idea of custom to further its own agenda and to cultivate a lasting political relationship with Stevens. But beyond custom, what Stevens and Nagriamel feared most is that they would not be directing their own destiny once independence arrived, and they chafed against what they perceived as second-class treatment by the Anglophone-dominated VP and its educated and politically cosmopolitan leaders.


Such concerns characterized struggles over decolonization in many places around the globe as the masses of working people, as well as ethnic and linguistic minorities, worried that a transfer of power from colonial to national rule would constitute little more than a shift from external to internal colonialism. Stevens proffered an alternative: drawing upon a certain cartographic logic, he emphasized that the New Hebrides was “an artificial creation, a colonial convenience,” and thus he would create an “autonomous, self-governing region or province of NaGriamel as part of a New Hebrides Confederation . . . based on Melanesian traditions.”

In order to pursue secession, Stevens relied on his libertarian allies and incorporated their ideological language. Warnings of communist influences, of taxation, and of VP shenanigans appeared with regularity in Stevens’s rhetoric, and the slogan “Individual Rights for All” began appearing on the Nagriamel flag. Eventually, with the Phoenix Foundation’s financial and logistical support, Stevens and Nagriamel launched a rebellion to secede from the new state of Vanuatu in 1980. That rebellion ended with death and displacement.

Stevens was sentenced to a long prison term and branded a traitor, even as he mourned the death of a son, shot during the rebellion’s suppression. His coleaders also served stints in prison, one of whom died from tetanus at the beginning of his sentence. Meanwhile, the collaborators in the Phoenix Foundation watched from a distant shore and then, like the British and the French, went home.
A Free Trade Zone

In 1995 Oliver returned to Vanuatu in a joint venture with Romanian economist Stefan Mandel. Mandel had managed to game the lottery system in the 1990s by purchasing every possible combination of tickets for the Virginia lottery’s $27 million jackpot. He had convinced investors to loan him money to purchase all the combinations, at the cost of some $7 million, in exchange for a share of the winnings. “I knew that I would win one first prize, six second prizes, 132 third prizes and thousands of minor prizes,” Mandel bragged. He pulled in nearly $20 million, but his investors saw little return on their investment after taxes, reimbursements, and Mandel’s appropriation of nearly $2 million as a “consulting fee.”

Because of Mandel, the US lottery system no longer allows people to fill in their own tickets. In addition, they have expanded the possible number of configurations to offset the possibility of another Mandel. In the late 1990s, Oliver and Mandel worked with the Israeli Mondragon group to try to create a free trade zone (FTZ) on Big Bay on Santo. In a subversive twist, the group took its name from the highly successful Mondragón cooperatives of the Basque region in Spain, but with vastly different aims in mind. Rather than creating workers’ cooperatives that provide an array of economic and social services, the Israeli Mondragon group sought a ninety-nine-year lease to create an economic and cultural enclave free of taxes, customs duties, and import/export regulations.

The free trade zone would have had its own postal service, currency, and offshore financial center. The effort initially moved forward, although Oliver left after a falling out with Mandel. In any case, it did not end well. In late 1999 and early 2000, Vanuatu’s Council of Ministers and its Foreign Investment Review Board approved the project, but it quickly foundered after an ombudsman investigation in early 2001 determined the deal was corrupt.

Five years later, in 2006, US ambassador to Papua New Guinea Robert Fitts reported to the United States Pacific Command:


The Vanuatu Minister of Lands [Maxime Carlot Korman] recently signed an MOU with an obscure group of American investors to consider establishing a free port with an autonomous government. This closely parallels a 1980 attempt by the Phoenix Foundation which was only ended by bringing in PNG troops (ref A). The 1980 version would have had the powers to issue currency, passports, and was supposed to have featured untaxed and unregulated free flow of capital. (C) Ambassador learned Sept 6 from the Vanuatu Deputy Prime Minister that many of the same American figures are behind the current effort.

At least one of those figures was Michael Oliver.

The MOU went nowhere. Memories of Oliver linger. Claims circulated that he was in Santo in 2015, at the age of eighty-seven, and were met with fanfare; they turned out to be false. But now, as in the 1970s, there are male chiefs and Ni-Vanuatu with rights to custom land who want to see it developed, and they remember his name. Nagriamel endorsed a 2019 plan to create a free trade zone on Santo. The desires and needs are as real as the differences of opinion among custom landowners. Some counsel development, while others counsel against it. Some want free trade zones and to lease land because of the promise of jobs and a potentially improved quality of life; others are concerned that FTZs constitute little more than a land grab and will bring minimal benefits to local communities. Such concerns are not new. The route to independence, as well as what it would look like, was intensely contested among Ni-Vanuatu, and the question of land rights is central to such debates.

Prior to the 1980 rebellion on Santo, a French official tried to explain why American speculators had targeted the New Hebrides in the 1970s. He concluded that they were looking to reproduce life as it was in “Guatemala in the good old days.” It is an unnerving indictment. As the official surely knew, the landowners’ belle epoque that preceded Guatemala’s democratic revolution in 1944 had been characterized by feudal lords and “their” indigenous serfs, wealthy landowners and indebted tenants, capricious rule and unquestioned submission. That schemes arose to resettle Vietnamese refugees on Santo as unpaid laborers suggests that the characterization is not necessarily an exaggeration.

The French official’s observation was a self-serving, exculpatory barb designed to forgive his own country’s colonial legacies, but it was also a sharp recognition of what lay just under the surface of the libertarian rhetoric and market idealism. Rather than a brave new world of widespread freedom, Vanuatu might have become little more than a patchwork landscape of private fiefdoms worked by a dispossessed class of Ni-Vanuatu. Little more, that is, than a Melanesian banana republic.

Exactly what free trade zones and crypto paradises — if they come to pass — hold in store for Vanuatu now is unclear. But the efforts from the 1960s and 1970s should give us pause, as should more recent libertarian private-country schemes. Over the past decade, the Seasteading Institute has sought out locations to colonize, beginning initially with the “high seas” and continuing more recently with a Tahitian lagoon and the coastal waters of Panama. A repurposed cruise ship, christened by its cryptocurrency-enthusiast owners “Satoshi,” floated around the Circum-Caribbean for a while with similar private country aspirations.

Bitcoin disaster capitalists, rebranded as the Puertopians, descended on Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria with promises of charity, wealth, and progress. Self-professed “radical social entrepreneurs” competed with former Ronald Reagan administration officials to develop free private cities and special economic zones in Honduras, with the blessing of an illegal regime that came to power through a coup d’état. These may be only the most visible of the varied projects underway. But at least thus far, all of these initiatives have floundered in the face of understandable opposition by communities that see such schemes for what they are: colonization, real estate speculation, land grabbing, and an assault on democracy and national self-determination.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Raymond Craib is a professor of history at Cornell University and the author of the forthcoming Adventure Capitalism: A History of Libertarian Exit, From the Era of Decolonization to the Digital Age (PM Press/Spectre, 2022).