Corporate Welfare Props Up the Billionaire Class

BYGRACE BLAKELEY

The last year has seen the largest increase in billionaire wealth in history, but it has little to do with innovation — states across the world are pursuing policies which guarantee that the rich get richer.

Jeff Bezos, the world's richest person, has increased his wealth by around $90 billion since January 2020. (Simon Stacpoole / Offside / Getty Images)

Last year, during the peak of the global pandemic, the world created more than seven hundred new billionaires. In the year since, another five hundred have been created — but the total wealth on the Forbes list has increased from $5 trillion to $13 trillion, the largest increase ever recorded in any one-year period. China topped the list for the highest number of new billionaires, with the United States coming in second.

Meanwhile, global GDP shrank by 3.3 percent in 2020 and unemployment rates are around 1.5 percentage points higher than they were before the pandemic in most economies. This doesn’t simply raise moral questions about the distribution of wealth during a pandemic — it requires us to ask exactly how those at the top are doing so well while demand in the global economy is so subdued.

The main reason for the explosion in billionaire wealth over the course of the pandemic has been the asset-purchasing programs undertaken by central banks. In the wake of the financial crisis, and following in the footsteps of the Bank of Japan after its crisis a decade earlier, central banks set about creating new money to purchase long-dated government bonds and some other assets in order to reduce yields (previously, they had primarily dealt in short-dated bonds as a way to influence interest rates).

The idea behind what is now commonly known as quantitative easing (QE) was that pushing down yields on long-dated government bonds would encourage investors to purchase other assets, like equities. Some argue that this was simply a measure designed to increase lending and investment; others argue that central banks were actively attempting to increase asset prices, enriching the wealthy based on the assumption that that wealth would “trickle down” to everyone else.


Whatever the original intentions, central bank asset purchases have unquestionably led to significant asset price inflation and increased wealth inequality. If that trend was not obvious in the run-up to the COVID-19 pandemic — US equities had undergone their longest bull run in history and many observers were pointing to a bubble in high-yield corporate debt — then it is certainly obvious today.

Saying that central bank asset purchases have increased wealth inequality is another way of saying that the state has intervened directly in order to increase the wealth of those at the very top. In this context, the idea that billionaire wealth simply represents a reward for effort and innovation — the size of which is determined by the “market” — is clearly absurd. These billionaires didn’t earn the massive increases in their wealth seen over the last year — they were effectively handed this wealth by the state.

And QE is not the only form of upward redistribution promoted by capitalist states today. Even before the pandemic, the United States had a massive problem with so-called corporate welfare. Special interest groups — from oil to agriculture to aviation — received huge direct handouts from the US state in the form of tax breaks and subsidies.

The response to the global financial crisis could itself be considered a form of corporate welfare. Some of the largest banks, insurance companies, and other financial institutions received massive direct or indirect bailouts for undertaking activities that many of their senior executives were aware were incredibly risky.

These bankers no doubt knew that their organizations were “too big to fail”: they knew that their collapse could bring down the world economy. The trump card held by these large organizations is a form of structural power inherent to the functioning of capitalism: as long as a small number of people control most of the world’s resources, they’ll be able to blackmail even the most progressive governments.

The pandemic has seen a massive revival of corporate welfare — only this time, rather than bailing out their financial sectors, governments are bailing out the entire capitalist class. On top of the $9 trillion worth of QE that’s been undertaken since the pandemic began, governments all around the world have spent trillions on loans and subsidies to big businesses, financiers, and landlords. Most have also provided some support for workers; yet without breaks on debt, rent, and bills, much of this has ended up in the pockets of the wealthy too.

These are only the indirect channels through which capitalist states support the global billionaire class. Oxfam identified in 2015 that a third of billionaire wealth comes directly from crony connections to the state or monopolies. Whether through outsourcing, subsidies, or privatization, state policy has created many billionaires over the years — as should be clear from the fact that state-capitalist China created the most new billionaires this year.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the dramatic increase in the wealth of those at the very top of society would have been impossible without the direct intervention of capitalist states all over the world. Those who attempt to justify the extraordinary levels of inequality on the basis that they are the natural result of the operation of the free market would do well to remember this.

But so would those on the Left who see state intervention as the answer to all of capitalism’s problems. More often than not, capitalist states undertake policy in the interests of capital. This is not because states are mere instruments of the ruling class; it is because the balance of power between capital and labor has shifted decisively in favor of the former in recent years, which has influenced the class struggle taking place within state institutions.

It may be possible to imagine a world in which public power is used to support the interests of labor over capital, but there is no way this can be achieved without class struggle within and — crucially — outside of the capitalist state.

JACOBIN

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Grace Blakeley is a staff writer at Tribune, and the author of Stolen: How to Save the World from Financialisation.

How clean water is linked with environmental and human health

When the world works together, a brighter and greener future is possible.

By Jane Marsh
-June 16, 2021
SOURCE NationofChange


Recently, California experienced its most significant persistent drought period. The occurrence threatened the agricultural industry and human health. Unfortunately, water scarcity is a rising global issue.

Water conservation is essential to humanity’s and the global ecosystem’s longevity. Environmental scientists and engineers developed methods of extraction and filtration, limiting the exploitation of natural resources. Before evaluating the water scarcity solutions, we must examine the origin of the problem.
Climate Change and Water Scarcity

Over 2.1 billion individuals lack access to safe drinking water. Climate change is a driving factor of rising water scarcity rates. As humans emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, they produce and trap excessive quantities of heat in the environment.

Rising global temperatures disrupt consistent weather patterns. It causes an increased frequency of natural disasters, higher evaporation rates and enhanced precipitation periods. When hurricanes and other disasters strike, they contaminate clean water sources.

Contaminated drinking water causes illnesses like typhoid and cholera. Rising temperatures also increase the number of pathogens able to grow in drinking water. The recent El Nino period raised temporary temperatures by a few degrees Celsius.

Heat-related pathogen contamination caused a 200% increase in Peruvian children’s diarrhea. About 2.2 million deaths occur annually from this illness. If the consistent global temperature rises by one degree, an additional 320 million cases will occur.

Climate change also increases rainfall in some regions while leaving others ridden with drought. Warming temperatures expand evaporation rates fueling water displacement. Without adequate humidity and plentiful water sources, agricultural areas and natural habitats suffer.
Water Pollution

Clean water is a human right, necessary for environmental and human health and vitality. Climate change-causing actions affect the purity of global water supplies. The fast fashion industry is notorious for exploiting natural resources.

Nearly 70% of lakes and rivers in China are polluted. The textile industry dumps 2.5 billion gallons of wastewater into the sources, causing adverse health effects. Young children living in nearby communities suffer from long-term health problems caused by exposure.

Polluted waters also affect global ecosystems. Synthetic fertilizer and pesticide runoff pollute the ocean with nitrogen and phosphorus. The excess elements promote algal blooms.

Algal blooms deplete oxygen in aquatic regions, generating uninhabitable zones. Dead zones cause marine species death, decrease coastal communities’ access to food and degrade the aquatic ecosystem.
Clean-Up Time

Fortunately, technological advancements allow communities to source and filter clean water. New technology ensures humanity’s access to essential resources, maintaining optimal health conditions. Reclaiming and treating wastewater is an effective method for refilling reservoirs.

Many struggling regions convert wastewater into a clean and drinkable resource. The extracted liquid filters through a high-grade purification system. Sophisticated devices can produce over 25 million gallons of pharmaceutical-grade water for drinking and medical use.

Environmental engineers also developed a system that extracts water from the air. The Zero Mass Water device converts condensation into potable water. It uses solar energy to heat localized air, collecting the off-put in a 30-liter chamber and infusing it with minerals and ozone.

Access to clean drinking water helps protect human health. Hydration is essential for body temperature regulation, joint lubrication, infection prevention, organ functionality and more. With access to clean water, we can prevent death and illness.

The natural resource also aids in external health protection. Hand washing is crucial for germ removal and disease prevention. Throughout the pandemic, we witnessed the importance of handwashing to human health, preventing the spread of fatal illnesses.
Clean Water Commitment

We have the technology to ensure the global community’s clean water access. Impoverished regions may lack the necessary funds for extraction and filtration systems establishment. Financially secure nations may come together and support international clean water development.

Protecting environmental and human health helps the U.S. uphold its commitment to the Paris Agreement. We may additionally prevent climate change’s water effects and pollution by adopting sustainable practices. When the world works together, a brighter and greener future is possible.

44% of ocean plastics are linked to takeout food

Researchers are turning their attention to takeout containers and convenience food as the worst offender in plastics polluting the ocean.

By Audrey Nakagawa
-June 16, 2021
SOURCE EcoWatch


In recent years, it’s been a fad to skip the straw to save the turtles, but what you may not know is that straws are not the biggest offenders when it comes to ocean plastic, according to a new study.

Instead, researchers are turning their attention to takeout containers and convenience food as the worst offender in plastics polluting the ocean.

Widespread plastic contaminants such as food containers and wrappers, single-use bags, and plastic bottles are the most widespread pollutants of the seas, making up almost half of human-made waste, according to The Guardian.

“It was shocking to find out that bags, bottles, food containers and cutlery together with wrappers account for almost half of the human-made objects on a global scale,” said study leader Dr. Carmen Morales of the University of Cadiz, Spain to BBC. “We found them in rivers, on the deep seabed, on shorelines and floating off our coasts.”

Only 10 plastic products make up 75% of the oceans’ litter, the scientists found, due to the volume in which they are used and their slow degradation periods. The list also includes plastic lids and fishing gear, which are also huge plastic polluters. These findings are a result of collecting data from 36 global inventories.

Eight of the 10 cataloged items were made of plastic, and 44% of the waste was from takeout food and beverages.

Tackling the overconsumption of straws, cotton swabs, and drink stirrers has been popular, as they are easy to replace, but the researchers also recommended eliminating plastic from takeout food. Takeout containers are often discarded outside and soon after the food is purchased.

The researchers have outlined three possible strategies to combat the takeout plastic problem, including utilizing degradable materials in takeout containers, creating regulatory bans on avoidable plastics, and encouraging deposit-refund plans to encourage consumers to return takeout containers.

Morales hopes that the new study will encourage change.

“This information will make it easier for policymakers to actually take action to try to turn off the tap of marine litter flowing into the ocean, rather than just clean it up,” Morales told The Guardian.


Audrey Nakagawa is the content creator intern at EcoWatch. She is a senior at James Madison University studying Media, Art, and Design, with a concentration in journalism. She's a reporter for The Breeze in the culture section and writes features on Harrisonburg artists, album reviews, and topics related to mental health and the environment. She was also a contributor for Virginia Reports where she reported on the impact that COVID-19 had on college students.

The truth about the (SOUTHERN)US border-industrial complex

Congress should expand legal avenues of immigration, along with a roadmap to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already here—a policy with broad public support.

By Robert Reich
-June 16, 2021




The story you’ve heard about immigration, from politicians and the mainstream media alike, isn’t close to the full picture. Here’s the truth about how we got here and what we must do to fix it.

A desperate combination of factors are driving migrants and asylum seekers to our southern border, from Central America in particular: deep economic inequality, corruption, and high rates of poverty — all worsened by COVID-19.

Many are also fleeing violence and instability, much of it tied to historic U.S. support for brutal authoritarian regimes, right-wing paramilitary groups, and corporate interests in Latin America.

Some long-term consequences of this U.S. involvement have been the rise of violent transnational gangs and drug cartels, as well as the internal displacement of hundreds of thousands of people.

And thanks to lax U.S. gun laws and export rules, a flood of firearms that regularly flows south makes this violence even worse.

In other words, the United States is very much part of the root of this problem.

Meanwhile, climate change-fueled natural disasters like droughts and hurricanes have led to widespread food insecurity in Central America, forcing thousands to migrate or risk starvation.

Some politicians want you to believe the way to address this humanitarian tragedy is to double down on border security and build walls to deter people from coming.

They’re wrong.

Several administrations have tried this approach. It’s failed every time. A recent study found that increased prosecutions and incarceration did not deter migration, but instead clogged courts, shifted resources from more serious cases and stripped people of due process.

The expansion of this militarized border apparatus and the increased criminalization of crossings has forced immigrants and asylum seekers to take riskier routes where they face extortion, assault, and even death.

The true beneficiaries have been the corporations who profited from the militarization of the border.

Between 2008 and 2020, the federal government doled out an astounding $55 billion in contracts to this border-industrial complex. Billions have been spent on everything from Predator drones to intrusive biometric security systems. Immigration enforcement budgets have more than doubled in the last 13 years, and since 1980, have increased by more than 6,000%.

Let’s be clear: What’s really out of control at the border is our spending on the border-industrial complex, which has done nothing but increase human suffering without dealing with the root causes of migration.

So what can we do?

Begin by acknowledging the role U.S. policies have played, and build a positive, sustained relationship with our Mexican and Central American neighbors to reduce economic inequality, uplift the marginalized, and uphold democratic ideals.

Donald Trump’s abrupt and arbitrary cancelling of crucial aid to the Northern Triangle nations of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador is the opposite of what we should be doing.

We must also ensure that aid doesn’t benefit transnational corporations and local oligarchs. Our goals must instead be aligned with the calls of local labor unions, environmental defenders, and agricultural movements to improve conditions so people are not forced to migrate in the first place.

And we should seek to reverse the militarization of borders in Central America, and instead help build a system that respects the human rights of migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees.

Here at home, this means shifting away from the wasteful and violent militarization of our own borders, and ending the corporate profiteering it enables.

We need more asylum specialists, social workers, lawyers, and doctors at the border — not soldiers and walls.

And we must never again allow the inhumane and ineffective policies that resulted in the separation and detention of families and their children.

We must embrace the values we claim as our own, and never again allow a presidential administration to arbitrarily shrink the number of refugees accepted into the U.S. each year to almost none.

Congress should expand legal avenues of immigration, along with a roadmap to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already here — a policy with broad public support.

It’s not enough to roll back the cruel and xenophobic policies of our past. Most of us now living in America are the descendants of refugees, asylum-seekers, and immigrants. This new generation should be treated in ways that are consistent with our most cherished ideals.

Now is the time to act.

Robert Reich

http://robertreich.org/

Robert B. Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. He served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. He has written fourteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock", "The Work of Nations," and"Beyond Outrage," and, his most recent, "Saving Capitalism." He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, co-founder of the nonprofit Inequality Media and co-creator of the award-winning documentary, Inequality for All.

‘A deeply dangerous order’: Trump-appointed judge blocks Biden from pausing new oil drilling leases

"This is a deeply dangerous order that heightens the imperative for bold, urgent climate action on our public lands and ocean."

By Jake Johnson
-June 16, 2021
SOURCE Common Dreams



A Trump-appointed federal judge on Tuesday blocked the Biden administration from enforcing a temporary pause on new leases for oil and gas drilling on public lands and waters, a decision the Interior Department said it “will comply with” amid warnings about the order’s potentially destructive climate impact.

“The judge’s order turns a blind eye to runaway climate pollution that’s devastating our planet,” Randi Spivak, public lands program director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. “We’ll keep fighting against the fossil-fuel industry and the politicians that are bought by them.”

Siding with 13 Republican attorneys general who sued over the leasing pause, Judge Terry Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana argued in his ruling that President Joe Biden exceeded his legal powers with a January executive order suspending the Interior Department’s oil and gas leasing program for federal lands and waters.

The order instructed the Interior Department to conduct a comprehensive review of the “potential climate and other impacts associated with oil and gas activities on public lands or in offshore waters.” According to the U.S. Geological Survey, fossil fuels extracted from federal lands and waters are responsible for roughly 25% of the nation’s total carbon emissions.

Spivak argued Tuesday that, contrary to Doughty’s ruling and the argument advanced by Republican state officials in their lawsuit, “the Biden administration clearly has authority to pause and review oil and gas leasing on public lands” without congressional approval.

“This is a deeply dangerous order that heightens the imperative for bold, urgent climate action on our public lands and ocean,” Spivak said of Doughty’s decision.

A spokesperson for the Interior Department, headed by Secretary Deb Haaland, said late Tuesday that the agency is “reviewing the judge’s opinion and will comply with the decision.”

“The Interior Department continues to work on an interim report that will include initial findings on the state of the federal conventional energy programs, as well as outline next steps and recommendations for the department and Congress to improve stewardship of public lands and waters, create jobs, and build a just and equitable energy future,” the spokesperson added.

Doughty’s ruling is a boon for the struggling but still-powerful fossil fuel industry, which fervently opposed the Biden administration’s suspension of oil and gas leasing on public lands. The American Petroleum Institute, a trade organization that represents oil giants such as ExxonMobil and Shell, said it is “pleased” with Doughty’s decision, which will allow new lease sales to resume for now.

Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, pointed out in a statement Tuesday that Doughty based his decision “in part on the views of Timothy Considine at the University of Wyoming, the author of an industry-funded report on the purported economic impacts of the leasing pause.”

Doughty claimed in his ruling that “millions and possibly billions of dollars are at stake” in the fight over the leasing program.

“Republicans tempted to crow about today’s ruling should explain why they didn’t say a word after President Trump delayed these same lease sales as recently as last August,” Grijalva said. “We need to update our fossil fuel leasing laws across the board to establish a cleaner, more sustainable standard of use for our public resources… Our economic and environmental future shouldn’t be subject to rulings based on industry-funded science or opportunistic complaints that we didn’t hear until President Biden was sworn into office.”

The federal judge’s ruling comes a month after the International Energy Agency issued a report warning that countries across the globe must immediately stop approving new fossil fuel projects if the world is to avert the worst consequences of the climate crisis.

Last week, a coalition of climate organizations sent a letter (pdf) urging the Biden Interior Department to immediately halt all new “oil and gas exploration, drilling, and infrastructure approvals, including seismic operations and rights-of-ways, on public lands and waters.”

“The climate emergency does not allow for half measures,” said Raena Garcia, fossil fuels and lands campaigner with Friends of the Earth, one of the letter’s signatories. “Biden must uphold his promise to address the nearly 25% of U.S. emissions that come from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels from our public lands and waters. Halting all new drilling, including permitting and issuing leases from Trump’s 11th-hour public lands fire sale, is a critical step in making good on that promise.”

New Space Force laboratory opens: A breakdown on space warfare ‘autonomy’

“The U.S. imperial war project, now marching headlong into the heavens, is on autopilot."

By Karl Grossman
-June 16, 2021
SOURCEN ationofChange

Image Credit: The Washington Examiner


Become a powerful force for change

Join Us


A “Space Warfighting Operations R&D”—acronym “SWORD”—laboratory “will be working in the area of autonomy to enable space systems to automatically detect and respond to threat conditions faster than a human operator could achieve,” declared Colonel Eric Felt at its opening last month.

The laboratory, in Albuquerque, is an arm of both the new U.S. Space Force and the U.S. Air Force. Colonel Felt heads the “Space Vehicles Directorate” of the laboratory and made the comments in what was described as a “keynote speech” at a “ribbon-cutting ceremony” at it.

The $12.8 million facility “is dedicated to the research and development of space military technology,” notes Executivegov.com, a site which reports on U.S. government activities.

Felt’s statement about the laboratory developing “autonomy” in space warfare had a strong reaction among peace activists.

“The automation of war—surrendering human control to computers and Artificial Intelligence—is frightening and appears to hardly register a blip with our so-called elected officials who are consumed with begging for war-bucks while on their bended knees,” protested Bruce Gagnon, coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space.

“The U.S. imperial war project, now marching headlong into the heavens, is on autopilot. The public knows virtually nothing about it as the corporate owned media shares little news with the taxpayers other than cheer-leading these dangerous and provocative developments,” he said.

Herbert Hoffman, past president of the Veterans for Peace chapter in Albuquerque, stated: “Essentially Felt is supporting abandoning responsibility for making war to a pile of electronic wires, relays, chips. He is advocating abandoning rationality, assessment of error, etc. to an unthinking, no feeling ‘black box.’”

Bob Anderson, a U.S. Air Force Vietnam War combat veteran, co-director of the Albuquerque group Stop The War Machine and a member of the board of the Global Network, emailed the city’s mayor, Tim Keller. “As our mayor, I am greatly concerned about your support for SWORD,” he wrote. He cited the “autonomy” statement and said: “A war in space would be as bad or worse than a nuclear war and it could be triggered by computers here at SWORD. Are you OK with this?”

Also, Anderson a retired professor of economics and politics, wrote: “Some people once thought that a nuclear war was winnable. They have been replaced now with people who think that a war in space is winnable.”

Drawing attention in recent times to a technological mistake that nearly resulted in nuclear war was the Danish documentary, “The Man Who Saved The World.”

As Wired magazine said about the film released in 2013: “A Soviet ballistics officer draws the right conclusion—that a satellite report indicating incoming U.S. nuclear missiles is, in fact, a false alarm—thereby averting a potential nuclear holocaust.” Sept. 26, 1983: The Man Who Saved the World by Doing … Nothing | WIRED

“Lt. Col. Stanislav Petrov was duty officer at Serpukhov-15, the secret bunker outside Moscow that monitored the Soviet Union’s early-warning satellite system, when the alarm bells went off shortly after midnight,” Wired related. “One of the satellites signaled Moscow that the United States had launched five ballistic missiles at Russia….Petrov could have been forgiven for believing the signal was accurate. The electronic maps flashing around him didn’t do anything to ease the stress of the moment. But Petrov smelled a rat. ‘I had a funny feeling in my gut’ that this was a false alarm. For one thing, the report indicated that only five missiles had been fired. Had the United States been launching an actual nuclear attack, he reasoned, ICBMs would be raining down on them….Petrov was initially praised for his cool head but later came under criticism…”

A subsequent investigation “found that the satellite in question had picked up the sun’s reflection off the cloud tops and somehow interpreted that as a missile launch.”

Petrov years later would receive honors in the West including the World Citizen Award “in recognition of the part he played in averting a catastrophe” and, posthumously, in 2018, the Future of Life Award. This, as noted the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, came while just “blocks away” at the UN “politicians’ were discussing North Korea’s nuclear arsenal yet “none mentioned the greater threat from the many thousands of nuclear weapons in the United States and Russian arsenals that have nearly been unleashed by mistake dozens of times in the past in a seemingly never-ending series of mishaps and understanding.”

The U.S. military “has three designations for nuclear accidents,” John R. Kotson, who “spent 35 years developing electronic systems for military ground, air and space programs,” wrote in an article last year.

“Broken Arrow…accidents involving nuclear weapons; Faded giant…accidents involving non-weapon reactors; and NUCFLASH…accidents that may lead to war.” One NUCFLASH, he said, “occurred when a bear climbed over a security fence” at a U.S. Air Force Strategic Air Command base near Duluth “setting off ‘intruder alarms’ at other SAC bases. A wiring error at one base illuminated “Nuke Russia now.” Nuclear armed B52 bombers were on the runway awaiting take-off when the error was discovered.”

Kotson asserted: “We need verifiable nuclear treaties with our adversaries to avoid mistakes.”

John Kotson: Broken Arrow, Faded Giant or NUCFLASH – take your pick

Colonel Felt also said in his May 20th address at the opening of the SWORD laboratory: “One of the reasons we stood up the U.S. Space Force was to ensure our nation has the capabilities to deter any threats in space. Our job in the SWORD lab will be to continue to develop resilient and innovative technologies that will protect our nation and allies from threats by our adversaries.”

Also at the event and speaking was Brigadier General Heather L. Pringle, commander of the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) of which the SWORD laboratory will be a part. AFRL is based at the Wright Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio.

“What happens next,” she said, “is we’ll have our AFRL researchers, students and industry working side by side thinking of new ways to benefit our space warfighters to get our most important technologies out the door to support them. I am very excited to be part of this SWORD lab.”

Meanwhile, the new U.S. Space Force is seeking more funds from Congress. Donald Trump said as he called in 2018 for it to be established: “When it comes to defending America it is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance in space.”

President Joe Biden has not rolled back the formation of the U.S. Space Force. Also, in passing enabling legislation to create the Space Force in 2019, fellow Democrats in Congress largely voted with Republicans to establish in 2019 the sixth branch of the U.S. military. The Space Force is asking Congress for $17.4 billion as its 2022 budget. The $2 billion increase from this year is “for the domain that’s increasingly important to future conflicts and joint war fighting,” says C4isrmet, a website that describes itself as providing “Media for the Intelligence Age Military.”

Further, C4isrmet ran an article last week headlined: “Space Force seeks $832 million in classified spending, new missions and more in annual wish list.” This, it was explained, as it seeks to “develop a war fighting punch.”

The forming of the U.S. Space Force has come despite the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, formally titled “Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.” It was put together by the U.S., the United Kingdom and then Soviet Union, and as of this year has been signed on to by more than 100 nations.

It provides that: “The exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind…Outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means…States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner.”

There have been repeated efforts at the UN over the last several decades to expand the Outer Space Treaty with a “Prevention of An Arms Race in Outer Space” (PAROS) treaty that would not only prohibit the deployment of “weapons of mass destruction” in space but bar the placement of any weapons in space. Canada, China and Russia have led in advocating the PAROS treaty, but the U.S., through a series of U.S. administrations, has essentially vetoed passage of it at the UN.

“Despite the existence of the Outer Space Treaty that was created to ensure peaceful use of space, the United States has inserted the new U.S. Space Force which has one clear goal—control and domination of the heavens,” said Gagnon of the Maine-based Global Network. “A key solution to this growing peril of war in space is the creation of a new, expanded treaty, the PAROS treaty. But, sadly, the U.S. is heading in the opposite direction and now, with automation being added, an enormous new danger is being inserted into the challenge of keeping space for peace: automation of space warfare.”

As to the opening of the SWORD laboratory, “this illustrates for me,” said Gagnon, “how local communities, in need of economic development, come groveling to the Pentagon for any kind of weapons production no matter the ethical and real-world dangers these factories of destruction present.” Meanwhile, “The aerospace industry and its associated agents have become blinded by the quest for profit and power. The wake-up call is being sounded but those in power can’t hear.

Norwegian Arctic oil drilling targeted by campaigners in new legal action

“But our application to the European Court of Human Rights is for me the manifestation of action and hope in the face of this crisis.”

By Isabella Kaminski
-June 16, 2021
SOURCE DeSmogBlog

Climate campaigners are again taking Europe’s second largest oil and gas producer to court over the climate impacts of fossil fuel extraction in the Arctic, after a previous attempt failed at the country’s Supreme Court in December.

Six climate activists, alongside Greenpeace Nordic and Young Friends of the Earth Norway, have filed an application at the European Court of Human Rights claiming the Norwegian government’s approval of new licenses for offshore oil drilling in the fragile Arctic region violates their human rights.

In 2016, the Norwegian government awarded 10 oil and gas licenses in the Barents Sea to companies including US oil majors ConocoPhillips and Chevron.

The two environmental organizations had previously taken legal action domestically against the government, arguing that issuing the licenses breached Norway’s constitution which protects the right to a healthy environment. But in December the Norwegian Supreme Court ruled against them.

The move comes days after the government pledged to continue issuing new exploration licenses, putting it at odds with recent recommendations from the International Energy Agency for countries to cease investments in new oil and gas projects, if the Paris Agreement goals are to be met.

The individual applicants in the latest case, dubbed—like the previous legal action—The People v. Arctic Oil, are Ingrid Skjoldvær, Gaute Eiterjord, Ella Marie Hætta Isaksen, Mia Cathryn Chamberlain, Lasse Eriksen Bjørn and Gina Gylver.

The activists, all of whom are in their twenties, say climate change exacerbated by oil drilling in the Arctic discriminates against their age group and puts a disproportionate burden on young people, and that it discriminates against minority populations because two of the applicants are from the Sámi people.

Applicant Eriksen Bjørn, who is from the Sea Sámi, an indigenous people, fears the impact that climate change will have on their way of life. “The Sámi culture is closely related to the use of nature, and fisheries are essential. For our culture to continue without the traditional harvesting of the oceans would be impossible. A threat to our oceans is a threat to our people.”

Allowing new oil production in vulnerable parts of the Barents Sea contravenes, they argue, articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protect the right to life and the right to respect for private, home and family life. They also claim a violation of article 14, which protects the right to freedom from discrimination.
Climate litigation success

The activists have been heartened by recent legal victories against oil giant Shell in the Netherlands and the governments of Germany and Australia.

Meanwhile, the European Court of Human Rights has proved itself particularly open to climate litigation, and is already considering two lawsuits arguing that climate inaction by governments risks basic rights such as health and life.

If the court accepts the new case, it will be the first that exclusively focuses on new oil and gas exploration.

The organizations involved say that, if the court agrees with the applicants that issuing the oil drilling licenses was illegal, there will be significant pressure on Norway to change its fossil fuel policy.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment David Boyd, who supported the previous lawsuit, has argued that Norway’s continued oil production during a time of climate emergency amounts to a violation of human rights.

Mia Chamberlain, one of the six individual applicants, said climate change and her government’s inaction had deprived her of belief in the future. “But our application to the European Court of Human Rights is for me the manifestation of action and hope in the face of this crisis.”

The Norwegian government has been contacted for comment.

Why democracies in G7 & NATO should reject US leadership

Ordinary people in other countries are right to be wary of the Pied Piper of American “leadership,” but their rulers should be too.

By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies
-
June 15, 2021
SOURCE NationofChange

Photo credit: BPM Media - Protest at G7 summit in Cornwall UK

The world has been treated to successive spectacles of national leaders gathering at a G7 Summit in Cornwall and a NATO Summit in Brussels.

The U.S. corporate media have portrayed these summits as chances for President Biden to rally the leaders of the world’s democratic nations in a coordinated response to the most serious problems facing the world, from the COVID pandemic, climate change and global inequality to ill-defined “threats to democracy” from Russia and China.

But there’s something seriously wrong with this picture. Democracy means “rule by the people.” While that can take different forms in different countries and cultures, there is a growing consensus in the United States that the exceptional power of wealthy Americans and corporations to influence election results and government policies has led to a de facto system of government that fails to reflect the will of the American people on many critical issues.

So when President Biden meets with the leaders of democratic countries, he represents a country that is, in many ways, an undemocratic outlier rather than a leader among democratic nations. This is evident in:

– the “legalized bribery” of 2020’s $14.4 billion federal election, compared with recent elections in Canada and the U.K. that cost less than 1% of that, under strict rules that ensure more democratic results;

– a defeated President proclaiming baseless accusations of fraud and inciting a mob to invade the U.S. Congress on January 6 2021;

– news media that have been commercialized, consolidated, gutted and dumbed down by their corporate owners, making Americans easy prey for misinformation by unscrupulous interest groups, and leaving the U.S. in 44th place on Reporters Without Borders’ Press Freedom Index;

– the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world, with over two million people behind bars, and systemic police violence on a scale never seen in other wealthy nations;

– the injustice of extreme inequality, poverty and cradle-to-grave debt for millions in an otherwise wealthy nation;

– an exceptional lack of economic and social mobility compared to other wealthy countries that is the antithesis of the mythical “American Dream”;

– privatized, undemocratic and failing education and healthcare systems;

– a recent history of illegal invasions, massacres of civilians, torture, drone assassinations, extraordinary renditions and indefinite detention at Guantanamo—with no accountabllity;

– and, last but not least, a gargantuan war machine capable of destroying the world, in the hands of this dysfunctional political system.

Fortunately though, Americans are not the only ones asking what is wrong with American democracy. The Alliance of Democracies Foundation (ADF), founded by former Danish Prime Minister and NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, conducted a poll of 50,000 people in 53 countries between February and April 2021, and found that people around the world share our concerns about America’s dystopian political system and imperial outrages.

Probably the most startling result of the poll to Americans would be its finding that more people around the world (44%) see the United States as a threat to democracy in their countries than China (38%) or Russia (28%), which makes nonsense of U.S. efforts to justify its revived Cold War on Russia and China in the name of democracy.

In a larger poll of 124,000 people that ADF conducted in 2020, countries where large majorities saw the United States as a danger to democracy included China, but also Germany, Austria, Denmark, Ireland, France, Greece, Belgium, Sweden and Canada.

After tea with the Queen at Windsor Castle, Biden swooped into Brussels on Air Force One for a NATO summit to advance its new “Strategic Concept,” which is nothing more than a war plan for World War III against both Russia and China.

But we take solace from evidence that the people of Europe, whom the NATO war plan counts on as front-line troops and mass casualty victims, are not ready to follow President Biden to war. A January 2021 survey by the European Council on Foreign Affairs found that large majorities of Europeans want to remain neutral in any U.S. war on Russia or China. Only 22% would want their country to take the U.S. side in a war on China, and 23% in a war on Russia.

Few Americans realize that Biden already came close to war with Russia in March and April, when the United States and NATO supported a new Ukrainian offensive in its civil war against Russian-allied separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk provinces. Russia moved tens of thousands of heavily-armed troops to its borders with Ukraine, to make it clear that it was ready to defend its Ukrainian allies and was quite capable of doing so. On April 13th, Biden blinked, turned round two U.S. destroyers that were steaming into the Black Sea and called Putin to request the summit that is now taking place.

The antipathy of ordinary people everywhere toward the U.S. determination to provoke military confrontation with Russia and China begs serious questions about the complicity of their leaders in these incredibly dangerous, possibly suicidal, U.S. policies. When ordinary people all over the world can see the dangers and pitfalls of following the United States as a model and a leader, why do their neoliberal leaders keep showing up to lend credibility to the posturing of U.S. leaders at summits like the G7 and NATO?

Maybe it is precisely because the United States has succeeded in what the corporate ruling classes of other nations also aspire to, namely greater concentrations of wealth and power and less public interference in their “freedom” to accumulate and control them.

Maybe the leaders of other wealthy countries and military powers are genuinely awed by the dystopian American Dream as the example par excellence of how to sell inequality, injustice and war to the public in the name of freedom and democracy.

In that case, the fact that people in other wealthy countries are not so easily led to war or lured into political passivity and impotence would only increase the awe of their leaders for their American counterparts, who literally laugh all the way to the bank as they pay lip service to the sanctity of the American Dream and the American People.

Ordinary people in other countries are right to be wary of the Pied Piper of American “leadership,” but their rulers should be too. The fracturing and disintegration of American society should stand as a warning to neoliberal governments and ruling classes everywhere to be more careful what they wish for.

Instead of a world in which other countries emulate or fall victim to America’s failed experiment in extreme neoliberalism, the key to a peaceful, sustainable and prosperous future for all the world’s people, including Americans, lies in working together, learning from each other and adopting policies that serve the public good and improve the lives of all, especially those most in need. There’s a name for that. It’s called democracy.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

Nicolas J. S. Davies is a writer for Consortium News and a researcher with CODEPINK, and the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

War is making us poor!

Why is it that the U.S. spends more on military than the next 9 countries combined?

By

 John Rachel

 -

June 15, 2021

278

SOURCENationofChange

1040 For Peace had a Zoom session the other night on strategies for peace, and I made a presentation. If you’re interested in a lively discussion on peace activism, the video is available HERE on YouTube. 

In the Q&A of the session, I talked about asymmetrical warfare.

Now we all know what ‘asymmetry’ means when it comes to military conflict. One country drops a few bombs. The bombed country responds not in-kind, but in another fashion: a cyber attack, a psyops, biochemical attack, they hack into elections (thank you, Rachel Maddow, for bringing us up to speed on that!), they put LSD in the drinking water.

But I made a point which I think is very important in understanding how misguided, arguably insane, our military priorities and spending are.

Here it is.

Within kinetic warfare itself — bombs, missiles, soldiers, planes, submarines, tanks — there’s also a profound asymmetry. And the asymmetry is the difference between OFFENSIVE WARFARE and DEFENSIVE WARFARE.

First off, let’s be clear about something: Defending one’s own nation is much easier and less expensive than attacking another nation, because first of all the positioning of military assets is at the outset opposite, then what is used in the engagement of the enemy and how the enemy is engaged is dramatically different.

Okay . . .

Countless times, we’ve heard this question over and over: Why is it that the U.S. spends more on military than the next 9 countries combined?

A slightly different take . . .

Why is it the combined defense budget of the U.S. and NATO, which in 2020 came in at over a trillion dollars ($1.028 trillion) is four times the combined defense budgets of China ($237 billion) and Russia ($48 billion)?

FOUR TIMES as big!

Yet, we always hear and are now hearing even louder than ever the harangue from the generals and other military planners that WE NEED MORE! More equipment, more troops deployed, more bombs, more ships, more missiles.

MORE MONEY!

And a core justify to the latest DOD money grab is this statement, coming by the way from both the Army and Navy:

“We can’t win a war with either Russia or China.”

Wait!

We can’t win a war with Russia and China. YES . . . that’s true. But you know what else is true? They can’t win a war with us!

Maybe I’m simpleminded but this sounds to me like a cause for celebration. In some twisted 21st Century way, this is a recipe for peace! None of the major powers would dare start a war since they know upfront they’d lose.

YAY! Break out the champagne.

Now . . . that begs the question: why are our military planners crying the blues, getting all weepy, and saying we’re in big trouble?

Because here we have another example of the grotesque deceptions we’re subjected to. This one is a classic case of LYING BY OMISSION.

What did they leave out? Well, what they left out is . . .

WE CAN’T WIN A WAR OF AGGRESSION against Russia.

WE CAN’T WIN A WAR OF AGGRESSION against China.

We can’t attack them on their soil, in their sphere of influence, on their seas, in their skies . . . and defeat them. WE CAN’T WIN!

This paranoia and prevarication highlights in big bold letters exactly what’s wrong with our foreign policy, our military planning, our conquer-the-world mentality, the whole ball of wax.

AND . . . it also makes it completely clear why our DOD budgets are and will always be increasing, why our bloated expenditures on policing and bringing the rest of the world to its knees, are completely insane.

Let me take this a step further. Since that Zoom session — this morning, in fact — I extended this line of reasoning a bit further.

Here’s how that goes.

Right now our military is freaking out about the advanced weaponry of Russia. We can’t keep up. Hypersonic missiles, nuclear powered drones, high-speed aquatic attack drones, advanced electronic warfare.

Russia has left the U.S. in the dust!

Our DOD budget for 2020? $718 billion.

Russia’s military budget 2020? $48 billion.

Yes, really. Only $48 BILLION!

Let’s even factor in the differences in cost of living. Current figures show that the COL of Russia is about half that of the U.S., meaning in U.S. dollars everything would cost twice as much. Alright, 2 times $48 billion is STILL ONLY $96 billion. In U.S. dollars, to create and maintain their awesome, SCARY military power, Russia spends 13% of what the U.S. does.

THAT’S how inexpensive a truly remarkable, effective DEFENSIVE military can be designed and deployed. Why then are we spending over seven times as much for our less-than-capable military machine?

Bear in mind, we haven’t won a single war since WWII. Okay okay . . . we trounced Granada in a one-sided invasion against some lifeguards and tow-truck drivers.

The problem is obvious . . . trying to police and conquer the entire planet is bankrupting us! No amount of lying, propaganda, and rah-rah-support-our-troops PR campaign changes the truth.

WAR IS MAKING US POOR!

Isn’t time we the people put a stop to this grotesque fraud? Isn’t it time we united behind a couple simple, straightforward, obvious propositions?

Enough is enough!

We’re not going to take it anymore!

Stop the military insanity before we destroy ourselves!

We the people can do this, if we just do what we need to do.

Like Julian Assange says: “If wars can be started by lies, they can be stopped by truth.”