Monday, July 08, 2024

Bolivia’s Divided Left Is at Risk of Losing Power

A clumsy, short-lived coup last month couldn’t bring Bolivia’s discredited conservative forces back to power. But the divide between Luis Arce and Evo Morales over the legacy of the Movement for Socialism could give those forces a bigger opening.
July 7, 2024
Source: Jacobin


Bolivia's president Luis Arce

On Thursday, June 26, troops occupied Plaza Murillo in La Paz, where the Bolivian government headquarters is located. Commander Juan José Zúñiga, head of the army, invaded the plaza with a hundred soldiers and a group of armored vehicles, breaking down the door of the Palacio Quemado, where President Luis Arce and his ministers tried to resist by blocking the entrances with furniture.

Although Zúñiga’s would-be coup soon ended in defeat, it meant that the threat of military rebellions has returned to Latin America only a year and a half after Jair Bolsonaro’s followers attempted to seize power by force in Brazil. This situation is not new in Bolivia, the country that has experienced the largest number of coups since 1945.

The last one was in 2019, when president Evo Morales was ousted by a civic-military insurrection and forced into exile after thirteen years of relative political stability under the governments of the Movement for Socialism (MAS). It is necessary to go back to that moment to understand what happened on June 26 and what effects it may have for the Bolivian left, which remains in power but is acutely divided and more fragile than at any time since Morales first became president.

A Confusing Coup

Several theories have circulated about the coup attempt, but it appears to have been the individual response of Commander Zúñiga to his dismissal by Arce, a decision made after the general threatened former president Morales on television. Although Arce and Morales, formerly allies, are now openly at odds with one another, the current president decided to remove Zúñiga from his position after he stated on television that he would arrest Morales if he attempted to run for office again. This flagrantly violated the prohibition against military involvement in politics.

Arce dismissed Zúñiga but did not immediately appoint a replacement, allowing the military officer to temporarily retain command over his troops and gather sufficient forces to seize the central Plaza de Murillo for a few hours. There the rebel general delivered a confusing political speech, stating: “We are hearing the people’s outcry. Because for many years an elite has taken control of the country. The armed forces intend to restructure democracy.”

However, it is unlikely that the insurrection stemmed from a well-established plan to seize power, as the general had always previously supported Arce.

The president confronted Zúñiga at the palace entrance, urging him to withdraw, while thousands of Bolivians took to the streets to protest the coup. Zúñiga surrendered after a few hours due to the total lack of national and international support for his attempt to seize power. Even the right-wing leaders imprisoned for the 2019 coup, to whom Zúñiga promised freedom in case of victory, rejected the attempt.

Virtually all Latin American governments — including Javier Milei’s far-right executive in Argentina — condemned the military insurrection. The Organization of American States (OAS), which in 2019 favored the uprising against Morales by making unproven accusations of electoral fraud against the then president, also sided with Bolivian democracy this time. The White House called for “calm and moderation” in response to Zúñiga’s attempt. Unlike many other coups in Latin America, there is no sign of US involvement so far.

A Divided Left


The military rebellion has highlighted the deep divisions within the Movement for Socialism (MAS), the socialist-indigenous party that has governed the country since 2006, with the only interruption being Jeanine Áñez’s government (2019–2020). During its long hegemony, successive MAS administrations achieved record levels of economic growth, drastically reduced inequality and poverty, and opened the doors of power to the country’s indigenous majority for the first time in history, with Evo Morales as effective and symbolic head of the so-called process of change.

Áñez, who enjoyed the support of the conservative and liberal political establishment in her illegal seizure of power in 2019, managed the pandemic disastrously and had to call elections in October 2020. Luis Arce, who had been MAS’s economy minister for over a decade, replaced Morales as the presidential candidate and won with 55 percent of the vote. While Arce lacks the charisma of his mentor, he enjoyed a good reputation in his role as minister of economy.

Hostilities between the two leaders began when Arce expressed his intention to seek reelection in 2025. The rivalry has since escalated into all-out confrontation, with MAS parliamentarians divided between the two. The conflict is so severe that both sides have accused each other of links with drug trafficking. Some of Morales’s followers have even spread the theory that the military coup on June 26 was actually a “self-coup” orchestrated by Arce to increase his popularity — a rumor initiated by Zúñiga himself and echoed by the conservative opposition.

A central element of the current political crisis is Morales’s insistence on running for president again. The 2009 political constitution established a limit of two consecutive five-year terms. In 2016, a referendum was held to amend the constitution and remove the limit, but the no campaign won by a narrow margin. A decision by the constitutional court allowed the then president to run in 2019 anyway, but his electoral victory was erased by the military coup.

In 2023, another judicial decision reestablished the reelection ban, adding a prohibition on reelection to nonconsecutive terms, which is not established by the constitution. Morales denounced this as a politically motivated decision by a court under the influence of Arce, and he has not renounced his intention to run for election in 2025 again.

The MAS’s fracture has provoked a genuine institutional crisis, leading to the indefinite postponement of the judicial elections initially scheduled for 2023 and to a parliamentary deadlock that is hampering measures to address the country’s economic crisis. During Arce’s first two years in office, Bolivia had one of the lowest inflation rates in the Americas (just over 1 percent in 2022, despite the Ukraine war). However, the substantial foreign currency reserves accumulated during the years of economic boom, based on hydrocarbon exports, were already running out.

The impact of the pandemic and declining gas sales, combined with the slow take off of the lithium sector, are the main factors behind the current foreign currency shortage, jeopardizing the funding required for the substantial fuel subsidies that the Bolivian government provides. A potential cut in these subsidies, combined with rising inflation and the scarcity of certain products, would be a disastrous scenario for the Bolivian economy and the popularity of Arce’s government, which dropped to 18 percent in June.

An Uncertain Future

MAS is currently in disarray: it lacks a clear candidate, and a legal battle for control of the party’s name for the 2025 elections could ensue. The situation is so chaotic that even the regular organization of the legally mandated primaries for political parties to select their candidates is not guaranteed.

Zúñiga’s coup attempt might increase popular sympathy for Arce in the short term. However, it will not prompt the reconciliation that MAS and the entire country desperately need. The only good news for the Left is that its conservative rivals are also in poor shape.

The conservative and liberal political elite’s support for the 2019 civic-military coup ended up delegitimizing the opposition, which has never been able to build a solid and attractive alternative to MAS. Today Áñez and Luis Fernando Camacho, one of her main supporters, are imprisoned for their participation in the 2019 insurrection, and traditional parties have failed to build new leaderships capable of attracting majority social support.

The only certainty is that the era of economic growth and social progress that followed Evo Morales’s election in 2005 as Bolivia’s first indigenous president has come to an end. The Andean country, one of the poorest in South America, seems condemned to a long period of political instability and economic fragility, which might force the next government, regardless of its political orientation, to implement budget cuts. The future prospects appear bleak for a country that for many years inspired the region’s left for its ability to overcome neoliberalism and deliver justice to the indigenous majority after centuries of structural racism.



Pablo Castaño is a freelance journalist and political scientist. He holds a PhD in Politics from the Autonomous University of Barcelona and has written for Ctxt, Público, Regards, and the Independent.
WWIII
Pentagon’s Outrageous Anti-China Operation Threatened Lives in the Philippines


July 7, 2024
Source: The Analysis

A recent Reuters investigation uncovered a scandalous Pentagon operation that sought to discredit the Chinese Sinovac vaccine and sow distrust among the population in the Philippines towards China. Col. Larry Wilkerson discusses previous unlawful Strategic Information Operations (SIOs) launched by the Pentagon and the particular depravity of this operation initiated in Spring 2020 under President Trump’s administration, at a time when countries such as the Philippines did not possess their own vaccine manufacturing capacity and were accepting a free supply of vaccines from China.

Transcript

Talia Baroncelli

Hi, you’re watching theAnalysis.news, and I’m your host, Talia Baroncelli. Today, I’ll be joined by Col. Lawrence Wilkerson. We’ll be speaking about a Reuters investigation into a Pentagon anti-vax campaign targeting the Philippines.

If you’d like to support the work that we do, you can go to our website, theAnalysis.news, and hit the donate button at the top right corner of the screen. Most importantly, get onto our mailing list; that way, you’re always up to date every time a new episode drops. You can also like and subscribe to the show on YouTube or other podcast streaming services such as Apple or Spotify. See you in a bit with Larry.

A recent Reuters investigation has revealed that the Pentagon launched an anti-vax operation to gin up fear about China’s Sinovac vaccine and to sow distrust towards China in general. The operation targeted social media users in the Philippines between the spring of 2020 and the summer of 2021. Over 300 bots on X, formerly known as Twitter, as well as on Facebook, were created to sow distrust towards China and to try and dissuade people in the Philippines from using the Sinovac vaccine. The Pentagon said the operation was in response to China blaming the virus and the pandemic on the United States, asserting that China had said that the virus had been potentially created in Fort Detrick. The same that lab created the anthrax virus and that it might have been brought over to China by a U.S. service member.

One of the posts made on X read, “#Chinaisthevirus. Do you want that? Covid came from China, and vaccines came from China.” Another post read, “From China – PPE, Face Mask, Vaccine: FAKE. But the Coronavirus is real.”

Joining me now to speak about this Pentagon operation is Larry Wilkerson. He is a Colonel who served in the U.S. military for 32 years. He was Chief of Staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell from 2002 to 2005 and worked for Powell when Powell was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the First Gulf War. Thanks so much for joining me today, Larry.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

Good to be with you, Talia.
Talia Baroncelli

Well, I wanted to speak to you about this crazy report by Reuters documenting a Pentagon antivax operation that was started under President Trump in the spring of 2020 and which targeted people in the Philippines. There were 300 accounts created on X, formerly known as Twitter, as well as on Facebook, to post content saying that China can’t be trusted and that the vaccine wasn’t safe, the Sinovac vaccine wasn’t safe. There were also posts insinuating that there was pork gelatin in the vaccine, which would be against Islamic law or against Islamic tradition to take, given that pork is not considered to be halal. So this was also specifically targeting people of the Muslim religion and religious beliefs.

What is so disparaging about this is that at the time in June 2021, the President of the Philippines, [Rodrigo] Duterte, made a speech decrying low vaccination rates. Only 2.1 million people in the Philippines were fully vaccinated out of a population of 114 million. When he made that speech in June 2021, a year into the operation, something like 1.3 million people had contracted COVID at that particular time, and 24,000 people had, according to this report, died from the coronavirus. This is just unethical on all sorts of levels. Would you say these sorts of operations by the Pentagon are unprecedented, or is this common practice?

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

It’s certainly not unprecedented. It’s not historically unprecedented. Since George W. Bush, it’s been common practice. It really started with George W. Bush post 9/11 when the Pentagon, untrusting of the CIA, as it had been for years, but more so untrusting of its own DIA intelligence capability, it started its own programs.

Initially, it started under John Poindexter of the Iran-Contra Affair, National Security Officer for Ronald Reagan, who got Ronald Reagan’s administration involved in the Iran Contra, along with Oliver North. Some other people, Dub Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and [Donald] Rumsfeld himself, wanted to do what Rumsfeld called strategic information operations. They ran up against the law.

To backtrack a little bit, I was in a meeting with Torie Clarke, who was then the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs and responsible for what the Pentagon put out to the American public. I went to a meeting with her, and when the meeting closed, and the purpose of the meeting was to sell the Iraq War, should it occur, the Second Iraq War. When the meeting closed, I asked Torie, I said, “You know this is illegal, don’t you?” She looked at me, and she said, “Oh, yeah, it’s illegal.”

The Smith-Mundt Act, put together by a number of very concerned senators, outlawed the propagandization of the American people. You could do it overseas, Voice of America, and all that stuff, but you couldn’t do the American people. You couldn’t tell them knowingly the untruth. Well, the Smith-Mundt Act didn’t bother them. They went ahead and did it. They printed things in Iraq. I always wondered why are these things coming out in English in Iraq. Because they would just ship them back to the United States and give them to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, and the American papers propagandizing the American people.

Well, fast forward to 2013, the wonderful Congress, in its esteemed wisdom with people like Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton, and a host of others, rescinded Smith-Mundt. So now it’s not illegal. The Pentagon can propagandize just as the Voice of America used to, just as the CIA does, anytime it wants to. They can send that information out to anybody overseas or anybody domestically if they want to, and it doesn’t have to be the truth.
Talia Baroncelli

In the report it does say that usually the Pentagon would have to get some permission from the State Department to launch operations, which would be targeting people outside of active conflict zones. I don’t know if I understood that correctly.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

I think you’re right. I think you’re right. That is the provision of protocol, but it’s all less in the commission than the breach. They didn’t talk to us very often when they did it, and it was illegal then. I don’t think they talk much to Antony Blinken’s State Department. Even if they did, I don’t think Blinken’s State Department would disagree. I understand this was during [Mike] Pompeo’s time, and I can say categorically that Mike Pompeo wouldn’t disagree. He probably put them up to it.
Talia Baroncelli

Yeah, because it did start, and this is obviously really important, this started under Trump. I don’t think Defense Secretary Mark Esper was too worried about the consequences of this. He probably wanted this, in fact, to be able to discredit China. The context of this is incredibly important because this was at the beginning of the pandemic when Trump or the U.S. government had invested lots of money into Operation Warp Speed to ensure that Americans would have access to vaccines and that they wouldn’t have to pay that much money for these vaccines. The vaccine companies would be able to produce as much of the vaccine as possible for the U.S. population, but if they were to ship it overseas, there might be less of a supply, and they could also sell it at a much higher price. They weren’t going to waive the patents on these vaccines.

This obviously put other countries, such as the Philippines, for example, who didn’t have their own production capacity, into a really dangerous health position because they weren’t allowed to produce their own vaccines at the time. If they were going to accept a free vaccine from China, that was to their benefit, because it’s not like the Chinese Sinovac vaccine was any worse in terms of its health side effects or whatever, or that it was any less effective than some of the other European and American ones. This is so cynical on so many levels because China was giving these vaccines to the Philippines for free, and the United States was trying to sow distrust among the population of the Philippines towards China or to basically increase vaccine hesitancy in general. You can’t put a border around this. It’s not like you can limit the effect of this just to the Philippines. There’ll be a spill over effect. In general, the mortality rate was quite high in the Philippines. It just seems like such an unethical thing to do, especially since China had agreed to give these vaccines for free when the U.S. was trying to make a profit or U.S. drug companies and pharmaceutical companies were trying to make a profit on these vaccines.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

It’s just another indicator of the step away, and it’s a large step, that America’s military has made, its government in general, but its military, really disturbingly, from all the things that we, ostensibly at least, stood for from 1945 forward. Whether it’s the Geneva Conventions, the particular one on prisoners of war, number three, we violated that completely during the Second Iraq War. We tortured people. Indeed, we killed people. The report’s right there on my coffee table. We still have not looked at 36 deaths in custody: contractors, Special Forces, CIA. We murdered people. We didn’t just torture them; we murdered them. We have come so far from our handiwork post-World War II. However, that might have been in our self-interest, but it still had a humanitarian element to it. We’ve come so far from that. We just about destroyed our reputation in the world for being rule of law. The joke out there in the hinterland is, yeah, your rules and our disorder, because we don’t follow the rules anymore. We don’t follow them, and we also pursue them in a way that turns them into other people’s discredit, so long as we think it’s doing credit for us.

In this case, we’re fighting China. We’re fighting China on a global basis. Americans don’t even know we’re at war with China. We’re at war with China. So we’re going to do this in the Philippines. Do we care that the Philippines is our signatory treaty ally? Do we care that they’re human beings? No. They can die in order for America to prosper. That’s the new mantra, and it affects even the military.
Talia Baroncelli

Well, if the U.S. is a treaty ally with the Philippines, then it seems pretty disrespectful to do this. The Philippines, at least at that particular time in 2020, under Duterte, had agreed with China that they wouldn’t react to any expansion, a Chinese expansion in the South China Sea, in exchange for getting these vaccines. I wonder how counterproductive these sorts of operations are.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

That gives it an even deeper vileness. We’re trying to punish the Philippines for doing that. That’s a step even too far for me to go, but I don’t know. That’s venal. That’s truly vial. They were going to punish an ally because they’re taking vaccine from a potential enemy, and we’re going to do it by lying to them. That’s the bottom of the pit.
Talia Baroncelli

It’s not just vile. It seems like it’s counterproductive, too, because if people find out about this, and inevitably people will. Now, everyone can read this particular Reuters report. It just shows the trust that the U.S. was trying to establish among the Philipino population. It was obviously going to fail if they had read this report, because then they could see that these specific operations were targeting them. Why would they trust the U.S. any more than China if they see that there are these operations trying to use their health and undermine and destabilize their own public health for the sake of geopolitical gain?

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

One of the things I have sadly learned in the last 20 years, in particular in the last 10, intensely, is the United States really doesn’t give a hang about its allies, except when it’s in need of whatever they have, whether it’s diplomatic help or support, political support, or actual warfighting support. That’s when we care about them. We don’t give a hang about them otherwise. If we can use them and abuse them to our credit, then we’ll do it. That’s simply the truth.

Now, it used to be, as one Norwegian said to me one day in Tampa, Florida, down at Central Command headquarters, “I never get to say much. Do they really pay attention to the allies down here?” This was during the build-up to the Iraq War, and I essentially said back to him, “You’re going to find that we don’t. We give you an office. We give you a telephone. We give you a computer and an email, but we really don’t care much about you. Now, if you’ve got something we need at a critical moment in time, like a minesweeper that we don’t have or some other critical military equipment that maybe Norway, Finland, Sweden, or Germany has that we don’t have, we’ll go and use it, that’s for sure. We don’t really care much for our allies. If we can use them and abuse them, as I said, then we will do so.” That’s a last 20 years, post-9/11, if you will, development, and it’s extraordinarily crass.

If you read the army’s brand new field manual, I think it’s ’03, the one they just turned out. I sent it to Paul. I sent a copy to Paul, or I sent a line for Paul to use to get a copy of it if he wants to. I read that thing, and I was shocked at how mercenary we seem now, how everything counts as long as it resounds to our credit. As long as it produces victory, you can do just about anything.

Elide that into the support of Israel right now in Gaza. You’ve got some military people who are finally waking up to this. I don’t know if you saw the article today, but there are people who are leaving the military right now over Gaza, not just the ones you’ve heard about and seen on TV. Many of them, as they are from the state, are leaving the state, and they’re not doing anything, which I admire them for. They’re not going to the press. They’re not saying, “I left because of Gaza.” They just left because of Gaza. The way I know that is because I have friends in both places, and they tell me, “Joe left, Sally left, Shirley left, whatever.” They left because of the operations in Gaza and having to watch it every day and knowing they were part of that. That’s encouraging, just as the young people on the campus protesting is encouraging, but it’s not doctrine-changing, not yet, anyway.

That manual I sent to Paul is doctrine. It’s official military doctrine. Never thought I would see some of the words that are used. When you cut through the total domain, dominance, and all those wonderful buzzwords, when you cut through, it essentially says, “We will do anything to win.”

Now, interestingly, we haven’t won a war since the First Iraq War. The United States of America has not won a war since the First Iraq War, 1990/91. Yet we’ve been in war ever since—multiple wars. You say we won in Libya. We did? Look at Libya today. You say we won in Iraq. We did? Look at Iraq today. We won in Syria. We did? Look at Syria today. We won in Afghanistan. We did? Look at Afghanistan today. We haven’t won a war in 20 plus years. We create this doctrine that’s supposed to help us win wars, and we become more bloodthirsty as we do so.
Talia Baroncelli

Does this doctrine come from Paul Wolfowitz? It’s this doctrine of maintaining American hegemony?

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

Absolutely. It goes back to that 1992 strategy that Paul Wolfowitz was then working for… not 1992; it was even before that. [crosstalk 00:17:41]. Yeah, somewhere around there. Well, it was ’92 when it officially came over because it came through us to the White House, and President H. W. Bush wrote at the bottom of it, “Send this back to the crazies in the basement of the Pentagon.” Let me say that again. “Send this back to the crazies in the basement of the Pentagon.” Now, that was the last really experienced World War II participant president we had. Ever since then, the crazies in the basement of the Pentagon have been running our foreign and security policy.
Talia Baroncelli

I do want to ask you about whether you see a potential shift in the Biden administration in terms of how he would view these sorts of operations against China and how this would play out in China or in the South China Seas. The Reuters report does document this meeting involving the Biden administration, as well as people at the Pentagon who were involved in this, and people from X, formerly known as Twitter and Facebook. Facebook and X had notified the Biden administration, saying that there were bots in operation and that it was actually going against their community standards. You’re not supposed to spread this misinformation about the efficacy of vaccines, especially when it’s Sinovac, which is approved by the World Health Organization. These bots were engaging in behavior that was going against U.S. guidelines as well.

It seemed like, at least what’s reported on here, is that there was a tense meeting between between the social media execs or people who work for X, Facebook, and people working in the Biden administration. The Biden administration was hesitant to shut down some of these bots, saying that they could be used for other national security purposes and could continue to function, but without spreading that information or sowing distrust towards China.

Does that indicate that the Biden administration is just as willing to engage in these sorts of operations? They did, in the end, either shut down the accounts or ensure that they wouldn’t be making these sorts of posts, but the damage had been done at that point.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

I think the accurate answer to that is they are not afraid to do something about it if it goes public. If it doesn’t go public, more power to it. That’s the difference. Whereas on the other hand, the group I serve, for example, didn’t give a damn if it went public. If it goes public for Joe Biden, then he’s probably going to do something to make it look like he shut it down, whether he actually shuts it down or not is another matter. As long as it’s secret and no one knows about it that counts, he’s going to support it.
Talia Baroncelli

Would you say there are clear divisions between the State Department and the Pentagon to ensure that there’s oversight over such matters, or at least with the Biden administration?

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

There used to be, and there used to be, some of them that were adhered to. But that pretty much went to hell after 9/11, and diplomacy took a back seat to military power, soft power took a back seat to hard power. Ever since then, it’s been very difficult for the Foreign Service to recover any traction in order to check things. Not only that, the Congress has been complicit in this. The Congress has turned a lot of authorities that used to be states over to the Pentagon and allowed the Pentagon to make the decisions on where money goes, for example, in a particular policy rather than the State Department. The State Department has to fight like hell to try and even get a word on that, let alone regain its ultimate power to stop it or change it if it doesn’t like it. So this is an erosion of diplomatic power that’s been occurring ever since 9/11. Some would argue that it has occurred ever since World War II, but not in the proportions it has since 9/11. 9/11 has frightened the bejesus out of the country, let’s put it that way.

A lot of Congress turned around and said, “Okay, this isn’t going to happen again. We’re going to do everything in our power.” Edward Snowden was right in many respects. “We’re going to do everything in our power to curtail the rights of civilians in this country if we think that curtailment of their rights might prevent a terrorist attack. Once you give government that power, government never surrenders any power you give it.
Talia Baroncelli

Right.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

It’s there. It’s there to be used.
Talia Baroncelli

Right. It’s like with the Patriot Act not having a sunset clause.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

Exactly.
Talia Baroncelli

Once that’s in operation, you can’t claw that back. You’re saying that all of this really undermines diplomatic efforts. It seems like, or at least based on this report, there were a lot of top ambassadors who were opposed to it because it puts their entire diplomatic initiative at risk when the Pentagon is trying to undermine–

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

I can’t imagine that our ambassador in Manila went along with this.
Talia Baroncelli

No, I think there was a lot of outrage on his part. The article does say, and I quote:

A Senior Defense official said, “The Pentagon has rescinded parts of Esper,” that being Mark Esper, the Defense Secretary at the time, “Esper’s 2019 order that allowed military commanders to bypass the approval of U.S. Ambassadors when waging psychological operations.”

I don’t know what the status of that is right now. It just seems like, as you said, once you tap into that and the Pentagon does things at will, it will continue to undermine the efforts of top ambassadors and diplomats.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

The status of it really depends on the ambassador and his Deputy Chief of Mission. The ambassador might be a a political appointee. The DCM is Foreign Service or Civil Service, and so it depends on that. If it’s a political appointee, he might not care. He might not say anything about it, or he might think that he’s got to go along with it. If it’s a Foreign Service officer, and the DCM always is, then you’ve got some objection, probably, but not necessarily.

I could cite some ambassadors from the Foreign Service who went along with things that Ronald Reagan did, for example, that I would never have gone along with. I’d have blown the whistle or I would have resigned on the spot, including much of what happened around Iran-Contra in Nicaragua and Honduras. But many times, the Pentagon acts without letting the ambassador and the country team, that is the ambassador’s embassy staff, know anything about it. Sometimes, they even act without letting the Chief of Station for the CIA know it.
Talia Baroncelli

I think there’s also a profit motive involved in this, too, because the Pentagon signed a 493 million dollar contract with a company called General Dynamics IT to fashion or create some of these posts, which would lead to vaccine hesitancy and to targeting China and sowing distress among the population in the Philippines. That’s a lot of money. That shows or underscores a relationship that the Pentagon has with these consultancies or with defense contractors. It seems like that was a priority here and not the health of people in other countries outside of the U.S.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

We built up a whole body of contractors whom we could go to, Pentagon, and I watched them gone to when I was at the State Department in order to, and these are hugely, costly contracts, in order to use their expertise, which usually was subcontracted to a company like the Lincoln Group or whatever, to say, Saddam Hussein went into Kuwait and cut babies heads off. Saddam Hussein went into Kuwait and pulled the babies out of their incubators. Whomever we didn’t like that day or whoever we were planning on attacking, we got them to go after them with a vengeance. It was worse than World War II when we said the Croats, the Nazis, the Germans, they’re pulling babies out of mother’s wombs. All the crap that we do when we go to war or we think we’re going to war to vilify our enemy is now spread wide across peacetime, across diplomacy, across everything the United States does. These contractors relish it because the contracts are hundreds of millions of dollars to do this thing.
Talia Baroncelli

Well, Larry, it’s been great talking to you about this.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

It’s scary.
Talia Baroncelli

It’s scandalous on so many levels.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

It’s scary, and it makes you not want to be a member of the United States Armed Forces anymore.
Talia Baroncelli

Well, I’m not a member.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

Which is why we were just talking about this today. It’s why young soldiers are not re-enlisting. It’s why young Marines are not re-enlisting. We can’t recruit. We’re now taking the core of stability in the Armed Forces, those that re-enlist and stay in again and again, we’re taking that core and destroying it by doing things like our support in Gaza and this program in the Philippines. They don’t like it, and so they leave.
Talia Baroncelli

Yeah, now there’s this bill that I believe passed the House which would call on people ages 18-26 to enlist in the military, a conscription bill. I don’t know how that’s going to do.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

They say they’re going to include women, and I say, yeah, right. We were just over-briefing a member of the Senate Arms Service Committee, and we said, “We want to brief you on a plan to draft the shortfall each year.” So 13,000 for the army, 3,000 for… so we would draft what the recruiters could not get. We said, “And, of course, that would include women.” They went bananas. They don’t want to draft women.
Talia Baroncelli

No, they don’t want to.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

They’ll say they do. They’ll float bills to do it. They’ll put amendments to the NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act], but they don’t want to do it because it is like Social Security. It’s the third rail of politics. You do not draft women. You do not tell grandmothers and mothers out there in the land that you’re going to draft their daughters. Regardless, there are probably quite a few out there who would like to be drafted. I won’t say like, but they’d have no objection to it. They would serve and serve faithfully. However, the majority of the American public does not want their daughters drafted.
Talia Baroncelli

All right, Larry, thanks so much for your time. Thank you for watching theAnalysis.news. If you’d like to support the work that we do, go to our website, theAnalysis.news, and feel free to make a donation. See you next time.


To Save the Amazon, What if We Listened to Those Living Within It?

Aiming to prevent “climate and ecological collapse,” rainforest inhabitants release a detailed plan to save their home, honing in on ending fossil fuel subsidies and securing Indigenous land rights.
July 6, 2024
Source: Inside Climate News

Young people from Amazonian communities march during the Pan-Amazon Social Forum in Rurrenabaque, Bolivia on June 12. Credit: Katie Surma/Inside Climate News

RURRENABAQUE, Bolivia—Beneath a setting sun, marchers clad in feathered headdresses and hand woven clothing streamed across the Alto Beni River bridge on a muggy June evening, calling out:

“Agua si! Minería no!”

“Viva Amazonia!”

The march marked the opening of a four-day gathering known as the Pan-Amazon Social Forum (FOSPA), a semi-annual incubator where activists and leaders from Indigenous, Afro-descendant and other land-based communities exchange ideas for defending nature and the people of the Amazon rainforest.

Attendees, young and old, brown, Black and white, chanting “Water, yes! Mining no!” clasped signs representing dozens of organizations and causes, from “Women in the Northern Amazon” to “Nunca Más Un Mundo Sin Nosotros,” or Never Again a World Without Us.

For the 1,400 who descended on this small, bucolic Amazonian town, most of whom hail from Indigenous and other local communities across the nine Amazonian countries—Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana—the meeting was a welcome change from the formal United Nations’ Conference of the Parties (COPs). COPs on climate change and biodiversity, which are dominated by government delegations, have been criticized for being captured by industry lobbyists.

“FOSPA is one of the few spaces for us to have our own dialogues,” said Vanuza Abacatal, the leader of a 314-year-old Quilombola community in Pará, Brazil. Abacatal’s community has struggled to defend its autonomy and maintain its way of life in the face of an encroaching agricultural frontier, mining and deforestation.

Beyond feeling that international negotiations are disconnected from their lives, the marchers here in Rurrenabaque and San Buenaventura, the small Bolivian towns hosting the conference, say governmental climate talks have failed. They cite the Paris Agreement’s target to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Amazonian marchers wave the Colombian flag (left)and Bolivian Aimara wiphala flag (right) during FOSPA. Credit: Katie Surma/Inside Climate News
Indigenous women march with a sign that reads “Free Territories and Bodies, in defense of Aguarague and Tariquia Tarija” during FOSPA on June 12. Credit: Katie Surma/Inside Climate News

In 2023, global average temperatures breached 1.5 C for 12 months in a row, the European climate service Copernicus announced in February, and the world’s current warming trajectory will put global temperature rise at 2.8 degrees Celsius by 2100. Scientists say that amount of warming will be disastrous for the Amazon. Current levels of warming are already changing the forest’s hydrological cycles, drying it out and making it more susceptible to fire. As more forest is lost, more carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, worsening global warming in a reinforcing cycle.

Climate change is just one of several human-driven forces that has, over the last century, caused about 20 percent of the Amazon to be lost and an even larger portion to be degraded. Agriculture, cattle rearing, mining, oil extraction and logging are all contributing factors. Loss of the Amazon, which is happening at a pace of roughly four soccer fields per minute, has already reached a point where some portions of the forest can no longer regenerate and have become grasslands. Directly affected are 47 million people living in the Amazon region who depend on the forest for their livelihoods, fresh water and other resources.

Vanuza Abacatal, 47, is the leader of a Quilombola community in Para, Brazil. Credit: Katie Surma/Inside Climate News

The marchers here at FOSPA are witnessing the Amazon’s destruction first hand. “We are being suffocated by large enterprises,” Abacatal said.

She and other Amazonian inhabitants are simultaneously the most impacted by the loss of the forest and, they have long argued, best positioned to safeguard what remains of it. Their peoples’ centuries of experience living within the forest has endowed them with valuable knowledge about it.

Research is quickly catching up to them, with study after study confirming that Indigenous communities with secure land tenure have the best conservation outcomes, even when located near urban areas. And, increasingly, scientists are partnering with some Indigenous and local communities to identify key biodiversity hotspots and prioritize those areas, like animal reproduction and migration zones, for conservation.

With those bona fides, participants said they are ramping up their ambitions since the last FOSPA, held in 2022 in Belem, Brazil. That conference, like the nine before it dating to 2002, generated an accounting of the threats facing the forest and called on governments to do more to protect it.

But in the intervening two years since Belem, millions of acres of the Amazon have been cleared, burned or degraded; threats to inhabitants like mining and drug trafficking grew; and governmental talks in a separate conference in Belem in 2023 among the leaders of the nine Amazonian nations concluded without an agreement on stopping illegal deforestation by 2030. Instead, that Brazil-led summit ended with a vague text promising to cooperate on staunching illegal deforestation and promoting sustainable development.

So, with the stakes as high as ever, FOSPA attendees in Rurrenabaque had a deadline in sight: Within four days, they had to deliver a written prescription for what the world must do to prevent “climate and ecological collapse.”
‘Original People Without Our Land Are Nothing’

On the second day of the conference, in an Indigenous community outside Rurrenabaque, dozens of people focused their attention on Mari Luz and Emilsen Flores, Peruvian Kukama leaders. They were gathered inside a rainforest pavilion where nearly everyone had broken out into a sweat in the tropical heat. The pavilion had been set up with white plastic chairs, though some local men remained standing outside, their heads poking over the structure’s walls.

Luz, speaking in a gentle voice, unspooled how she, Flores and other Kukama women won a historic Peruvian court ruling in March, establishing that the heavily polluted Marañon River is a living being with inherent rights.

It was a major victory in the rights of nature movement, which aims to garner legal recognition of the rights of rivers, forests and whole ecosystems to exist. The movement is largely seen as translating into law the worldviews of Indigenous peoples.

Emilsen Flores (center) and Mari Luz (right), Peruvian Kukama leaders, speak to attendees of the FOSPA conference on June 13 in Bella Altura, Bolivia. Credit: Katie Surma/Inside Climate News

As Luz spoke, glasses of fresh papaya juice and chicha, a customary drink made from fermented corn, were passed around to the mix of conference attendees and Tacana people from the host community, Bella Altura.

She began in 2000, when environmental organizations from Europe came to meet with locals about the vast oil-related pollution in the Loreto region of Peru, which had been ongoing since 1974. For Luz and the others, who depended on the Marañon River for food, water and transportation, the contamination had been catastrophic.

During the male-dominated meetings, Luz and other women had sat quietly, she explained, listening to the discussion about human rights. But later, the women met amongst themselves to discuss what they had heard. Luz recalled: “We women said, ‘We’re supposed to have rights. How can oil projects be forced on us when we don’t want them?’”

The women quietly formed their own federation, the Huaynakana Kamatahuara kana, meaning “working women,” she said, with the aim of protecting their environment, rights and culture. And then, in what would prove to be a propitious encounter, Luz was introduced to environmental lawyers at the Peru-based Institute of Legal Defense. She wanted to know whether the Marañon River, like her, had rights.

A dialogue ensued, with Luz educating the lawyers about her peoples’ view of the world. Nature is alive, she told them, and every being has a spirit. Those spirits live in the mountains and beneath the river, maintaining all the life within it.

The lawyers, in turn, told Luz and the Kukama women’s federation about the burgeoning body of law known as the “rights of nature.”
“Do rivers have rights?” reads an illustration depicting the story of the Peruvian Kukama women who won a landmark victory in March establishing that the heavily polluted Marañon River is a living being with inherent rights.
 Credit: Katie Surma/Inside Climate News

Thus began a 10-year partnership that culminated four months ago in a trial court ruling in favor of the Marañon River’s rights. Luz was blunt about the difficulties throughout. She and her family had been threatened with violence. “To be famous is very dangerous,” she said. To attend court hearings, she had to leave her rural home in the middle of the night, traveling by motorized canoe for hours, often in drenching rain.

At times, she had to sell off chickens to pay for fuel for the boat trips. Government officials demeaned her and fined her 100,000 Peruvian Soles (about $26,000 USD), she said, for her advocacy. Men in her village denigrated her. “There is a lot of machismo; they treat women like objects,” she said.

Luz, who became more animated the longer she talked, said that over the years, she had invited men in her village to the women’s federation meetings, swaying around 70 to 80 percent of them over to the women’s cause. “We’ve grown from the bottom,” she said.

Across the pavilion from Luz and Flores, a half dozen teenage Tacana girls watched the women with focused concentration. Other people in the crowd, including members of Brazilian and Bolivian Indigenous communities, took notes.

Luz emphasized that the Kukama women are continuing to fight—the government and other defendants have appealed the trial court ruling, and those appeals are pending. Even if they win on appeal, enforcing the river’s rights to exist, flow and be free from pollution will not be easy, she said.

In the crowd, heads nodded. Like Luz, many of the people gathered there had lost, or never had, faith that their state legal systems would protect them. Luz’s story emphasized what most already knew: No one was coming to save them. Real solutions, they said in a question and answer session following Luz’s talk, could only come through their own struggles, experiences and efforts.

One audience member asked Luz why she continued fighting.

“Original people without our land are nothing,” she said. “Now that we know our rights and nature’s rights, we need to claim them.”

A Just Transition

A few miles away, in the town of San Buenaventura, attendees of the conference’s “just energy transition” group arrived via motorized tuk tuks at a meeting hall at the end of a dirt road.

After more than a year of meeting over the internet, the group was now drilling down on a final list of proposals for what a transition away from fossil fuels ought to look like.

With a microphone passed around for three-minute orations, the session had faint echoes of a U.N. summit. Except here there were no three-piece suits or backroom dealmaking by representatives from the fossil fuel, agriculture or mining industries.

The “just energy transition” working group at FOSPA discussed issues ranging from access to energy to carbon credit schemes and ecosystem restoration. Credit: Katie Surma/Inside Climate News

Rather, participants’ policy proposals were braided together with their own lived experience with illegal mining in the Bolivian Amazon, or decades of oil pollution in Ecuador’s Oriente.

There was broad consensus that the lack of electric power access for local communities throughout the Amazon was a major problem that had to be solved. In some cases, transmission lines had been installed adjacent to, or across from, forest communities but had never been connected. One woman told the group that her community in Brazil has no phone or internet. Instead, they have to communicate with an old-school radio. “If people don’t know what’s happening, they can’t participate in the debate about it,” she said.

Without energy, people also cannot access education, obtain health services or build sustainable economies, J. Gadir Lavadenz Lamadrid, a La Paz-based campaign coordinator for Global Forests Coalition, told the gathering. That makes communities vulnerable when mining or oil companies approach them to initiate projects on, or affecting, community land, he said.

Indeed, throughout Latin America, which produces a substantial share of the world’s fossil fuels, hydroelectric power and minerals used in zero-carbon technologies, 17 million people lack access to electricity, according to the International Energy Agency.

Members of the “just energy transition” group draft their findings following four-days of deliberations on the issues. Credit: Katie Surma/Inside Climate News

The region is also one of the most economically unequal parts of the world, making energy affordability part of the problem—even for communities enduring the brunt of the impacts from energy supply chains.

As the microphone was passed around the room, a woman from Argentina’s lithium producing region said her community’s water and soil have been contaminated from lithium brine operations. But those affected, she said, have never been compensated for the destruction, which has not been remediated. When the community demanded that the provincial government provide them with consistent renewable energy, they were told they had to purchase batteries to store it. “We don’t have the money to do that,” she said.

The discussion moved on to a blistering criticism of the overconsumption habits of people living in wealthy countries, including the idea that the climate crisis can be solved by individuals purchasing electric vehicles. The group, some of whom live in the shadow of mining operations for zero-carbon technology inputs, called for more investment in public transport and a cultural shift away from wealthy countries’ consumer-driven culture.

There was also broad consensus that carbon and biodiversity offsets and credits were “false solutions” that come at the Amazonian communities’ expense. Indigenous and traditional groups in the forest, numerous speakers said, are rarely consulted about such projects.

Just days before FOSPA kicked off, Brazilian police cracked down on a scheme that allegedly provided carbon offsets to large Western corporations for rainforest preservation despite continued illegal logging. The conferees in San Buenaventura called for the funding and financing behind offset projects to instead be directed toward Indigenous and other local communities that are living sustainably in the forest.

A mural in San Buenaventura, Bolivia depicts an Indigenous man and Amazonian wildlife, including fish overlaid with the abbreviation “Hg” for mercury on the periodic table. Studies show rivers in the Bolivian Amazon are riddled with mercury poisoning, linked to illegal gold mining operations in the region. Credit: Katie Surma/Inside Climate News

Across 16 working groups at the conference, the issues debated were, unlike the U.N.’s annual climate COPs, rooted in the proposition of what is best for the Earth and, specifically, the Amazonian ecosystem. Ending $7 trillion in annual subsidies to extractive industries. Expanding agroecology and ecotourism. Enforcing Indigenous land rights and the right to free, prior and informed consent. Protecting environmental defenders, who are increasingly threatened, imprisoned, assaulted and killed for resisting development and extractive activities.

Since 2014, nearly 300 environmental defenders have been killed in the Amazon, a statistic widely considered to be an undercount since the violence often takes place in remote areas. For many at FOSPA, the violence inflicted on people defending the forest is indistinguishable from the ravaging of the rainforest itself: “We are nature, defending nature,” was a common refrain.

There were also big new ideas hatched, like a detailed proposal for an Amazon-Andean treaty aimed at preserving the region’s hydrological cycles, recognizing water bodies as rights-bearing entities and creating a Permanent Assembly of Andean and Amazonian people to act as guardians for the water systems.

The proposal includes a description of the region’s water cycle, which begins high in Andean glaciers, flows down through rivers, cycling through Amazonian flora and fauna, and eventually moves out into the Atlantic Ocean. When one part of the cycle is altered, the entire system is affected, speakers explained: When the Amazon burns, ash from the fires lands high in the Andes, turning glaciers black, drawing in more heat and accelerating their melt rates. Loss of Andean glaciers will have downstream impacts, including the ability of millions of people to access drinking water, they said. Climate change is also affecting the region’s hydrological cycle, with droughts and heat waves stressing water sources.

Pablo Solon, Bolivia’s former U.N. ambassador and one of the conference’s organizers, said the proposed treaty is the first water-focused treaty that is non-anthropocentric, meaning that it is centered on what is in the best interest of the hydrological cycle rather than only addressing human interests.

“This is the beginning of a new kind of multilateralism,” said Solon, who in 2010 played a central role in launching a global rights of nature movement that now has pushed through laws in over 30 countries.
‘Without the Amazon There Is No Solution to the Climate Crisis’

For the last day of FOSPA, conferees packed into Rurrenabaque’s colosseum stadium against a backdrop of misty rainforest draped over mountainous cliffs.

On stage, portions of the conference’s final document, “A call from the Amazon to build an Agreement for Life in the face of climate and ecological collapse,” were read aloud to booming cheers while women selling empanadas and small packages of peanuts made their way through the throngs of people in the stands, some chewing on wads of coca leaves.

Representatives of communities from across the Amazon rainforest gather inside the “Colosseo” in Rurrenabaque, Bolivia on June 15 for the closing of FOSPA. Credit: Katie Surma/Inside Climate News

“Without the Amazon there is no solution to the climate crisis. Without a solution to the global climate crisis, it will not be possible to save the Amazon,” the document began.

The communique called for the end of new investments in fossil fuel projects in the Amazon region and listed eight steps to end deforestation, including the demarcation and titling of Indigenous peoples’ lands and the sanctioning of institutions that finance activities causing deforestation.

With many in the stands filming the stage with their cell phones, representatives from three Ecuadorian Indigenous groups were asked to consider hosting the next FOSPA conference.

The request was made largely on the basis of Ecuador’s landmark 2023 referendums, where 59 and 68 percent of voters, respectively, voted to end oil operations in a portion of Yasuni National Park and mining operations in the Chaco Andino cloud forest outside of Quito. Since the vote, Ecuador’s government has suggested that it may postpone compliance with the Yasuni referendum on national security grounds. Whether the country complies with the referendum is largely seen as a litmus test for the viability of plebiscites aimed at keeping fossil fuels in the ground. At FOSPA, participants batted around the idea of using similar tactics to block Brazil from pursuing controversial oil operations at the mouth of the Amazon River.

The Yasuni and Chaco referendums are Amazon-grown tactics that participants aim to begin exporting. Pepe Manuyama, an Indigenous leader based in Iquitos, Peru, told other attendees they needed to lean into the political world of their home countries with the aim of promoting globally the Amazonian worldview—that nature is a living being, that it is possible for humans to thrive without unsustainably exploiting the Earth, and that humans and nature are interdependent.

“We need to build a new world,” he said. “From the Amazon, we can offer a different paradigm.”
The Case for a Socialized Internet

Review of Internet for the People: The Fight for Our Digital Future by Ben Tarnoff (Verso, 2022)

July 7, 2024
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.





During an episode of his program in 2015, the late right wing talk radio demagogue Rush Limbaugh devoted part of a segment to attacking Bill Gates for an interview the latter had recently given to The Atlantic. Limbaugh was particularly upset by Gates’s following statement: “since World War II, US government [funded] R&D has defined the state of the art in almost” every advanced sector of the American economy. For example, Gates noted, it was the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) which allocated resources for the R&D which laid the foundation for the modern internet. As for producing economic innovation on its own, Gates said, “the private sector is in general inept.”

Here was Bill Gates, one of the leading economic titans in world history–whose unprecedented wealth is supposedly a testament to the blessings bestowed by hard work and ingenuity operating within a free market economy–saying that the private sector was inept at innovation and needed heavy government funding to help it along. Here was Bill Gates seemingly endorsing the idea that socialistic measures–i.e. government economic planning–had fueled America’s post-World War II economic prosperity. Limbaugh was absolutely aghast. He pronounced Gates’s words as among the” craziest, most nonsensical things” he had ever heard in his life. It was “twilight zone” stuff.

Like a good conservative, Limbaugh held the notion that every major economic advancement on earth has been driven by rugged individualism: hardy entrepreneurs tinkering with inventions in garages or business owners working 24 hours a day to drive innovation, create wealth, jobs and benefits for the human race in general. According to the view of Limbaugh and his ilk, the government’s only proper economic function is to perform certain very limited regulatory and law enforcement functions. Governmental economic intervention beyond that is inevitably going to be a disaster. Socialism doesn’t work! Government economic planning doesn’t work! After all, doesn’t the collapse of the Soviet Union demonstrate this?

You can say many harsh things about Bill Gates, but you can’t deny that he has a more realistic view of how the world works than the likes of Rush Limbaugh. Gates’s understanding has also been shared by Noam Chomsky. It has been noted throughout Chomsky’s work that the R&D which has played the leading role in advancing the economic innovations of the post-World War II United States–computers, the internet, transistors, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals–has been funded by US government agencies. After initial development under government aegis, these innovations have, through various mechanisms, ended up under the control of private corporations.

The brilliance of individual scientists receiving government funding–of course–is ultimately responsible for the development of economic innovation in areas like computers and the internet. But government agencies–in the US, Europe, Japan and elsewhere–have had the foresight to plan and direct financial and research resources to these innovations when the private sector saw no short term profit gain in diverting its own R&D resources to them. Historically inadequate R&D funding by the private sector (because of lack of immediate profit gain) is what Gates referred to when he said “the private sector is in general inept.”

Various authors have explored the history in the US and the world’s other most advanced economies of government led economic development facilitating the creation of enormous private sector wealth and substantial economic development. Mariana Mazzucato, the academic economist, is probably the most prominent of current advocates of state-led support of economic innovation. Among other authors, Chomsky has noted how US government military spending during the Cold War supporting research at public universities and government contractors like IBM played key roles in spurring the R&D which developed computers and later the internet.

The military has indeed been a crucible of economic advancement as former Richard Nixon campaign advisor, the late Kevin Phillips, wrote in his 2003 book Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich. Phillips’s book was an attempt to show that government led economic development–not classical free markets–has played a major role in creating the unprecedented capitalist wealth developed over the last several hundred years in the US. For example he pointed out that the system of interchangeable parts–which helped power the American industrial revolution–was developed by military contractors at the turn of the 19th century at the US military’s Springfield armory. Phillips noted that during World War I, the US Navy took over all patents of the nascent radio technology to speed up its development. After the war, the navy oversaw the creation of a partnership between General Electric and Westinghouse which launched the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) for the purpose of furthering radio’s development. RCA functioned as a de facto US military corporation with its leading officials and technicians being reserve officers of the army or navy. Phillips noted that the government’s involvement in creating radio generated the possibility that at least a significant part of the radio air waves would be set aside for the public (for use by community groups, educational institutions, unions and the like). However, Congress’s Radio Act of 1927 and Communications Act of 1934 ensured that US radio would be under the nearly complete control of private business ownership.

Internet for the People

The remarks of figures like Gates, Chomsky and Phillips raise important questions. If innovative technologies like the internet and radio were created with such heavy taxpayer expenditure, shouldn’t the public have more control over them? Ben Tarnoff, in his highly intelligent 2022 book Internet for the People: The Fight for Our Digital Future, produces a reply to this question in the case of the internet, arguing that it should be fully socialized.

Tarnoff, a writer and tech worker, begins his book describing how public money–through the US government agencies DARPA and the National Science Foundation (NSF)–oversaw the internet’s creation in the 1970’s and 80’s. During the 80’s, the NSF oversaw the internet’s establishment as a communications network across disciplines for academic researchers around the country. The NSF created the University of Illinois’s National Center for Supercomputing Applications which created Mosaic, the world’s first web site in 1990. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic Ocean, Tim Berners-Lee created the World Wide Web as a scientist for CERN, the research organization funded by the governments of several dozen nations of what is now called the European Union.

Tarnoff describes how efforts in the early 90’s to privatize the internet–spearheaded by NSF director Stephen Wolff–co-existed alongside efforts to guarantee at least some public control of the internet. While a US Senator in the early 90’s, Al Gore spoke of a public-private partnership controlling the internet. In 1994, Democratic US Senator Daniel Inouye introduced legislation to create a “public lane on the information superhighway.” Gore’s and Inouye’s proposals might have made at least some movement towards establishing equitable internet access for the general American population and greater ability for non-corporate, grassroots individuals and organizations to spread information and points of view not generally favored by corporate media.

However, Inouye’s legislation went nowhere and Gore quickly forgot about facilitating public involvement in the internet’s operation when he joined theClinton White House as vice president. The Clinton administration committed to placing the internet entirely in corporate hands. Tarnoff observes that strategically timed donations to the Democratic National Committee in December 1993 by multiple telecom companies probably played a role in encouraging the administration to make this commitment. The internet’s backbone–the cables and other equipment handling communication between computer networks–was fully divested from by the NSF on April 30, 1995. The internet was fully privatized.

Tarnoff surveys the results of this privatization and it is not pretty. In the US, internet access is essential to basic survival: from communication with loved ones and professional associates to receiving homework assignments as a student, applying for jobs and receiving essential news about the world. Yet Tarnoff notes that internet access is visibly uneven across the United States. In rural and low income areas the service is often, at best, spotty and slow. The US federal government has funneled billions of dollars to private internet service providers (ISPs) to induce them to invest in what are called internet deserts: primarily rural and low income geographic regions where it would normally be unprofitable for ISPs to provide internet service. It appears that in many cases, ISPs have taken the money and failed to deliver the service. Tarnoff writes:

“To cite one example of many, a major ISP called CenturyLink began receiving $505.7 million from the [federal government’s] Universal Service Fund to pay for broadband deployment in underserved areas in 2015. Five years later, the company told the FCC it had only met the mandated milestones in ten states out of thirty-three…During these years, CenturyLink’s CEO was one of the highest paid executives in the industry, earning $35.7 million in 2018.”

Meanwhile the picture of the internet’s actual content is not pretty either. The distribution and amplification of that content is controlled by a relative handful of corporate platforms. Google and Facebook make hundreds of billions of dollars annually because of their dominant position in online advertising (they harvest user data to better target advertisements at their sites’ users). Business forces have exploited the internet to facilitate outsourcing of customer service jobs to low wage third world countries. In the US, rideshare companies like Uber utilize the internet to better surveil and exploit their workers (Tarnoff seems to advocate rideshare coops as a measure to combat this oppression). Right wingers use the great financial resources at their disposal to spread disinformation and racism across the internet.

Possible Solutions


Tarnoff refrains from offering a precise model of how a fully socialized internet would work. He believes such models have to be worked out in practice to see what works in the context of particular needs, experiences and preferences in different communities around the United States.

He does however offer a number of reforms and practices that when taken together can potentially help us build a foundation for fully democratizing the internet and taking the profit motive out of it. For example he advocates municipal broadband, noting that public or coop internet service (the latter being offered in rural North Dakota) has outperformed its private sector competitors in terms of quality and cost. He is an admirer of decentralized social media networks, which allow greater user control over their personal data, the network’s algorithms and other policies in comparison to traditional corporate social media companies like Facebook. One prominent decentralized social media network is the non-profit Mastodon. Tarnoff observes that after it was kicked off major internet platforms for its involvement in the January 6th riots, “the fascist social networking site Gab migrated to Mastodon.” In response, most of the servers representing the independent social network communities comprising Mastodon’s federation blocked Gab from being able to communicate with them. Gab users were able to gather to spew their toxic views among themselves but they were largely quarantined.

Ultimately, Tarnoff wants all aspects of internet service–from the provision of internet access itself to social media networks–to be thoroughly democratically run by the persons who use them. He thoroughly understands that if grassroots movements pursue his ideas–like taxing ISPs to pay for municipal broadband or using similar funding sources to create publicly run social media networks out of local libraries–they will create enormous pushback from the powerful business interests which profit handsomely off a fully privatized internet.

Democrat and Republican politicians are fond of using Big Tech as a political punching bag but, when push comes to shove, more often than not shy away from seriously undermining the power of major internet corporations. It is true that Biden’s Justice Department–in continuation of an action began by Trump’s Justice Department in 2020–has been interminably pursuing antitrust action against Google for its dominance of online search engine traffic and control of online advertising. But, at the end of last month, the American Privacy Rights Act–which might have potentially mildly hindered the ability of Google and similar corporations to harvest data–was scuttled by congressional leaders after it had been introduced on a bipartisan basis. It was apparently the latest example of the utilization of the enormous lobbying power and financial muscle of Big Tech to shape politics in its own interests.

Democratic control of the internet and other information systems is crucial for advancing the power of ordinary people. Social movements must take up the ideas Tarnoff mentions in his book.
It’s the (Next) Economy, Stupid
July 7, 2024
Source: Social Policy: Organizing for Economic and Social Justice



In the fight for the heart and soul of America — and governing power at every level — it’s time to, excuse my French, get our shit together.

MAGA, Donald Trump, and Project 2025 are chock full of disastrous economic policies that will impoverish millions of people, especially communities of color, women, and children. They are selling snake oil to the working and middle classes in America, promising the moon and delivering dust once elections are over.

We have a thrilling economic agenda that could capture the imaginations of working people from coast to coast — if we are bold enough to say it out loud.

Imagine if everyone in this country had high-quality housing, health care, higher education, transit, income, jobs, and more. And we have these things because they are public goods: things we all deserve, and for which we all work together.

It would be transformational. An end to poverty. A deep investment in young people and their boundless potential. Long overdue reparations for African-Americans. Sovereignty for Indigenous Peoples. The stuff of dreams on the edges of what might be possible in our lifetimes.

All of this is possible: indeed, in the richest country in the history of the world, one wonders why we didn’t achieve these things long ago.

Well, we don’t have to wonder. The reason is that a powerful alliance of corporate and conservative political forces has moved mountains to constrain social movements and overturn our victories. They have been wildly successful in shrinking taxes, taking away voting rights and cutting social policies to the bone. Their playbook includes the strategic use of racism, corporate power, deregulation, divide-and-conquer attacks on us, and privatization.

And now, with the specter of a second Trump term on the horizon, corporate and conservative forces are fueling an authoritarian and overtly racist movement so they can fully capture the federal government to end progress toward inclusion and lock in their own economic interests.

We can, and must, stop them. None of what the far right wants is inevitable, although they want it to feel that way. Indeed, few Americans support the vision of government by and for the wealthy few. Yet if we are to succeed, we must craft a positive vision for American society that an inclusive and multiracial majority of Americans will embrace. That’s what will make us unstoppable, and that’s where two new books — Natalie Foster’s The Guarantee: Inside the Fight for America’s Next Economy (2024), and Donald Cohen and Allen Mikaelian’s The Privatization of Everything: How the Plunder of Public Goods Transformed America and How We Can Fight Back (2023) come in. These two books light the path forward toward an inclusive economy, with terrific stories that will agitate and inspire you to take on corporate power with renewed resolve.

These complementary books are meditations on the power of inclusive public goods versus the power of corporations, concentrated wealth, and structural oppression. Both books point to race and corporate power as root causes that must be addressed in work toward winning guarantees for housing, care, education, jobs and income, healthcare, and more. It’s not surprising that both books come from the New Press, a nonprofit public interest publisher whose tagline is “books to change minds about justice.”

Both books bolster the case Foster makes for what she calls a Guarantee Framework, so let’s start with her articulation of that argument, as the crux of the matter:


Under the Guarantee Framework, our government, the government of the wealthiest country on earth, takes responsibility for ensuring that every American’s basic needs are met. We’re talking about fundamental needs like housing, health care, a college education, dignified work, care for elders and children, an inheritance, and an income floor below which no one falls.

There is no getting around the fact that part of our resistance to the Guarantees is based in racism. Black leaders have long been espousing the philosophical foundations of the Guarantee in calling for the full belonging of Black people, as well as Native Americans and other people of color. Our continuing challenge as a country is to overcome white resistance to true economic and democratic citizenship for all.

The title of The Guarantee references America’s “next economy.” Both books describe the terrain of this contest space. It is not inevitable that the next economy will be inclusive, equitable, green, and controlled by people and the public instead of the wealthy and corporations. We are in a transition, but toward what? Will it be a society where economic security is a fundamental right, as Foster urges, or a dystopian mashup of the Terminator and Wall-E? As discussed by authors of visionary fiction, we cannot create what we cannot envision, hence these two books.

In his prescient novel Blue Mars (2003), science fiction author Kim Stanley Robinson posits that any era’s economic system is the result of a “residual/emergent complex of overlapping paradigms,” composed of roughly equal parts of the dominant systems immediately adjacent to it in past and future. I originally shared this in a review of books championing a Universal Basic Income, a conversation that Sam Pizzigati improved with the addition of an income ceiling in The Case for a Maximum Wage (2018). I wished for more of this analysis in reading the opening sections of The Guarantee on income, the idea that sparked Foster and her co-founders to create the Economic Security Project in 2016 to advance a guaranteed income in America and rein in the “unprecedented concentration of corporate power.”

Acknowledging that the Guarantee Framework is “is like a compass; it’s an orientation, not a specific policy prescription,” Foster moves readers through the ideas and stories that animate income, housing, family care, and other guarantees. She hints at bold applications of the framework, such as “ensuring a right to banking and public banks, or publicly owned clean energy production” where movements and campaigns are emerging. I appreciate the inspiration that Foster draws from the Occupy Movement, as well as from ACORN and People’s Action (though both organizations work fighting predatory lending and organizing homeowners and tenants is decades longer than noted, starting in the 1960s).

Foster, Cohen, and Mikaelian debunk the failures of neoliberalism and racial capitalism while making the case for public goods and guarantees. No, the free market isn’t infallible, the government isn’t inept, and we are not individually responsible for our economic destinies. Those are ideas that corporations and the wealthy have fabricated in order to maximize private gain from public goods.

The urgent question these authors pose is: what do our values tell us about who is in and who is out of our economy? Or as Cohen and Mikaelian put it: Who has ownership, rights, and the power to make decisions? One set of values leads to privatization and government capture by corporate power and the wealthy, and the other moves us toward dignity, community, and freedom for everyone.

The corporate-conservative movement shifted toward winning governing power more explicitly in the early 1970s as a reaction to freedom and civil rights movements that rightfully demanded economic inclusion. In the 1960s, just as campuses were getting more populous and racially diverse, free college ended. This was no accident. As Foster explains, “As Black and brown people gained access to higher education, white supremacist politicians reacted by increasing the cost of college.”

The corporate-conservative alliance’s strategic use of racism is used together with privatization, deregulation, and money in politics to shift power and wealth away from people and the public. The Privatization of Everything tells more of this story than The Guarantee, as Cohen and Mikaelian explain: “Privatization also operates to further racism’s animating principle—the denial of systemic racism—by convincing us that our consumer freedoms mean we can safely ignore our responsibilities as citizens.”

The Guarantee Framework is a continuation of the drive toward racial justice and economic inclusion that exploded in the 1960s after hundreds of years of struggle against colonization, slavery, and disenfranchisement. These two political tendencies are in constant tension, with each swing of the pendulum affecting the lives of tens of millions of people.

Foster reminds us that all of us in the United States just participated in a rapid through temporary experiment in guarantees in the government response to COVID-19.


Beginning in 2020, America’s federal government did something previously unimaginable. Almost overnight, it forged a new social contract. In many arenas of our lives, our government provided a Guarantee. To keep people in their homes, it banned foreclosures and evictions and provided rental aid and housing vouchers. To guarantee food was on the table, it provided emergency food benefits, free school meals and meals outside school, and remote WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children Program) services; it paused the work requirement for these, and made the food benefit and WIC more generous. To protect and support children and families, it instituted required paid leave, child care system grants and child care provider grants, stimulus checks, and the expansion of the Earned-Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. To make sure people had access to health care, it provided Medicare continuity and ACA subsidies, and subsidized COBRA coverage (an arrangement that allows people to continue paying for their employer-based insurance after their job ends).

In a deeply traumatic and challenging period, Foster reminds us how the benefits of the Guarantee Framework go beyond relieving material suffering (as important as that is), “In a word, what people gained from receiving reliable, unrestricted cash was agency: freedom, choices, options.”

Two things are critical to note here. First, the guarantees deployed during the pandemic were, as Foster explains, “the result of a decade (if not more) of strategic research, organizing, communication, lobbying, and other work by architects of the Guarantee.”

Second, never let a good crisis go to waste.

Big corporations love a crisis (and are happy to manufacture them), as Cohen and Mikaelian make clear in The Privatization of Everything. We turn now to the flipside of the Guarantee Framework — privatization — and then into strategies and solutions that advance public goods, freedom, and justice over corporate power, racism, and exclusion. Cohen and Mikaelian kick things off with a definition:


Privatization is the transfer of control over public goods to private hands. Sometimes this happens during procurement—the outsourcing of public services to a private contractor. In other cases it’s due to austerity—reducing public funding of a vital public good and letting private options take over. Or it can happen through deregulation—when we eliminate or fail to enforce public control through important regulatory safeguards for consumers, workers, or the environment. In all these ways, privatization is a transfer of power over our own destiny, as individuals and as a nation, to unelected, unaccountable, and inscrutable corporations and their executives.

In contrast, Cohen and Mikaelian assert that public goods like those in the Guarantee Framework should be defined by the public and its values, not the market. This is a key distinction because when the market decides what is public and private then they get to define terms in the Battle of Big Ideas, and we are forced into being consumers rather than citizens, a term whose origin, the authors explain, citizen is derived from city, as of a member of a community who, as such, has rights and accepts responsibilities. It is a mindset rather than a legal definition, they argue, meant to include, not divide.

Privatization is a driver of many of the ills that plague market-driven societies — the upward transfer of wealth, inequality, racial and class segregation — explain Cohen and Mikaelian, but its pervasiveness at the local level makes it acutely susceptible to public pressure. From schools to libraries, to roads and government services, the handles for local campaigns against privatization are everywhere. That’s the good news. Now for the tough stuff.

We have to reclaim both our government and the idea of public values. When private interests control our government, they use it for private gain. Cohen and Mikaelian urge us to “reclaim our governments as tools of the public—not as distant power centers or as tribute-taking idols, but as useful instruments for making public values manifest. We will use public conversation and debate to define public goods, and we will act to ensure that those goods remain under public control.” The flipside, they say, is confronting privatization whenever it threatens a public good. Because privatization is a political strategy, organizers and change-makers know the playbook.

Each section of The Privatization of Everything looks at a public good, makes a case for the public values that support it, and indicates where we have ceded too much to private interests. This isn’t the be-all and end-all of strategies we need to help people see government as the prize, not the problem, but it points us in the right direction.

Cohen and Mikaelian take us on a whirlwind tour of privatization and how it has been used to divide and exclude, largely on the basis of race. It is this separation, people from the public and each other, that opens up space for corporations and the wealthy to amass power at the public’s expense. Public goods have public benefits, and conversely privatization has human costs. On the positive ledger, Cohen and Mikaelian describe how “One researcher examined nineteenth-century death records, extrapolated them into a hypothetical twentieth century that never passed these laws, and estimated that we save nearly 1.8 million lives per year by holding food producers and drug companies to account.” This is especially true in municipal water and water disposal, public goods that come from the public health movement rather than the market. They continue, “Public health and water are public goods because we need them to live; transportation and communications are public goods because we need them to help create economies that allow us to live well.” The same goes for all of the guarantees that Foster champions.

If it feels like fighting privatization is an uphill battle, it’s because it is. Municipal broadband is a good example, as Cohen and Mikaelian cite the Institute for Local-Self Reliance who tracked how over 130 cities and towns in the United States offer municipal broadband. They got into it because commercial internet providers saw their markets as too small. And yet, Cohen and Mikaelian report that nineteen states have laws that severely restrict the creation or expansion of municipal broadband. This is the corporate-conservative Long-Term Agenda at work. They start small by getting laws passed that say that governments should contract with private corporations for their services whenever possible, and advance their narrative that governments are “monopolies” that should be broken up. This is ironic because privatization often leads to private monopolies whose profit extraction leads to a severe decline in the quality of services and products that the government was providing. Cohen and Mikaelian explain:


Privatization of public goods often amounts to a transfer of power from democratic government to private corporations. The public has less power when companies performing a public service hide information away as trade secrets. Elected officials lose control over public policy when their governments enter into binding contracts that demand payments if their preferred policy isn’t followed.

No segment of our society is immune. The philanthropy that much of the social justice movement relies on for funding is a form of privatized public goods —- the wealthy receive tax benefits for shifting money into private entities to manage what should have been public funds. More insidiously, the political strategy of privatization demands that private philanthropy take responsibility for the problems created by privatization —- poverty, homelessness, lack of access to health care, all of the “externalities” of racial capitalism. In Cohen and Mikaelian’s description, “Charity preserves the top-to-bottom relationships of patronage; public benefits create side-to-side relationships between citizens.”

The Privatization of Everything marches from sector to sector in this way, reminding us that none of the public goods we already share as a society — like parks, waterworks, food safety, a social safety net, and democracy itself — would exist if the public had not demanded them. This also applies to diversity, especially in public schools where all students benefit in real ways from multi-racial, cross-cass communities. In direct contrast to exclusionary private and charter schools, Cohen and Mikaelian describe how “exposure to diversity in educational settings has been strongly linked to increased civic engagement, community activism, and participation in democracy.” And they point out that the reverse is also true — authoritarianism is much more likely to arise from the process of exclusion.

The Battle of Big Ideas is front and center in the fight for public goods and guarantees over privatization. The idea that innovation arises only from competition and lightly regulated corporations is a pillar of corporate-conservative narratives, and a false one as Cohen and Mikaelian explain.


This belief has brought us secretive charter schools, a defunding of public higher education, an absurdly inefficient system for publishing research, attacks on the National Weather Service, and unconscionable drug pricing. When it comes to the creation of knowledge and real innovation, it’s the public that has the resources and willingness to take risks, and it has the added benefit of being able to work toward a solution that benefits all, not merely a solution that enriches a few.

Cohen and Mikaelian conclude with a message about power. The public ceded essential services and products to private interests —- and we can take it all back. Power comes from organized people, money, and ideas and we have to meet corporate-conservative forces on all three fronts. The authors ask us to imagine a society based on public values and a commitment to ensuring that public goods are available to all. Like Foster, all of the things that are essential for lives of dignity and freedom should be public goods. This idea could be the foundation of the next economy — if we can build the political will to make it happen. They urge us to take six steps to regain public control over public goods:Define the Public: It’s All of Us. We must avoid exclusions not just because it is right, but because we are fundamentally interconnected.
Let the Public Decide. In a democracy, the public, not the market, gets to determine what counts as a public good.
Pay for Things We Value. This means paying for things we value through our taxes, and it means our tax system should be progressive enough to avoid being painful, and widespread enough so that everyone does their part.
Don’t Let the Free Market Limit Freedom. Privatization is, in part, designed to close the door on public alternatives and programs and to eliminate public “competition” with the private sector.
Create and Enforce Pro-Public Standards and Rules. Once we’ve decided what we consider public goods and establish basic standards, they become real only after we create procedures, rules, and rigorous enforcement that anticipate risk, allow us to monitor progress, and make sure that every person’s voice is heard.
Surface the State: The Public Needs to See It. To turn the tide we need to “surface the state” that surrounds us. Most people don’t realize, for instance, how decades of public investment in science and R&D have fueled American innovation in the products we all use in our daily lives.

Foster concludes The Guarantee by urging us to launch campaigns close to home, a button-up progressive federalism that can rack up local and state victories that could lead to national solutions when the conditions are ripe and when crisis calls for public solutions to big problems. Foster notes that: “Over and over, when Americans are given the ability to vote directly, via ballot measure, on Guarantee-like policies, those policies win. For example, when things like expanded Medicaid, paid sick leave, and raising the minimum wage are on the ballot, they pass everywhere, including in deep red states.” We can reverse the divisions that corporate power and authoritarians have sown by uniting the multi-racial majority on these popular economic ideas and policies and naming the real enemy. That’s the work of organizing.

I wish both books had spent more time clarifying the values that undergird public goods and guarantees. I was also looking for a deeper history of the tension with the forces of privatization, and more explicit strategy lessons from the successes and failures of the pro-public movement. Regardless, these are must reads.

The choice of what society we have is up to us. Privatization leads to exclusion, segregation, stratification, exploitation, and poverty for everyone except those profiting at our expense.

Public goods and guarantees strengthen interdependence, freedom, dignity, equity, and equality. These authors are calling us to make the latter the basis of the next economy. Let’s get to it.


First published in Social Policy: Organizing for Economic and Social Justice (54)2.

Books reviewed:

Foster, Natalie. The Guarantee: Inside the Fight for America’s Next Economy. New Press, 2024.

Cohen, Donald, and Allen Mikaelian. The Privatization of Everything: How the Plunder of Public Goods Transformed America and How We Can Fight Back. New Press, 2023.