Thursday, March 30, 2023

Reagan’s Treason, Two Bushes and the $23 Million Payoff


 
 MARCH 30, 2023
Facebook

Photograph Source: Cabinet of US President Ronald Reagan – Public Domain

Last week, a Texas pol, Ben Barnes, confessed that he was personally involved—and therefore an eyewitness to–high treason: The Ronald Reagan campaign’s successful secret deal with the Iranian government to hold 52 Americans hostages so that Reagan could defeat Jimmy Carter.

Reagan’s skanky deal worked. In 1980, Carter’s failure to bring home the hostages destroyed his chance of reelection. Reagan ultimately would repay the favor from Iran’s murder-crats with weapons and even, for the Ayatollah Khomeini, a birthday cake from Reagan advisor Oliver North.

The question is, why now? Why did Barnes suddenly blow the whistle on this crime—and a crime it is—four decades late? His cute excuse, reported without question by the New York Times, is that, “History needs to know that this happened.”

Wrong. “History” doesn’t need to know—American voters needed to know about Reagan’s treason before the 1980 election.

So, then, why did Barnes squirrel away the truth for decades? Follow the money.

It’s a money trail that leads to two Bushes who would not have become president if not for Barnes’ silence about Iran—and Barnes’ omertà about another creepy Bush scheme.

In 1999, for The Guardian, I discovered that Barnes, in his previous role as Lt. Governor of Texas, used his political juice to get Congressman George Bush Sr.’s son, “Dubya” into the Texas Air Guard—over literally thousands of far-more-qualified applicants. (Little Bush scored 25 out of 100 on the test, just one point above “too dumb to fly.”)

And so, Dubya dodged the draft and Vietnam.

Barnes hid the truth despite pleas from Texas Gov. Ann Richards, who, in 1994, lost a squeaker of an election to Dubya.

In Austin, Texas, I received unshakeable evidence that Barnes was the fixer who got Congressman Bush’s son out of the Vietnam draft. (This, while Bush Sr. was voting to send other men’s sons to Vietnam.)

What did Barnes get for his burial of Reagan’s deal with Iran and Bush Jr.’s draft dodging? Did $23 million do it?

In 1999, I was investigating a company, GTech, which ran both the British and Texas lotteries. Texas had disqualified GTech from operating the state lottery based on strong evidence of corruption. But oddly, the new Governor of Texas, George W. Bush, fired the lottery director who banned GTEch. Then Bush’s new lottery commissioner gave GTech back its multi-billion-dollar contract, no bidding.

Notably, Bush’s firing of the state’s lottery director came two days after a meeting with GTech’s lobbyist—Ben Barnes.

Barnes’ fees from GTech? $23 million.

I wasn’t in the Bush-Barnes little tête-à-tête: the info came from a confidential memo from the lottery director that was well buried inside Justice Department files.

In a civil suit, Barnes supposedly denied any quid pro quo with Gov. Bush. Maybe. A nice payment from GTech to the wronged lottery director sealed Barnes’ testimony from the public.

Maybe Bush met with Barnes just to reminisce. But if Barnes had the Bush family’s entire political fortune in his pocket, did he really need to remind Dubya of the consequences if the Governor did not take care of Barnes’ client?

Secretly conspiring with a foreign power to keep Americans imprisoned, secretly negotiating with and providing weapons to a foreign enemy is the definition of treason—and so would a cover-up for cash.

Stealing the truth is as much a vote suppression technique as stealing ballots.  This is one more example of how Reagan and the Bushes turned America into “The best democracy money can buy.”

This column was distributed by Independent Media Institute.

Greg Palast is an investigative journalist and author.

 

U.S., allies concerned over Myanmar disbanding Suu Kyi party


REUTERS

March 30, 2023 

    Photo/Illutration
A Myanmar protester residing in Japan uses a flag with an image of deposed Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi during a rally to mark the second anniversary of Myanmar’s 2021 military coup, outside the Embassy of Myanmar in Tokyo, Japan February 1, 2023. (REUTERS)

The United States, Britain, Japan and Australia on Wednesday expressed their concern over the dissolution of Myanmar’s former ruling party and urged a more inclusive process to return the country to democracy.

Myanmar’s ruling junta on Tuesday disbanded Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) and 39 other parties over their failure to meet a deadline to register for an election that is set to extend the army’s grip on power.

Myanmar has been in turmoil since a military coup in early 2021 that upended a decade of tentative democracy, with a bloody crackdown on protests giving rise to an armed struggle against the junta. More than a million people have been displaced by fighting, according to the United Nations.

Myanmar’s ousted leader Aung San Suu Kyi, 77, is serving 33 years in prison for various offences and dozens of her NLD allies are also in jail or have fled. The NLD had repeatedly ruled out running in the election, for which no date has been set, calling it illegitimate.

“We are seriously concerned that the exclusion of the NLD from the political process will make it even more difficult to improve the situation,” Japan’s foreign ministry said in a statement.

“Japan strongly urges Myanmar to immediately release NLD officials, including Suu Kyi, and to show a path toward a peaceful resolution of the issue in a manner that includes all parties concerned.”

A spokesperson for Myanmar’s military could not immediately be reached for comment. Its leader Min Aung Hlaing on Monday urged international critics to get behind his efforts to restore democracy.

‘ASSAULT ON FREEDOMS’

U.S. State Department deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel told reporters that the United States “strongly condemns” the decision to abolish 40 political parties.

“Any election without the participation of all stakeholders in Burma would not be and cannot be considered free or fair,” Patel said, using the Southeast Asian nation’s former name.

Britain’s foreign office criticized the dissolution of the NLD and other parties as an “assault on the rights and freedoms” of the Myanmar people.

“We condemn the military regime’s politically motivated actions and their use of increasingly brutal tactics to sow fear and repress opposition,” a foreign office spokesperson said.

Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said it was seriously concerned about a further narrowing of political space in Myanmar due to tough election registration requirements.

It said all stakeholders should be allowed to participate in the political process and warned their exclusion could lead to further violence and instability.

“We will continue to closely monitor the regime’s actions and call for the restoration of democracy including credible elections,” it said in a statement.

Pesticides and tap water: What does the future hold?

In the final part of our investigation into the state of Europe's tap water, we look at possible solutions for making the use of pesticides that pollute it sustainable, both at European and local level. With regard to the latter, the Dutch Farm of the Future project shows the way.

Published on 30 March 2023 
Luisa Izuzquiza, Jelena Prtorić
 
Irrigation of fields during droughts of June 2022 in the Veneto region, Italy. 
| Photo: Jelena Prtorić


In December 2019, the European Commission presented the European Green Deal – “a roadmap for making Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050” – which has ever since become a buzzword for its environmental policy. Protecting biodiversity, greening of the Common Agricultural Policy, and the so-called Farm to Fork strategy are at the heart of the Green Deal.


The Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies lay out a plan “to reduce by 50% the use and risk of chemical pesticides by 2030 and to reduce by 50 percent the use of more hazardous pesticides by 2030”. But in the wake of the war in Ukraine, rising energy prices, and food and fertiliser shortages, the proposal to reform the legislation on the Sustainable use of pesticides has been poorly received by the member states.

“The countries have basically adopted the industry’s discourse, and now demand additional impact assessment from the European Commission,” says Nina Holland, a researcher on pesticides from Corporate Europe Observatory, a lobbying watchdog. If the Commission accepts drafting further impact assessments, this will probably set the proposal back by months. Whatever the outcome of the discussions might be, it will take time for the decisions to be transformed into measures affecting farmers.

Moreover, the Commission has already watered down its proposed ban on all pesticide use in so-called sensitive areas, Holland warns. Then, in November 2022, the Commission published a non-paper, which outlines elements to reconsider by the Member States such as “moving away from a total ban towards a restriction of the use of the least harmful pesticides,” and “allowing most pesticides in agriculture in ecologically sensitive areas.” The latter would also weaken the regulation on the use of pesticides in the water abstraction catchment area.

Delays and inconsistencies
Other environmental texts that should have helped achieve the Green Deal strategic goals have already been delayed or risk being sidelined. The Commission’s working plan for 2023 is set to delay commencing the reform of REACH, the EU’s chemicals legislation, until the last quarter of 2023. Since the European Parliament elections are in 2024, the fear is that the legislation will not be improved under this Commission. The Nutrient Action Plan, which aims to deliver the European Green Deal target of reducing nutrient losses by 50 percent – and fertiliser use by 20 percent – before 2030, has been delayed, with no clear publication date on the Commission’s agenda. In November 2022, the Commission outlined a series of measures and policies related to the availability and affordability of fertilisers that emphasise support to farmers and fertiliser producers.


Farming differently

At the Farm of the Future, in the Northeastern province of Flevoland, in the Netherlands, researchers from the University of Wageningen work with farmers to figure out how some of the EU's objectives could be reached with the help of technology and by using different cultivation methods. The Netherlands is a global agricultural powerhouse, where 53.9 % of the land is used for agriculture. The country of just 41.540 km² is the second largest exporter of agricultural goods in the world, after the US, in terms of export value (€96.6 billion in 2020).

“We need and can design high-yield food production systems, because we will need to feed 9 billion people in ten or twenty years,” says the project leader, Wijnand Sukkel, who has been working in farming systems development for the past 35 years. “In order to make [the food production] all-around sustainable, we need to take into account everything from [nitrate] pollution, water scarcity and [...] the depletion of resources such as fossil fuels or phosphorous.”

Wijnand Sukkel, the project leader of the Farm of the Future project in August 2022. Lelystad, the Netherlands. | Photo: Jelena Prtorić


On the farm, Sukkel and his colleagues – researchers and farmers – explore agri-forestry systems, planting crops in strips with flower hedges in between, every 50 meters, to preserve the diversity of insects, and also employ precision technology.

“Take organic farming for example – organic doesn't mean low tech. It can really be executed much better if you use technology. If you grow onions, you could either choose to put in 200 hours of hand labour per hectare for weeding or buy a high-tech machine and then do it for about 10 hours of hand labour,” Sukkel says.

Current farming systems encourage the use of heavy machinery, which costs a lot and obliges farmers to specialise and work with large surfaces of monocultures in order to remain profitable. But since monocultures are also more susceptible to certain diseases than mixed-crop systems, the elimination of large mono-crop growing areas would result in better natural protection of crops. “Also, specialised robots could be employed to treat infected plants with a minimal quantity of pesticides – I am confident we could reduce the amount of pesticides by 90 percent. And if we remove heavy machinery from the fields, we could ultimately reduce soil compaction, which negatively impacts soil fertility,” Sukkel says.


Not everyone finds the argument that technology is part of the solution to be convincing. Nina Holland from Corporate Europe Observatory points out that the “argument about digitised and precision farming is used by the agro-industry to make up for potential losses resulting from pesticide reduction.” New GM techniques and the drone spraying of pesticides are part of that agenda. And many biological farmers insist on “natural solutions.”

Jean-Christophe Richard, a former pesticide salesman who turned to bio farming after being diagnosed with cancer, which he believes to have been work related, is among them. Richard is a co-president of La Confederation paysanne, a French farmers’ union that defends an ecological and farmer-friendly type of agriculture, for the region of Loire Atlantique. He and his three associates have a farm of 210 hectares outside of Nort-sur-Erdre, where they produce about 480,000 litres of cow’s milk, with 65 cows, every year. They also have 150 hectares of meadows where they plant cereals every 5–8 years. As a certified biological farm, they use only manure from their own cows as fertiliser, as well as 50 tonnes of ground limestone per year, which neutralises soil acidity.

“I won’t have issues with pests in my cereal crops, if before that I have left the soil to rest and grow into meadows. This combats soil erosion, improves the uptake of nutrients, so that we don’t need to overdo fertilisers,” he says. Richard regrets the fact that the biggest fund available to EU farmers, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), is still awarded per hectare. “It would be better to have the distribution of subsidies [be] per farmer rather than per hectare. Or the number of hectares should be capped – that would curb land grabbing, as well,” he believes.



The new old farm subsidies

The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, launched in 1962, is enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as a comprehensive subsidy system, with the objective of providing direct income support for farmers since the 1980s. It consists of two pillars: the first, accounting for approximately three-thirds of the CAP’s budget, provides hectare-based payments to farmers, who must comply with some (basic) environmental requirements. The second, generally viewed as underfunded compared to the first, focuses on rural development, and also provides support for a number of ecological measures, such as conversion to or maintenance of organic farming.

The new post-2020 CAP was supposed to restructure the subsidies system and provide incentives for more climate- and biodiversity-friendly farming practices, namely through the so-called eco-schemes. “The eco-schemes are a good add-on [to the new CAP], but the overall policy structure hasn’t really changed. Most money still goes to direct payments based on the number of hectares,” says Katharine Heyl, research assistant at the Research Unit Sustainability and Climate Policy in Leipzig, Germany.

Eco-schemes are funded by a share of the money from direct payments: approximately 25 percent is the minimum stipulated by the EU, although the Member States can go beyond that threshold. But these schemes are also voluntary, so the farmers don’t necessarily need to adopt them. Moreover, the payment levels might be too low in certain countries and, while the environmentally beneficial programs enacted under the second pillar of the CAP last for 5–7 years, the eco-schemes are annual, which is likely too short to achieve any real changes in the domain of biodiversity.


Finally, when it comes to specific issues such as nutrient pollution, the CAP doesn’t address the underlying drivers of unsustainable fertiliser management, such as intensive livestock farming or excessive fertiliser use. “The subsidies should promote restoration of nature, such as sustainable management of peatlands and wetlands, avoidance of soil erosion, and other measures that will limit the nutrient pollution,” says Heyl, “but the CAP alone, being a subsidy scheme, is not an instrument that is efficient, effective, and suitable, in terms of reinforcement, to address the issue of phosphorous and nitrate pollution.”

The CAP is poised to remain a great source of frustration, both for farmers, because of the excessive bureaucratic load it entails, and for environmentalists, because they still regard it as unlikely that it will help to deliver on the objectives of the Green Deal. In 2021, BirdLife Europe, the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), and the WWF European Policy Office analysed 166 draft eco-schemes, concluding that “only 19% are likely to deliver on their stated environmental objectives, 40 percent need significant improvements to be effective, and 41% are completely misaligned with the Green Deal objectives.”


Another worrisome analysis of the subsidy policy comes from a 2021 report by the European Court of Auditors, focusing on the impact of agriculture on water quantity. They found that the current system authorising water abstraction and water pricing mechanisms contains many exemptions for agricultural water use. Only a few CAP schemes link payments to strong sustainable water use requirements. Overall, projects aimed at improving sustainable water use are less common than those that are likely to increase the pressure on water resources, such as new irrigation projects.

According to an analysis by the European Environment Agency, about 30 percent of Europe’s population is affected by water stress during an average year, and “the situation is expected to worsen as climate change is increasing the frequency, magnitude, and impact of droughts.” In 2022, European waterways were hit by a brutal months-long drought. Water abstraction affects up to 17 % of the total groundwater body area and 10 percent of the total river length in the EU Member States, while water abstraction for agriculture is unevenly distributed, and almost 90 percent occurs in southern Europe, a region that is already badly impacted by summer droughts.

Excessive water abstraction results not only in water scarcity, it also impacts water quality, with increasing concentrations of pollutants such as chemicals, nutrients and organic material This summer, at least 300 tons of dead fish were pulled from the Oder river in Germany and Poland. At first, German and Polish authorities were at odds as to what had caused the environmental disaster, but they both ended up blaming toxic algae growth, sparked by an increase in salinity. While the scientists couldn’t determine what had caused the high salt content, they highlighted the fact that the river ecosystem had been under great stress in the summer, due to droughts and extreme heat. Low water levels exacerbated the presence of toxic substances in the water, and caused the deaths of living organisms; a scenario that is likely to repeat itself as long as we continue to put pressure on our waterways.
CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M
Google must pay $162 million as a penalty in an Indian antitrust case

Google must pay up in 30 days, but it can also appeal to the Supreme Court


By Niharika Sharma
Published 4 hours ago







Image: Clay Mclachlan (Reuters)

An Indian tribunal has upheld a $162 million fine imposed on Google by the country’s fair trade regulator for abusing its Android dominance to promote its payment service.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) yesterday (March 29) rejected Google’s plea that the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) probe into a 2018 complaint from Android users had violated natural justice.

In October 2022, CCI fined the US company, ordering a halt on its various unfair business practices.

Googled appealed against the fine with NCLAT in January this year.

It defended itself saying “we believe it (the CCI decision) presents a major setback for our Indian users and businesses who trust Android’s security features, and potentially raising the cost of mobile devices.”

NCLAT has, however, upheld CCI’s decision now and directed Google to deposit the penalty amount in 30 days. The tech behemoth can still appeal against the ruling to the Supreme Court of India.

Why Alphabet’s Google is in trouble in India?

The penalty was a result of a long-drawn investigation by CCI. The probe concluded that Indian Android developers find it difficult to place their apps on smartphones.

Google licenses its Android operating system to smartphone producers at a relatively low cost. In India, all major smartphone companies, including Samsung or Xiaomi, use Android. Around 95% of the 750 million smartphones used in the country are based on this operating system.

Prominent apps, therefore, come pre-installed with Android devices and these can’t be uninstalled. Some app developers claimed that Google’s policies had driven them out of business.

CCI found, therefore, that the US giant’s practice undermines fair competition and stifles innovation.

Climate Options are Available Now, Nuclear Power Isn’t One of Them



 
MARCH 30, 2023
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail



Photo by NOAA

In 2019 at the Davos World Economic Forum, youth climate leader, Greta Thunberg, then only 16, warned the audience in a quiet and measured voice that addressing the climate crisis involved a solution “so simple that even a small child can understand it. We have to stop the emissions of greenhouse gases.”

In closing, she said: “Adults keep saying we owe it to the young people to give them hope. But I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act. I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if the house was on fire. Because it is.”

On March 12, 2023, the Biden administration announced that it had approved oil and gas drilling in Arctic Alaska, retaining the United States’s vaunted position, alongside China and India, as one of the world’s leading arsonists.

As the UK daily, The Guardian reported of that decision: “The ConocoPhillips Willow project will be one of the largest of its kind on US soil, involving drilling for oil and gas at three sites for multiple decades on the 23m-acre National Petroleum Reserve which is owned by the federal government and is the largest tract of undisturbed public land in the US.”

The US government’s lame excuse for approving the drilling project was that it had few legal options, given Conoco-Phillips holds lease rights to the land dating back decades.

So sue. The house is on fire. Tying the project up in the law courts would have bought us time. Green-lighting new oil and gas drilling is tone deafness to a crisis that has gone beyond the tipping point.

This was confirmed, yet again, days later, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023, the final part of its mammoth Sixth Assessment Report. It came replete with even more dire warnings than in previous AR6 reports, which should already have been panic-inducing enough for the world to wake up and understand that we cannot drill for a single more drop of oil. Ever. Period.

This time, the scientists who co-authored the AR6 Synthesis Report called it their “final warning.” However, in their press release announcing the report, the authors tried to take the high road, insisting that “There are multiple, feasible and effective options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to human-caused climate change, and they are available now”.

None of those options includes nuclear power, according to the IPCC scientists, which never mentions ‘nuclear’ once in the report narrative. It appears only in a single graph (below) to illustrate its lack of applicability to addressing the climate crisis.

Graphic from AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023

When addressing measures to reach low or zero-carbon, the authors wrote:

“Net zero CO2 energy systems entail: a substantial reduction in overall fossil fuel use, minimal use of unabated fossil fuels, and use of Carbon Capture and Storage in the remaining fossil fuel systems; electricity systems that emit no net CO2; widespread electrification; alternative energy carriers in applications less amenable to electrification; energy conservation and efficiency; and greater integration across the energy system (high confidence). Large contributions to emissions reductions can come from options costing less than USD20 tCO2-eq–1, including solar and wind energy, energy efficiency improvements, and CH4 (methane) emissions reductions (from coal mining, oil and gas, and waste) (medium confidence). Many of these response options are technically viable and are supported by the public (high confidence).”

IPCC Chair, Hoesung Lee, said: “This Synthesis Report underscores the urgency of taking more ambitious action and shows that, if we act now, we can still secure a liveable sustainable future for all.”

If we act now. Like we didn’t after Thunberg’s words of warning in 2019. Like the Biden administration didn’t last week. What’s left is the largely empty rhetoric of hope, but no signs of panic.

This lack of urgency is compounded by a failure in the media to put the climate emergency on the front page with regularity. The given reason is that it’s not what their readers are interested in, a complete abdication of responsibility to inform, educate, and in the case of the climate crisis, to inflame passion and a demand for action. And there is also, in the US at least, and as we wrote last week, a lamentable adherence to an outdated formula that relegates the voices of right and reason to the back of the quote queue.

This was no better (or should that be worse) exemplified than by the two days of coverage about the Alaskan Willow project in The Washington Post, which never once in either story quoted anyone from the Indigenous Alaskan population bitterly opposed to the drilling.

In contrast, The Guardian led its Willow story with condemnation from the environmental movement and gave its first quote to a climate action group and its second to Sonia Ahkivgak, social outreach coordinator at the Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic group, who said: “The Biden administration’s approval makes it clear that its call for climate action and the protection of biodiversity is talk, not action.”

Opinions from environmental groups languished in the closing paragraphs of both days of the Washington Post coverage — in the second article it was the very last paragraph — at which readers arrived after wading through a narrative devoted to the views of officials from oil companies, government and academia.

As a result, we still aren’t seeing the outrage where it really matters. We are still confronting deniers. And our governments are not taking the climate crisis nearly seriously enough. Instead of rushing for the fire hoses, they are bringing buckets.

This first appeared on Beyond Nuclear International.

Linda Pentz Gunter is the editor and curator of BeyondNuclearInternational.org and the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear. 

Uncle Sam’s Dams on the Border

 
 MARCH 30, 2023
FacebookTwitter

Imperial Dam, Desilting pools, and beginning of All-American Canal (lower right).

My idea of driving five hours across the desert from Indio in the lovely winter light to the Imperial Dam on the Colorado River outside of Yuma, Arizona was a reaction against all the palaver in the press about water agreements not coming to pass and hundreds of millions of federal dollars pledged here, there, thither and yon. I thought seeing and describing the dam complex on the Colorado about 40 miles from the US/Mexican Border as the Coot flies might add something concrete (sic) to my understanding.

I should have figured that because it was on the Border, nothing concrete, abstract, liquid, solid, animal, mineral, vegetable or metaphysical would manifest in any form easy to describe. When I found myself stalled in traffic on the main drag through El Centro and began looking around at the hodge-podge of business signage in Spanish and English, the various bright colors of the walls, the great graffiti, I knew I was back after 30 years. Ramon Ayala’s beautiful “Que Casualidad” came on the radio and I started singing along andswearing at traffic in Spanish, thrilled for a moment to be back in the culture of chaos called the Border, as impervious to organization by the walls of Bill Clinton et al as it may yet prove to be to all the cartel gunmen.

Downstream from the Hoover Dam, the Colorado River flows through the Imperial Dam outside of Yuma and goes from there in different directions: the greatest share to California through the largest canal in the US; small amounts to Arizona and Mexico.  A border defines this river: Mexico should get nothing but a silt-choked creek; the people President Herbert Hoover called “wild Indians” should get nothing at all despite reservations along the river with “senior water rights” acknowledged by treaties and adjudicated in federal courts; and the land surrounding the river and its dams is federal, either military or Indian reservation. It almost feels as if the United States defeated Mexico and the Navajos, Utes, Apaches and other Native Americans yesterday, and the US is still occupying a region in southern Arizona and New Mexico called La Mesilla, bounded by the Colorado River in the west, the Gila River in the north, and partly by the Rio Grande in the east, which Mexico sold to the US in 1853 (Gadsden Purchase) a few years after it lost California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and western Colorado and New Mexico in the Mexican-American War (1846-48).  La Mesilla now contains: American bombing ranges: a huge American testing site for artillery, mines, military vehicles, and desert training for troops; an American Marine airbase; Indian reservations; absentee corporate agribusiness; Yuma AZ and a few small towns. Lost in the middle of a huge American desert-military complex is the Imperial Dam on the Colorado River.

But it’s hard to recognize the Imperial Dam, or the Parker Dam, which creates Lake Havasu upstream from it, because both are so thoroughly overshadowed in importance by the mighty Hoover Dam, which prevents floods, produces hydroelectricity for about a million and half people in three states, irrigates 1,500,000 acres, and provides water for 16 million people. A congressional deal to dam the river had stalled for years because the states couldn’t agree on water rights, when Herbert Hoover, Secretary of Commerce in the Coolidge Administration, brokered a settlement, splitting jurisdiction between the upper states (Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah), and the lower states (California, Arizona, and Nevada), giving 7.5 million acre feet to each side and leaving the distribution of water within their halves to the decisions of the two groups. As president, in 1928 Hoover signed the final Colorado River Compact after six years of wrangling in Congress, and the Boulder Canyon Project Act, which provided the funding for the Hoover Dam, the downstream dams and the All-American Canal; and he oversaw the beginning of construction of the Hoover Dam until he was defeated in 1932 by Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The Colorado River Delta starts south of Imperial Dam. The river deposited billions of tons of silt gathered in its course from the Rocky Mountains to the Sea of Cortez, creating very rich soil if flooding could be controlled by dams and the water channeled into irrigation canals and ditches. You can see the fan of lush natural growth that extends out from the Imperial Dam going south. It continues to widen and deepen until it ends in the rich agricultural valley of Mexicali, developed in the early 20th century mainly by Americans like Harry Chandler of the Los Angeles Times, who owned 2 million acres there in the early 20th Century. Mexicans seized their land back by force in 1937, but foreign capital has regained control of much of that farmland since.

All-American Canal.

These three very rich valleys, Imperial (including Palo Verde and Coachella north of Salton Sea) in California, Yuma and the Gila River bottomland in Arizona, and the Mexicali Valley, are all parts of this delta, which now receives Colorado River water through ditches and furrows. There are no more great floods adding to the topsoil of the region, only local flash floods from the surrounding mountains and escarpments.

On his way home from the White House after defeat in 1932, Hoover paused near the construction site of the Hoover Dam (shortly thereafter to be renamed the Boulder Dam until 1947), and told reporters following him:  “The waters of this great river, instead of being wasted in the sea, will now be brought into use by man. Civilization advances with the practical application of knowledge in such structures as the one being built here in the pathway of one on the great rivers of the continent. The spread of its values in human happiness is beyond computation.”

In fact, computation of human happiness would be better left “beyond computation” in this region rather than bragged about by Herbert Hoover. Yuma County AZ has an average annual per capita income of $18,418, despite containing a city of nearly 100,000 people and the above mentioned military bases. The only poorer Arizona counties are dominated by Indian reservations: the largest being the Navajo, Hopi, Apache, and Tohomo O’odham. Imperial County is the poorest county in California, with an average per capita income of $16,409, despite its seven cities around the vast plantations of row crops and dates. Income would probably be higher in these counties if more of the profits stayed there. There are reportedly some small farms left amid the fields of absentee agro-corporations, but equipment yards, sheds and loading docks are the rule, not farm houses.

But Hoover, of course, was thinking about the vast citadel of civilization on the coast, Los Angeles and its suburbs.

I did eventually find a view of the Imperial Dam when I was permitted entrance for 15 minutes to Hidden Shores Resort, which lies beside the dam’s forebay. I could see the diversion canal and gates to the Yuma and Gila River canals but could barely see anything of the gates that stop the flow of the river and steer the largest part of it into the beginning of the All-American Canal. The entire Imperial Dam is carefully protected by fences and stern No Trespassing signs put up by the federal Bureau of Reclamation and there is even a sign saying “See Something Say Something,” presumably to obstruct spies from taking pictures of Coots or from throwing something into the water that would make it even worse than it is now. The government warns against eating too much of any fish caught in the All-American Canal due to high levels of Mercury, PCBs and Selenium, and Coots, although they make a lovely croaking sound, aren’t riveting entertainment.

The resort appears to be a concession of the federal Bureau of Land Management. It includes 800 vacation sites, divided between RV hookups, rental homes, and privately owned homes. It advertises itself as “built with family values in mind.” It is a resort that backs onto an artillery range, but stands on the shore of a stretch of tree-lined river upstream that runs through the beautiful Arizona desert. It has a clubhouse, heated pool, nine hole golf course, a small pitch and putt course, boat docks and other assorted amenities for vacationing families. Yet, clearly, the dam that has created the forebay in which people water ski and fish or simply run their boats, is very off-limits and dangerous.

My intent of seeing the Imperial Dam and perhaps understanding something of how it worked was frustrated. I was particularly interested in seeing the three huge pools and their scrapers, where silt settles before the water goes into the All-American Canal to California and is then scraped into the remains of the river that flows to Mexico. I wanted to know how the gates on the dam worked and how much of the total flow of the river they could divert if the allocations of water were to change.

I drove back to California on I-8 and stopped at one turnout to look at the All-American Canal through a fence posted by the Imperial Irrigation District, which, along with the Pentagon, the Department of Interior, and the Border Patrol, really runs this little corner of the world where California and Arizona collide north of the Border. The ‘net informed me that more than 500 people have lost their lives in that canal. As someone who grew up swimming in canals in the Central Valley I could well imagine. The canal was wide, deep, fast moving and it was cement lined. No way out at all. In recent years, however, the district has installed ropes with floats on them across the canal in certain places where, if you last long enough, maybe you can catch hold and haul yourself out. This monster of a canal runs right along the Border from Yuma to Calexico, a far more dangerous obstacle than Trump’s wall or the Border Patrol. Its largest tributary, the Coachella Water District Canal, goes north up past Salton Sea, irrigates the rich Coachella Valley, and ends in the man-made Lake Cahuilla in La Quinta, last of the great Snowbird burgs of gated communities of which Palm Springs is the paradigm.

It is reported that 10,000 workers a day cross the Border south of Yuma to work in those fields during the winter season. Thousands more cross daily from Mexicali to Calexico to work in Imperial County in winter. The work is seasonal, the amount of housing is inadequate, rents are exorbitant, and government is rarely helpful.

This trip was a failure. I couldn’t get to see the Imperial Dam, the great cement hand whose fingers divide the flow into smaller channels: the big one to California, the smaller ones to Yuma Valley and the Gila River; the smallest, silt-full creek to Mexico. There are pictures of it on the ‘net.

I seemed to get a bit of everything but the subject. I didn’t even get a chance to stand for a reverent moment in the Yuma Penitentiary before the photo of the first man arrested in the Mexican Revolution, Ricardo Flores-Magon. But I found a fine restaurant on the corner of 4th Avenue and 2nd Street coming into town on Winterhaven Drive, called Tacos Mi Ranchito. It’s a small orange box of a building, surrounded by parked pickups. Good food, sardonic company.

Bill Hatch lives in the Central Valley in California. He is a member of the Revolutionary Poets Brigade of San Francisco. He can be reached at: billhatch@hotmail.com.

UN calls for demilitarised zone around Russian-held Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant

By Euronews with AFP, AP • Updated: 30/03/2023 -


The chief of the UN atomic watchdog said on Wednesday he was working on a compromise security plan for the Moscow-controlled Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant and warned of increased military activity around the facility

There are persistent fears over the safety of the plant, where there has been frequent shelling since Russian troops invaded last year.

During a rare visit to Europe's largest nuclear plant currently controlled by Russian forces, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, said he was working to find a compromise that would suit both Moscow and Kyiv.

"I am trying to prepare and propose realistic measures that will be approved by all parties," Grossi told reporters during a press tour organised by Moscow.

"We must avoid catastrophe. I am an optimist and I believe that this is possible," said Grossi, who arrived at the plant in a Russian armoured vehicle, surrounded by soldiers in full combat gear.

But he also warned of "increasing" military activity around the nuclear plant and hoped Russia and Ukraine would agree on safety principles.

He added that the visit to the plant was "extremely useful".

"The idea is to agree on certain principles, certain commitments, including not to attack the plant," he separately told press agencies.

Kyiv and Moscow have accused each other of shelling the plant, increasing fears of a disaster. The United Nations has called for a demilitarised zone around the site.

Zelenskiy accuses Russia of holding Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant

ON MARCH 29, 2023
By EU Reporter Correspondent


Ukraine’s president stated that Russian troops held the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant "hostage" while his forces closed the frontline town of Avdiivka to plan their next move.

Since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine, Russian troops have held the largest nuclear power plant in Europe and show no desire to surrender control.

In his nightly video address, President Volodymyr Zilenskiy stated that "Holding a nuclear station hostage for over a year is certainly the worst thing ever done in the history of European and world-wide nuclear power."

He called the Russian presence "radiation blackmail"

He made these comments after meeting Rafael Grossi (director general of IAEA) at the Dnipro hydroelectric plant - northeastern of the Zaporizhzhia power plant.

In comments posted to the presidential website, Zelenskiy stated that initiatives to restore safety and security are "destined for failure" without a withdrawal of Russian troops.

Russia and Ukraine regularly accuse each others of attacking the Zaporizhzhia facility. Fears of nuclear catastrophe have been raised by the fighting to get around it, and concerns about a water scarcity and cooling systems that could go out of power.

Since September, an IAEA team has been stationed at this plant. Kyiv accuses Moscow of using it as a shield for troops or military hardware.

Grossi repeatedly called for a safety area around it, and is scheduled to return this week. Grossi has attempted to negotiate with both parties but stated in January that it was becoming more difficult to broker a deal.

Zaporizhzhia was one of the four Russian regions that Russia claimed it had annexed in September. This happened after referendums were widely criticized as fraudulent. Russia considers the plant its territory, which Ukraine denies.

Zelenskiy visited Zaporizhzhia in the southeastern Zaporizhzhia on Monday. This is the latest stage in a tour to frontline regions after a top general suggested that a counterattack by Ukraine could be imminent.

LEOPARDS GO TO UKRAINE


Analysts believe that a Ukrainian counterattack will begin in earnest during April-May, as weather conditions improve and more military aid arrives including battle tanks Leopard or Challenger.

German Defence Ministry Monday said that the 18 Leopard 2 tanks, which are the workhorse for militaries in Europe, were delivered to Ukraine.

Boris Pistorius, German Defence Minister, stated on Twitter that "I'm certain that they can make an decisive contribution on-the front."

Despite a Russian winter offensive, the front lines of Ukraine have not moved in over four months. The Ukrainian military wants to take down the Russian forces, before it mounts its own attack.

Russia's Wagner mercenary army, believed to have suffered heavy losses in eastern Ukraine is now trying to rebuild its ranks before any Ukrainian counteroffensive.

An huge recruitment advertisement has been placed on the facade of an office in Moscow's northeast.

It features Wagner's logo, slogans like "Join our winning team!" It also features the slogans "Together, we will win" and a photo of a masked man with a weapon.

AVDIIVKA HUTS

The Russian forces are focusing on Avdiivka (90 km/55 miles south of Bakhmut), while a general in Ukraine said that the country's forces were planning the next move.

Ukraine closed Avdiivka for civilians Monday. A Ukrainian official described the town as "post-apocalyptic" wasteland.

According to the Ukrainian military, Avdiivka may become a second Bakhmut. It has been reduced in rubble by fighting over months and has been described by both sides "meat grinder". Russian forces claim they are fighting street to street.

Colonel General Oleksandr Siskyi, commander of the Ukrainian ground forces, stated this month that a counterattack wasn't "far away". He visited frontline troops in eastern Ukraine and claimed that his forces are still resisting attacks on Bakhmut.

According to Ukrainian authorities, air defenses destroyed 12 drones close to Kyiv Monday. The falling debris also set a nonresidential site on fire. There were no casualties.

Russia launched 15 Iranian-made Shahed drones on Ukraine overnight, and Ukrainian forces destroyed 14 of them, the military of Ukraine said on Tuesday (28 March).

"The logic behind the Russians' actions are terror aimed at civilian infrastructure," Andriy Yarmak, the Ukrainian presidential chief-of-staff, stated on Telegram regarding the drone attacks.

"It won’t work, just as geopolitical blackmail."

Putin and other Russian officials have raised the possibility that the conflict could reach nuclear weapons after his invasion of Ukraine to "demilitarize" it in the fall. He claimed that he had reached a deal to station tactical nukes in Belarus.

"Ukraine has demolished its Western allies," he said.