Neo-Liberalism’s Promise of Milk and Honey a Mirage

Prabhat Patnaik | 17 Dec 2023

• 
  
• 
  

Whether we take the macro picture or the results of the consumer expenditure surveys conducted by the NSS, the consistent story that emerges is one of a rise in the ratio of persons in absolute poverty. This ratio, which is likely to have been declining in the period of dirigisme, has increased under neo-liberalism.

Neo-liberalism propagates a set of outright falsehoods to present itself in a favourable light compared to the preceding dirigiste regime in India. The basic theme is to suggest that under neo-liberalism there has been such an acceleration of the growth rate of Gross Domestic Product that the people as a whole have become much better off, and vast masses of them have been lifted out of poverty (one particular enthusiast has even claimed that poverty now afflicts only 2% of the population). Of course, the dirigiste period was not all milk and honey, and nobody criticised it more trenchantly than the Left; but the claim that neo-liberalism represents an advance over it as far as the people’s living standard is concerned is a preposterous one.

I shall confine myself here to economic indicators alone, and not go into the massive impact that neo-liberalism has had in undermining democracy (even before the current fascistic regime), in making self-centredness and self-interest far more pervasive in society than earlier (as is to be expected under unrestrained capitalism), in giving rise to an aggrandising elite which has nothing but contempt for the poor, and in destroying the moral compass of the nation so thoroughly that it has even led to a situation where a demonstration of public anger against the worst genocide in living memory is disallowed by the government without causing media outrage.

The most tangible and tragic economic indicator is the suicide of over three lakh peasants and agricultural labourers in the last three decades, which has certainly had no precedent in post-independence India and whose roots can be traced directly to the distress into which peasant agriculture has been driven owing to the withdrawal of State support under neo-liberalism. This withdrawal is especially evident in the removal of price support for cash crops that had been available earlier, resulting in domestic prices fluctuating wildly in sync with the world prices of these crops.

While agrarian distress has reduced the number of “cultivators” by 15 million between the 1991 and 2011 censuses, pushing some peasants into the ranks of agricultural labourers and others to migrate to cities in search of jobs, the growth in employment has slowed down compared to the dirigiste era. While the rate of growth of employment has been estimated at roughly 2% per annum during the low-GDP-growth dirigiste era, which was still not high enough to make a dent on the relative size of the labour reserves that had existed earlier as a legacy of colonialism, in the neo-liberal era it has dropped to just 1% per annum which is even lower than the average rate of population growth over this period, resulting in an increase in the relative size of labour reserves. What is more, according to one estimate (CMIE) even the absolute number of employed persons has remained more or less unchanged over the last five years.

This decline in the rate of employment growth even in the face of an acceleration in GDP growth can be explained by a sharp rise in the rate of growth of labour productivity, which has been brought about by the exposure of the economy to intense foreign competition that neo-liberalism has entailed. The consequent increase in the relative size of the labour reserves has kept the per capita real incomes of the work-force more or less tied to a subsistence level, which, in view of the rapid rate of labour productivity growth, has entailed a sharp rise in the share of economic surplus in GDP. The neo-liberal period has seen as a result a remarkable increase in income inequality, and the acquiring of unprecedented prosperity not just by the big capitalists but by a thin upper stratum of “hangers on” that comprises votaries of neo-liberalism.

The extent of the increase in income inequality is evident from estimates by two French economists, Thomas Piketty and Lucas Chancel, who use Indian income tax data for this purpose. They look at the share of the top 1% in total national income, and find a decline in this share after independence to as low as 6% in 1982; after that, however, it has increased, especially in the neo-liberal period, to reach a high of about 22% in 2013-14 and 2014-15, the latest year for which they have data. At this level, the share of the top 1% was higher than it has ever been since 1922, when the income tax was first introduced in India. It is this rise in the share of economic surplus, not just in India but in the world as a whole that is responsible for creating an over-production crisis which has brought the neo-liberal regime to a dead-end.

While the per capita real income of the workforce has not increased, the rise in the ratio of the reserve army of labour to the workforce has meant an overall decline in the per capita real income of the labour-force (viz. the force consisting of the employed, the unemployed and the underemployed). It is not surprising that the relative size of those living in absolute poverty has increased. To be sure, they now have access to better common infrastructure facilities in the form of roads and streetlights, but their deprivation is evident in the decline in their per capita intake of the most elemental necessity, viz. foodgrains.

Studying poverty began in India by taking 1973-74 as the base year, and the Planning Commission took the lack of access to 2200 calories per person per day in rural India and 2100 calories per person per day in urban India as the definition of absolute poverty. Since then, all kinds of subterfuges have been adopted by the government and by institutions like the World Bank to change this definition and show a decline in poverty; but let us stick to this basic, clear-cut definition.

In 1973-74 the ratio of the rural population below 2200 calories was 56.4% and the ratio of the urban population below 2100 calories was 49.2%. This had gone up slightly for rural India to 58% and more noticeably for urban India to 57% by 1993-94, by which time neo-liberal policies had already been adopted (some date this adoption to the mid-eighties). By 2011-12 however there had been a further notable rise in poverty in both segments, 68% in rural India and 65% in urban India.

The next NSS consumption survey was carried out in 2017-18; but the figures showed such a bad situation compared to 2011, that the Modi government decided to withdraw the findings altogether. The data leaked out before the suppression of the NSS report however show an unprecedented decline in per capita real consumption expenditure on all goods and services, by 9% for all-India rural, between 2011-12 and 2017-18. The estimated proportion of rural population below 2200 calories intake, works out to more than 80% in the latter year. (These figures are taken from Utsa Patnaik’s updated report Exploring the Poverty Question submitted earlier to the ICSSR).

It is not surprising that India’s rank on the Global Hunger Index is 111 out of the 125 countries for which this index is prepared, and that this rank is lower than that of our neighbours like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal.

These poverty figures are in complete sync with what overall per capita foodgrain availability data suggest. At the beginning of the twentieth century per capita foodgrain availability for British India was about 200 kg per annum; it declined steadily to about 138 kg at the time of independence, or, if we take the average for the quinquennium ending 1946-47 to just less than 150 kg. After independence this declining trend was reversed until around the end of the 1980s; but since then, per capita foodgrain availability has remained more or less constant (with a drop followed by a recovery). If we assume, reasonably, that indirect consumption of foodgrains by, say, the top 10% of the population (and we have noted that they have become richer) in the form of processed foods and feed-grains (entering into animal products) has been increasing per capita, then the per capita availability for the rest of the population must be declining.

Thus, whether we take the macro picture or the results of the consumer expenditure surveys conducted by the NSS, the consistent story that emerges is one of a rise in the ratio of persons in absolute poverty. This ratio, which is likely to have been declining in the period of dirigisme, has increased under neo-liberalism.

The propagandists of neo-liberalism not only suppress this fact but resort to various subterfuges to prove, dishonestly, that the neo-liberal era has been a period of milk and honey for all.

INDIA

Statement on Sudden Freezing of NewsClick Accounts by IT Dept; Dec Salaries Held up

NewsClick has always complied with the laws of the land, including all tax regulations. Legal appeals against this unjust and cruel measure will be initiated at the earliest

NEWSCLICK IS A SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST NEWS NETWORK

.

As of the evening of December 18, NewsClick has been unable to make any bank payments due to action by the Income Tax Department.

This action, which has virtually frozen our accounts, appears to be a continuation of the administrative-legal siege of the news portal which began with the Enforcement Directorate (ED) raids in February 2021, followed by an IT department survey in September 2021, and the October 3, 2023 crackdown by the Delhi Police Special Cell. NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and administrative officer Amit Chakraborty, arrested on that day, continue to languish in jail.

NewsClick has always complied with the laws of the land, including all tax regulations. The claims levelled by the Income Tax Department are without any basis.

Also, NewsClick did not receive any intimation of the freezing of accounts, and the staff discovered it by chance while trying to make routine payments last evening. As a result of this high-handed action, salaries of all employees — journalists, videographers, and administrative and support staff — and consultants and contributors cannot be paid, including for the 19 days of December they have already worked.

Coming at the year-end festive season, this sudden action has left all our employees shocked. Since there is no indication of when our accounts will become accessible, there is uncertainty in the minds of all employees and their families, especially those who are completely dependent on salaries from NewsClick.

NewsClick and its legal counsel are reviewing the developments. Subsequently, legal appeals against this unjust and cruel measure will be initiated at the earliest.

NewsClick and its courageous journalists remain committed to continuing their work for as long as possible. As always, we appeal for continued solidarity, which has been a source of support and encouragement to us.

 

Cardinal Crimes: Absolute Rule and Fleecing the Holy See

by Binoy Kampmark / December 17th, 2023

Like a bank with branches everywhere, the Catholic Church will go after its own when circumstances permit, wherever they are.  In other instances, it will take the opposite tack, shielding the detractors or deviants from local scrutiny, and concealing them from the burden of accountability.

Italian Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu, former adviser to Pope Francis and the second ranking official in the Vatican’s Secretariat of State, could not count on the latter, though his prosecution had a pungent whiff of scapegoating to it.  After some two-and-a-half years of tense church drama and institutional intrigue, a Vatican court sentenced the Pope’s former chief of staff to five-and-a-half years in jail for financial crimes, permanent disqualification from holding public office and a fine approximating to $8000 euros.

In 2020, a displeased Pope Francis accused Becciu of appropriating the equivalent of US$100,000 in Vatican funds via a non-profit outfit run by the cardinal’s brother.  This, as things transpired, was merely the beginning.  Proceedings against Becciu commenced in 2021, with the prosecution’s brief heaving with charges of embezzlement, abuse of office, conspiracy and witness tampering.  The punishment sought was not inconsiderable: a prison term of seven years and three months, a fine of 10,329 euros, and a ban from holding office.

An important focus of the case centred on the development of a London investment property costing the Vatican Secretariat of State an eye-popping total of 350 million euros between 2014 and 2018.  A former Harrods warehouse, the property was intended as a site for luxury apartments.  Instead, much fleecing took place, with very financially minded brokers pocketing tens of millions of euros in fees and commissions, topped by a bill of 15 million euros for ceding control of the building.

The property, subsequently sold at considerable loss, was seen as nothing less than a mechanism for fraud.  The court was convinced that the crime of embezzlement had been proven, with the amount coming “to about one-third of the availability at the time of the Secretariat of State because it violated the provisions of the administration of ecclesiastical property.”

Showing himself to be very much a brotherly sort, Becciu was also found guilty of embezzlement for transferring 125,000 euros to a charity run by his brother Antonio in the cardinal’s home diocese of Sardinia and using Vatican money to pay a Sardinian security consultant (one dare not call her an intelligence analyst), Cecilia Marogna.

The number of defendants involved in this enterprise suggest scope, scale and complexity. They include former Vatican employee Fabrizio Tirabassi, convicted of extortion and money-laundering, and Enrico Crasso, who earned his crust offering financial advice to the Vatican, found guilty on a number of charges including embezzlement.  Both defendants received sentences of seven-and-a-half years and seven years respectively.

This crowded cosmos of heady corruption also featured the exploits of Raffaele Mincione, an investment manager closely connected to the London investment, and businessman Gianluigi Torzi, the glue in brokering the final stage regarding the purchase of that property.  Torzi was found guilty of extortion and sentenced to a six-year prison sentence iced with a six-thousand-euro penalty; Mincione, convicted on embezzlement and money laundering charges, received five years and six months.

Marogna also found herself with a sentence of three years and nine months, with her company receiving a penalty worth 40,000 euros.  Her case proved to be a particularly salty one, given her receipt of 575,000 euros via her Slovenian-based front company from the Vatican’s Swiss bank account, ostensibly to provide Becciu advice on securing the release of Sister Gloria Celia Narvaez, who had been kidnapped by al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb.  But the amount in question was a double payment; Becciu and Marogna had already been furnished a separate amount of 1 million euros to facilitate the release of the Colombian nun using the services of the British security firm Inkerman.  (Narvaez was released in October 2021.)

With some extra cash to stroke and burn, Marogna proceeded to, according to Slovenian bank records linked with her front company Logsic Humanitarne Dejavnosti, purchase luxury goods and enjoy well pampered resort vacations.

Other defendants, albeit of the less colourful variety, also featured.  Fines of less than US$2000 were handed out to Tommaso Di Ruzza and René Brülhart for failing to report what amounted to a suspicious transaction, while lawyer Nicola Squillace received a slap on the wrist with a suspended one year and ten months sentence.

Throughout these lurid proceedings, lawyers for the defence expressed agitation at what they saw as a lack of due process and a conspicuous absence of respect for human rights on the part of the prosecutors.  In one notable example, the prosecutors, defying an order by tribunal president Giuseppe Pignatone, refused to make available the taped video testimony of their star witness and supergrass Monsignor Alberto Perlasca, the individual whose hands most dirtied the London real estate investment.

Some of these concerns stand to reason: the long shadow of absolutist power in the form of Pope Francis, whose office fuses executive, legislative and judicial authority, was ever cast throughout.  The Holy See, mindful of such power, has also been assiduous in avoiding subscribing to human rights conventions that would provide an avenue of review to the European Court of Human Rights.  As Becciu’s attorney, Fabio Viglione, declared in October 2021, “These are harmful to the right of the defence that affect the right to a fair trial.”

Marogna’s own legal team also noted that the prosecution’s refusal to produce court ordered documentation would be intolerable in the formal Italian court system.  As a defence memorandum authored by international law specialist Riccardo Sindoca remarked, “In a normal situation, in all countries having a judicial system that could be considered autonomous and impartial and structured in a way to safeguard a fair trial, the refusal would have been immediately sanctioned.”

All exercises of calculated scapegoating or selected sacrifice suggest a cleansing of the collective social and political body.  The body, duly purified, can ignore the corrupting ailments it was afflicted with.  In the past lay disease; now, glorious pink health awaits.  But institutions such as the Catholic Church, and any large corporate entity spanning the globe, use such instruments less as matters of purification than distraction.  The rot often goes deeper.  In the meantime, the ledger of distractions will likely bulk; expect further appeals, a rapidly scribbled film script or a Becciu Netflix special.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com. Read other articles by Binoy.

 

Flirting With Nuclear Energy Down Under

by Binoy Kampmark / December 14th, 2023

It was a policy that was bound to send a shiver through the policymaking community.  The issue of nuclear energy in Australia has always been a contentious one.  Currently, the country hosts a modest nuclear industry, centred on the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), nuclear medicine and laboratory products.  But even this has created headaches in terms of long-term storage of waste, plagued by successful legal challenges from communities and First Nation groups.  The advent of AUKUS, with its inane yet provocative promise of nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy, adds yet another, complicating dimension to this fact.  Without a clear idea of a site, a vital part of the nuclear dilemma remains unresolved.

Broadly speaking, the nuclear issue, in manifold manifestations, has never entirely disappeared from the periphery of Australian policy.  The fact that Australia became a primary testing ground for Britain’s nuclear weapons program was hardly something that would have left Canberra uninterested in acquiring some nuclear option.  Options were considered, be they in the realm of a future weapons capability, or energy generation.

In a June 29, 1961 letter from Australian Prime Minister Robert Menzies to his counterpart in the UK, Harold Macmillan, concerns over the impediments imposed by a potential treaty that would impose limitations on countries the subject of nuclear testing were candidly expressed.  Were that treaty to go ahead, it “could prove a serious limitation on the range of decisions open to a future Australian Government in that it could effectively preclude or at least impose a very substantial handicap on Australia’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.”

Menzies put forth a suggestion that was ultimately never pursued – at least officially.  An arrangement deemed “more practical,” suggested the Australian PM, might involve “the supply of ready-made weapons” at the conclusion of such a treaty.

A sore point here were efforts by the Soviets to insist that countries such as Australia be banned from pursuing their own nuclear program.  Menzies therefore wished Macmillan “to accord full recognition of the potentially serious security situation in which Australia could find herself placed as a result of having accommodated United Kingdom testing.”

Australia eventually abandoned its nuclear weapons ambitions with the ratification of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in February 1970, preferring, instead, the nuclear umbrella of extended deterrence offered by the United States. (The nature of that deterrence has always seemed spectacularly hollow.)  Domestically, nuclear technology would be sparingly embraced.  Nuclear power stations, however, were banned in every state and territory, a policy left unchallenged by a number of parliamentary inquiries.

The quest of meeting emissions reduction targets during the transition to the goal of net zero was bound to refocus interest on the nuclear power issue.  The Liberal-National opposition is keen to put the issue of nuclear power back on the books.  It is a dream that may never see the light of day, given, according to the chief government scientific body, the CSIRO, its uncompetitive nature and the absence of “the relevant frameworks in place for its consideration and operation within the timeframe required.”

Australian politicians have often faced, even when flirting with the proposition of adopting nuclear power, firm rebuke. South Australian Premier Malinauskas gave us one example in initially expressing the view late last year that “the ideological opposition that exists in some quarters to nuclear power is ill-founded.”  It did not take him long to tell the ABC’s 7.30 program that he did not wish “to suggest that nuclear should be part of the mix in our nation.”  Australia had to “acknowledge that nuclear power would make energy more expensive in our nation & [we should] put it to one side, rather than having a culture war about nuclear power.”

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has been by far the boldest, pitching for a gentler exit from the fossil-fuel powered nirvana Australia has occupied for decades.  Australia, he is adamant, should join “the international nuclear energy renaissance”.  Of particular interest to him is the use of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which might be purposefully built on coal generator cites as part of the general energy package alongside renewables.  SMRs, as Joanne Liou of the International Atomic Energy Agency explains, “are advanced nuclear reactors that have a power capacity of up to 300 Mw(e) per unit, which is about one-third of the generating capacity of traditional nuclear power reactors.”

The heralded advantages of such devices, at least as advertised by its misguided proponents, lie in their size – being small and modular, ease of manufacture, shipping and installation.  They also offer, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, “savings in cost and construction time, and they can be deployed incrementally to match increasing energy demand.”

For all these benefits, the cold reality of SMR designs is how far they have yet to go before becoming viable.  Four SMRs are currently in operation, though these, according to Friends of the Earth Australia’s lead national nuclear campaigner, Jim Green, hardly meet the “modular definition” in terms of serial factory production of components relevant to such devices.

Russia and China, despite hosting such microreactors, have faced considerable problems with cost blowouts and delays, the very things that SMRs are meant to avoid.  Oregon-based NuScale has tried to convince and gull potential patrons that its small reactor projects will take off, though the audience for its chief executive John Hopkins is primarily limited to the Coalition and NewsCorp stable.  The company’s own cost estimates for energy generation, despite heavy government subsidies, have not made SMR adoption in the United States, let alone Australia, viable.

In his second budget reply speech in May, Dutton showed little sign of being briefed on these problems, stating that “any sensible government [in the 21^st century] must consider small modular nuclear as part of the energy mix.”  Labor’s policies on climate change had resulted in placing Australia “on the wrong energy path.”

Such views have not impressed the Albanese Government.  Energy Minister Chris Bowen insists that counterfeit claims are being peddled on the issue of the role played by nuclear energy in Canada along with false distinctions between the costs of nuclear power and renewable energy.

“If they are serious about proposing a nuclear solution for Australia, the simplistic bumper stickers and populist echo chamber has to come to an end.  Show the Australian people your verified nuclear costings and your detailed plans about where the nuclear power plants will go.”

Such verification will be a tall order indeed.  As the CSIRO concedes, “Without more real-world data for SMRs demonstrating that nuclear can be economically viable, the debate will likely continue to be dominated by opinion and conflicting social values rather than a discussion on the underlying assumptions.”

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com. Read other articles by Binoy.

 

Campus Free Speech

Skewing the Debate

by Dan Lieberman / December 16th, 2023

Some violent expressions against Jews occurred during the campus demonstrations that criticized U.S. policy of fortifying Israel’s post-October 7 attacks in Gaza. These expressions came from obvious identification of Jews with Israel’s violent attacks; after all, Israel claims to be a Jewish state and a great number of Jews in the United States support what credible observers consider genocide of the Palestinian people. Compared to the numbers protesting U.S. policy, the few people who originated violent messages against Jews did not determine the nature of the protests and their activities were not related to the protests.

The impact of the protests ─ increased sympathy with the Palestinian cause ─ propelled pro-Israel groups to solicit the U.S. Congress to skew the debate from the reality of U.S. support of genocide of the Palestinian people to specious campus activity of anti-Semitism ─ diminish the importance that several hundred innocent Palestinians are murdered each day by Israeli forces; more important is that reckless persons voiced severely hostile opinions of Jewish students.

Posters that appeared on a Cornell University message board with a prompt to the school’s president to alert the FBI. “If you see a Jewish ‘person’ on campus follow them home and slit their throats,” and another that threatened to “bring an assault rifle to campus and shoot all you pig Jews,” exhibited hatred that needs investigation. More to it. Flying under the radar are other serious charges that also need investigation.

Demanding an end to U.S. foreign policy that militarily and morally aids Israel in its destruction of the Palestinian people was the issue of the campus protest. The protests of U.S. foreign policy proceeded from a logical view that the U.S. has no reason to be involved in the battle between Israel and Hamas and gains no benefit from aiding and abetting an Israeli response that many certify as an excuse for genocide. Just the opposite is requested — a democratic U.S. that claims to be the protector of human rights should be prominent in obtaining a cease-fire and protecting Gazan civilians.

The counter-protestors, who wrapped themselves in Israeli flags and walked around colleges while tagging posts with #standwithIsrael, exhibited a serious lack of citizenship and a convoluted attitude toward genocide. They did not contend the protestors’ arguments with U.S. foreign policy, which defies contention; they supported a foreign nation before the interests of their nation and defended genocide. They were not attacked because they were Jews; they were attacked as dubious Americans who had an uncalled-for presence in the campus protests. This is not different than if the U.S. aided and abetted the Myanmar government in its genocide of the Rohingya people and a group of Americans walked around with the Myanmar flag and placed posters that say #standwithMyanmmar as a counter to those who protested against a U.S. policy of helping Myanmar in its genocide.

The campus protestors had one mission ─ change a U.S. foreign policy that credible commentators observe as aiding and abetting Israel in its destruction of the Palestinian people. The counter-protestors, who acted more by formula than thought, created an intra-campus debate between those who want to prevent genocide and those who support it. Israel’s supporters steered the debate to have the protests become an example of anti-Semitism and, for that reason, should be stifled. This led to wealthy alumni, who recognized they owed much to their university education and made huge donations to the universities, showing they learned that when you have financial power, use it for your personal interests, even if it harms those who helped you gain it. As one example, a Penn University donor threatened to rescind a $100 million gift if the university did not discharge the current president whose testimony before a congressional committee he did not approve.

The congressional inquiry into campus anti-Semitism, which never depicted any instances of anti-Semitism (Oh yes, Congresswoman, Elise Stefanik, mentioned that conspirators were urging another Intifada, implying that Intifada meant extermination of all Jews), got what it wanted with one loaded question, “Would calls on campus for the genocide of Jews violate the school’s conduct policy?”

Indeed, the university presidents did not answer the question properly. However, it is not believable they would condone the words and not seek action. Never having faced the violation, each was unaware of the procedures. Perfectly logical. Why torment them for an acceptable confusion? All those watching and participating should have been asking, “Why is there a congressional committee investigating a hypothetical; why aren’t there congressional committees investigating the actual?

From my knowledge, and I invite correction, the actual is that no serious physical violence against Jews in America has occurred after October 7. There may have been unplanned altercations between demonstrators but no Jewish person has suffered a planned physical violence. In contrast, several Muslims have been deliberately attacked and two have been killed. Why is there no congressional committee investigating the severe attacks on the Muslim community?

As mentioned previously, the campus protests highlighted the appearance of a group favoring genocide, not genocide of Jews but genocide of the Palestinians. Why didn’t the congressional committee ask the university presidents if they were taking action against that group?

Conclusions

The campus protests have been a good example of university education put into action. Israel’s supporters tie every attack on Israel to being an attack on Jews. Why are they complaining when others equate Israel with Jews and use the word Jew instead of Israel in the same manner that Zionists normally do? The few examples of anti-Jewish sentiment that occurred during the protests were superfluous to the protests and should be investigated. They should not lead to curbs on the protests, which arose from purposeful misinformation and are unwarranted.

Those against the protests did not exhibit valid reasons for their attitude. They placed themselves in the category of supporting genocide of the Palestinian people, a position that has no place in normal discourse and deserves investigation. That investigation should not be influenced by wealthy donors who use their wealth to dictate university policy. Universities should listen to alumni and trustees and reject threats that tie donations to steering policies.

Dan Lieberman publishes commentaries on foreign policy, economics, and politics at substack.com. He is author of the non-fiction books A Third Party Can Succeed in America, Not until They Were Gone, Think Tanks of DC, The Artistry of a Dog, and a novel: The Victory (under a pen name, David L. McWellan). Read other articles by Dan.

 

Year 2023 in review for Latin America and the Caribbean

Contesting a still dominant US hegemon

by Roger D. Harris / December 17th, 2023

December 2nd marked the 200th  anniversary of the Monroe Doctrine, which proclaimed US dominion over Latin America and the Caribbean. Left-leaning governments in the hemisphere have had to contest a decadent but still dominant USA. Challenges in the past year include a world economic slowdown, a continuing drug plague, and a more aggressive hegemon reacting to a more volatile and disputed world order.

The progressive regional current, the so-called Pink Tide, slackened in 2023 compared to the rising tide of 2022, which had been buoyed by big wins in Colombia and Brazil. Progressive alternatives had floated into state power on a backwash against failed neoliberal policies. Now they have had to govern under circumstances that they inherited but were not their own making. Most importantly for progressives once in power are whether they have sufficient popular support and a program commensurate with achieving significant economic and social goals.

 Ebb and flow of the Pink Tide – Peru, Guatemala, and Ecuador

Peru. A case in point was the presidency of Pedro Castillo. From a nominally Marxist-Leninist party in Peru, he had neither a sufficient program nor the electoral mandate to resist the traditional oligarchy.  Castillo was imprisoned a year ago on December 7 via a complicated parliamentary maneuver. Dina Boluarte assumed the post to become Peru’s seventh president in eight years. Beloved by what Bloomberg calls the “business class,” she had a single-digit approval rating from the larger population as she spent this year presiding over a contracting economy in harsh recession.

While Boluarte may be facing murder charges for the violent repression of continuing mass protests, former president Alberto Fujimori was just sprung from prison. Fujimori had not completed his sentence for crimes against humanity, but was given a humanitarian pardon, despite a request from the regional Inter-American Court of Human Rights to delay his release. Castillo is still in prison.

Guatemala. In a surprise break from right-wing rule in Guatemala, political dark horse Bernardo Arévalo won the presidential runoff election in August. Ever since, the entrenched oligarchy has tried to disqualify the winner. Despite popular demonstrations in his support and even murmurings from the US State Department to maintain the rule of law, it remains to be seen if the president-elect will be allowed to be sworn into office on January 14.

Ecuador. The corrupt right-wing president of Ecuador, Guillermo Lasso, faced popular protests, out of control narcotics-related violence, a dysfunctional economy, and a hostile parliament. He came within a hair’s breadth of being impeached on May 17. At the very last moment, Lasso invoked the uniquely Ecuadorian muerte cruzada (mutual death) constitutional provision.

This allowed him to dissolve the National Assembly and rule by decree but with the subsequent requirement for snap elections to replace both the legislators and the executive. On October 15, the mandated presidential election brought in another rightist, Daniel Noboa, who will serve the remaining year and a half of the presidential term. Noboa’s father, the richest person in Ecuador, ran unsuccessfully for the presidency six times.

Argentina takes a sharp right turn

 Argentina is a case study of how, when the left fails to take the initiative, the popular revolt against neoliberalism can take a sharp right turn. Javier Milei’s win was symptomatic of what Álvaro García Linera, former leftist vice president of Bolivia, observed as a shift to more extreme right-wingers (e.g., free market fundamentalists) and more timid progressives (e.g., social democrats).

In a typically Argentine que se vayan todos (everyone leave) moment, harking back to 2001 when mass popular discontent precipitated five different governments in a short period of time, the self-described anarcho-capitalist Milei won the presidential runoff by a landslide on November 19.

Sergio Massa, who ran against Milei, was the incumbent economic minister in the administration of Alberto Fernández, which had broken with the more leftist wing of the Peronist movement associated with Vice President Cristina Fernandez (no relation). With 143% inflation rate and 18 million in poverty, the Peronists were booted out by an alternative that promises to realign the second largest economy in South America with the US and Israel and away from its main trading partners Brazil and China.

The left-centrist Peronists had in turn inherited a made-to-fail economy due to excessive debt obligations incurred by former right-wing president Mauricio Macri’s mega IMF loan. Ironically, the current Pink Tide wave is commonly thought to have begun with the defeat of Macri by the Fernandez’s in 2019. Now Macri has teamed up with the ultra-right Milei. Officials from Macri’s old administration, such as Patricia Bullrich and Luis Caputo, are in Milei’s new ministries.

Venezuela resists

Venezuela provides a counter example to Argentina. The possessor of the world’s largest oil reserves appeared to be on the ropes back in the dark days of 2019-2020. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo triumphantly predicted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s “days are numbered.” Over 50 countries had recognized the US puppet pretend-president Juan Guaidó including Venezuela’s powerful and (at the time) hostile neighbors, Colombia and Brazil. With the handwriting on the wall spelling imminent collapse, the Communist Party of Venezuela jumped ship from the government coalition.

Against seemingly unsurmountable odds, President Maduro led a remarkable turnaround. By year end 2023, Venezuela had achieved nine quarters of consecutive economic growth across all economic sectors. The Orinoco Tribune reports inflation down from triple digits. Still the most vulnerable have least benefited from the recovery.

Venezuelan special envoy Alex Saab, meanwhile, is in his third year behind bars, now languishing in a Miami prison. The imprisoned diplomat helped circumvent the illegal US blockade of Venezuela by obtaining humanitarian supplies of food, medicine, and fuel from Iran in legal international trade.

Opposition-aligned Venezuelan economist Francisco Rodriguez now admits the US hybrid war against Venezuela has so far “failed,” although he still shamelessly calls Washington’s campaign to overthrow the democratically elected president an effort “to push Venezuela back toward democracy.”

Given the successful resistance, the Biden administration has been compelled to modify its tactics, although not its ultimate goal of regime-change, by easing some of its sanctions against Venezuela. Because the relief is explicitly temporary, the implicit threat is that full sanctions would be reimposed if Maduro is reelected. This, in effect, is a form of election interference.

Behind the temporary easing of sanctions is surging immigration to the US, posing a vulnerability for Biden’s 2024 reelection bid. Immigration from sanctioned Venezuela, along with Cuba and Nicaragua, is driven in large part by conditions created by the US sanctions. Even corporate media are increasingly making this connection with the coercive US policy. A letter to Biden from 18 House Democrats urged sanctions relief.

Also with an eye to reelection, Biden is hoping to stimulate Venezuelan oil production lest the US-backed wars in Ukraine and Palestine cause fuel prices to rise. If the US does not walk back on the sanctions relaxation, Venezuela’s oil company could increase state revenues, which would be applied to social programs.

Over a year ago, the Venezuelan government reached an agreement with opposition figures and Washington for releasing $3.2b of its own illegally seized assets. So far, nothing has been forthcoming. The best relief would come if the US simply released what lawfully belongs to Venezuela.

Regional economic and climate prospects

Last year’s post-Covid regional economic rebound had run its course by 2023. The World Bank currently projects a 2.3% regional growth rate for the year, described as “regressed to the low levels of pre-pandemic growth” due partly to lower global commodity prices and rising interest rates. Real wages have remained stagnant and declined for older adults.

Since the pandemic, an estimated 1.5 years of learning have been lost, especially impacting the youngest and most vulnerable. In the context of declining economic conditions, the region is experiencing the worst migration crisis in its history with recent surges from Venezuela (4.5-7.5m) and Haiti (1.7m) adding to the more usual sources of Mexico and Central America.

In addition, extreme weather events driven by climate change have displaced 17 million people. The World Bank warns that by 2030, 5.8 million could fall into extreme poverty, largely due to a lack of safe drinking water along with exposure to excessive heat and flooding. Foreshadowing future scenarios, drought in Argentina contributed to a crashing economy which was a factor in the far-right presidential win in November.

2023 has been the hottest year in the millennium. The Mexican daily La Jornada reported that the much anticipated mid-December COP28 climate summit in Dubai concluded with at best “small achievements” and with the road to renewables proceeding at a “snail’s pace.”

The other pandemic – illegal drugs

Related to deteriorating economic conditions for the popular classes region-wide has been a continuing drug pandemic. The role of the US and its Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), active in most countries in the region, is problematic. Washington’s staunchest allies repeatedly turn out to be major drug pushers. Former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández is now in US federal prison on drug charges. However, former Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, the person credited for kick starting the Medellin Cartel, remains free.

Mexico, Honduras, and Venezuela have all had to call in their militaries in major operations to wrest control of their prison systems and even parts of their national territories from narcotics cartels. According to the Amnesty International, El Salvador is experiencing the worst rights causes since the 1980-1992 civil war under President Nayib Bukele’s controversial crackdown on gangs.

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen visited Mexico in December in the midst of the fentanyl flood. The corporate press in the US continuously runs sensational reports about drug kingpins in Latin America but curiously none on our side of the border. Not simply under-reported, but unreported, is how the illegal substances get distributed in the US. How is it that the US is the biggest illicit drug consumer, but we don’t hear about cartels at home?

US military projection

Drug trafficking and popular unrest, both exacerbated by precarious economic conditions, have been capitalized by the US to further project its military presence in the region. Washington is by far the largest source of military aid, supplies, and training.

US military strategy in the region has pivoted from fighting communism and “terrorism” to containing China and, to a lesser extent, Russia and Iran. China is now the leading trading partner with South America and the second largest with the region as a whole, after the US. Some 20 regional countries have joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

China’s official policy on relations with the US is based on mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation, predicated on the understanding that “the common interests of the two countries far outweigh their differences.”  US official policy, on the other hand, is “full spectrum dominance.”

Laura Richardson, head of the US Southern Command, met with Brazilian and Colombian military brass in May. Previously, she had visited Argentina, Chile, Guyana, and Surinam. When asked about her interest in the region, she unapologetically admitted that the US seeks hegemony over the region and possession of its rich resources.

In May, Peru brought in US Marines and special forces. In October, the US got the UN Security Council to approve the military occupation of Haiti using proxy troops from Kenya, even though the operation would not be under its auspices. Moreover, history shows occupation is the root problem. Also in October, Ecuador approved deploying US troops there plus US funding for security programs.

The annual CORE23 exercises, held in November by combined Brazilian and US forces, were designed to achieve military interoperability. Last year, joint Brazilian and US troops practiced war games against a “hypothetical” Latin American country (e.g., Venezuela) experiencing a humanitarian crisis. This month, Mexico and Peru joined the annual US naval Steel Knight exercises.

By December, the disputed Essequibo territory between Venezuela and Guyana became an international flashpoint. The US Southern Command announced joint air operations with Guyana. What is in essence an oil company land grab by ExxonMobil is disrupting regional unity and is a Trojan horse for US military interference. US boots are already reportedly on the ground in Guyana. However, the leaders of Guyana and Venezuela met on December 14 and pledged to resolve the conflict peacefully.

End note for the year 2023 – Sanctions Kill!

While Washington may seek to accommodate social democracies such as Colombia and Brazil by cooption, nothing but regime ruination is slated for the states explicitly striving for socialism: Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua.

Sanctions on Venezuela – started by Obama, intensified by Trump, and seamlessly continued by Biden – have taken its toll: over 100,00 death, 22% of the children under five stunted, 2.4 million food insecure, over 300,00 chronic disease patients without access to treatment, 31% of the population undernourished, 69% drop in goods and services imports, deteriorated infrastructure, and accelerated migration and brain drain.

Despite the UN nearly unanimously condemning the US blockade of Cuba for its devastating effects on civilians and as a violation of the UN Charter, the ever-tightening economic warfare has left the island in crisis. Reuters reports that the production of staples pork, rice, and beans is down by more than 80%. Cuba has only been able to import 40% of the fuel requirement while industry is operating at 35% of capacity.

The Trump/Biden “maximum pressure” campaign has produced its desired effect of a catastrophic situation in Cuba. Biden imposed additional sanctions in November and has continued his predecessor’s policy of keeping Cuba on the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

While sanctioned by Washington, the current hybrid war on Nicaragua has been less intense and prolonged than that endured by Cuba and Venezuela. Nicaragua left the Washington-based Organization of American States (OAS) on November 19. Foreign Minister Denis Moncada said good riddance to what he called an “instrument of US imperialism.”

Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua have achieved so much with so little. The World Economic Forum commended Nicaragua for being the country in Latin America that made notable progress in reducing the gender gap. The World Wildlife Fund certified Cuba as the only country in the world to have attained sustainable development. The Harvard Review of Latin America praised Venezuela for cutting poverty in half before the sanctions set in. Imagine what could be accomplished if the hegemon’s boot was removed from their necks.

Roger D. Harris is with the human rights organization Task Force on the Americas, founded in 1985. Read other articles by Roger D..

 

Ret. Col. Ann Wright Unmasks the Truth in Arms Transfer Debate

by Melissa Garriga / December 18th, 2023

In a heated session at the United Nations Security Council, diplomats engaged in a vigorous debate over the provision of arms to Ukraine amid the protracted war with Russia. The eleventh meeting on this pressing issue since Russia invaded in February of 2022 drew sharp criticisms from multiple speakers, who accused Moscow of deflecting attention from its own aggression.

While various briefers and delegates presented conflicting perspectives, CODEPINK member Ann Wright, a retired United States Army colonel and former diplomat, took a different stance. As a civil society representative, she introduced herself as a concerned citizen and taxpayer who resigned from the U.S. Government in 2003 in protest against the Iraq War.

Wright emphasized her opposition to the continued supply of weapons, asserting that it only serves to prolong conflicts. The United States and its European allies have provided tens of billions of dollars in aid to support Ukraine over the past two years. With the war at an indefinite stalemate with the death toll rising, Wright argued that fueling conflicts with substantial amounts of weapons ultimately profits corporations and politicians, but not the innocent civilians caught in the crossfire. A position that antiwar groups like CODEPINK has held since the beginning of this deadly war.

Highlighting the lengthy process of conflict resolution, Wright drew parallels with historical conflicts, such as the Korean War, which required 575 meetings before reaching a ceasefire agreement. She underscored the devastating toll on human lives during U.S. funded wars, referencing the significant casualties in the Korean War.

Drawing attention to not only the lack of diplomacy but also an attempt to stop any form of negotiations from happening, she expressed concern along with the historical fact that the supply of weapons prevents the possibility of peace. Wright referred to the reports that informed Washington, D.C., and London had pressured the Ukrainian Government to avoid peace negotiations with Russia, emphasizing the importance of preserving diplomatic efforts.

In a powerful conclusion, Mary Ann Wright shared a poem depicting a plea in Gaza for children’s names to be written on their legs as a means of identification in the event of death due to Israeli bombings. While specifically referencing Gaza, she asserted that the sentiment applies universally to children in conflict zones, including Ukraine, Russia, Palestinel, or Yemen.

As the Security Council debates the “complexities’ ‘ of arms transfers and their impact on international peace and security, Wright’s testimony emphasizes the importance of addressing the root causes of conflicts and fostering meaningful resolutions. She makes the case that this is not, in fact, a complex issue nor should it be a debate. It is quite simple, more weapons only create more war and prohibit lasting peace.

You can watch her full testimony here.

Melissa Garriga is the communications and media analysis manager for CODEPINK. She writes about the intersection of militarism and the human cost of war. Read other articles by Melissa.