Site Meter

Tuesday, 18 June 2013

New Scramble for Africa: Bono and Gates Lead the Way

 I have been writing about US corporate foundations for some time, most recently in Foundations of the American Century. The Ford, Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations in the Rise of American Power.

Below is a column from today's Guardian newpspaer by Mr George Monbiot who, as a good journalist, communicates the message better than I.

Back in February, when Bill Gates delivered the Dimbleby Lecture on BBC TV, and claimed he was doing 'God's work', to near-universal praise, I was in no position to offer a critique. A couple of months later, a few colleagues and I met on an academic conference panel to discuss the Gates Foundation, concluding that the public image of the man and his foundation were far removed from the corporate, philanthrocapitalist mentalities and programmes being promoted as designed to save mankind. We had invited the Gates Foundation to send a speaker but none was available.  We had a good audience, as these things go, but nothing like the audience reached with his lecture and media management machine.

Thankfully, George Monbiot has produced a critique that sums up the picture very well. His article is reproduced below.

Elevation
June 17, 2013
75
Who do Bono and the ONE campaign really represent: the very poor or the very rich?
By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 18th June 2013

It was bad enough in 2005. Then, at the G8 summit in Scotland, Bono and Bob Geldof heaped praise on Tony Blair and George Bush, who were still mired in the butchery they had initiated in Iraq(1,2,3). At one point Geldof appeared, literally and figuratively, to be sitting in Tony Blair’s lap. African activists accused them of drowning out a campaign for global justice with a campaign for charity.

But this is worse. As the UK chairs the G8 summit again, a campaign that Bono founded, with which Geldof works closely(4), appears to be whitewashing the G8’s policies in Africa.

Last week I drew attention to the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, launched in the US when it chaired the G8 meeting last year(5). The alliance is pushing African countries into agreements which allow foreign companies to grab their land, patent their seeds and monopolise their food markets. Ignoring the voices of their own people, six African governments have struck deals with companies such as Monsanto, Cargill, Dupont, Syngenta, Nestlé and Unilever, in return for promises of aid by the UK and other G8 nations.

A wide range of activists, both African and European, is furious about the New Alliance(6). But the ONE campaign, co-founded by Bono, stepped up to defend it(7). The article it wrote last week was remarkable in several respects: in its elision of the interests of African leaders and those of their people, in its exaggeration of the role of small African companies, but above all in failing even to mention the injustice at the heart of the New Alliance – its promotion of a new wave of land grabbing. My curiosity was piqued.
The first thing I discovered is that Bono has also praised the New Alliance, in a speech just before last year’s G8 summit in the US(8). The second thing I discovered is that much of the ONE campaign’s primary funding was provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation(9), two of whose executives sit on its board(10). The Foundation has been working with the biotech company Monsanto and the grain trading giant Cargill, and has a large Monsanto shareholding(11). Bill Gates has responded to concerns raised by land grabbing in Africa by claiming, in the face of devastating evidence and massive resistance from African farmers, that “many of those land deals are beneficial, and it would be too bad if some were held back because of Western groups’ ways of looking at things.”(12) (Africans, you will note, keep getting written out of this story).

The third thing I discovered is that there’s a long history here. In his brilliant and blistering book The Frontman: Bono (in the Name of Power), just released in the UK, the Irish scholar Harry Browne maintains that “for nearly three decades as a public figure, Bono has been … amplifying elite discourses, advocating ineffective solutions, patronising the poor and kissing the arses of the rich and powerful.”(13) His approach to Africa is “a slick mix of traditional missionary and commercial colonialism, in which the poor world exists as a task for the rich world to complete.”

Bono, Browne charges, has becoming “the caring face of global technocracy”, who, without any kind of mandate, has assumed the role of spokesperson for Africa, then used that role to provide “humanitarian cover” for western leaders. His positioning of the West as the saviour of Africa while failing to discuss the harm the G8 nations are doing has undermined campaigns for justice and accountability, while lending legitimacy to the neoliberal project.

Bono claims to be “representing the poorest and most vulnerable people”(14). But talking to a wide range of activists from both the poor and rich worlds since ONE published its article last week, I have heard the same complaint again and again: that Bono and others like him have seized the political space which might otherwise have been occupied by the Africans about whom they are talking. Because Bono is seen by world leaders as the representative of the poor, the poor are not invited to speak. This works very well for everyone – except them.

The ONE campaign looks to me like the sort of organisation that John le CarrĂ© or Robert Harris might have invented. It claims to work on behalf of the extremely poor. But its board is largely composed of multimillionaires, corporate aristocrats and US enforcers(15). Here you will find Condoleezza Rice, George W Bush’s National Security Adviser and Secretary of State, who aggressively promoted the Iraq war, instructed the CIA that it was authorised to use torture techniques(16) and browbeat lesser nations into supporting a wide range of US aims.

Here too is Larry Summers, who was chief economist at the World Bank during the darkest days of structural adjustment and who, as US Treasury Secretary, helped to deregulate Wall Street, with such happy consequences for the rest of us. Here’s Howard Buffett, who has served on the boards of the global grain giant Archer Daniels Midland as well as Coca-Cola and the food corporations ConAgra and Agro Tech(17). Though the main focus of ONE is Africa, there are only two African members. One is a mobile phone baron, the other is the finance minister of Nigeria, who was formerly managing director of the World Bank. What better representatives of the extremely poor could there be?

If, as ONE does, an organisation keeps telling you that it’s a “grassroots campaign”(18), it’s a fair bet that it is nothing of the kind. This collaboration of multimillionaires and technocrats looks to me more like a projection of US and corporate power.

I found the sight of Bono last week calling for “more progress on transparency” equally revolting(19). As Harry Browne reminds us, U2’s complex web of companies, the financial arrangements of Bono’s Product RED campaign and his investments through the private equity company he co-founded are all famously opaque. And it’s not an overwhelming shock to discover that tax justice is absent from the global issues identified by ONE.

There is a well-known if dubious story which claims that at a concert in Glasgow Bono began a slow hand-clap. He is supposed to have announced: “every time I clap my hands, a child in Africa dies”. Whereupon someone in the audience shouted “well fucking stop doing it then.” It’s good advice, and I wish he’d take it.

www.monbiot.com

References:
9. Eg Harry Browne, 2013. The Frontman: Bono (in the Name of Power). Verso, London.
13. Harry Browne, 2013. The Frontman: Bono (in the Name of Power). Verso, London.
Bookmark and Share          

Assange, Snowden, Manning: Speaking Truth To Power, Suffering the Consequences

It is a year since Julian Assange, head of the Wikileaks website, was offered refuge in the London embassy of Ecuador, and just a few days since Edward Snowden sought the relative safety of Hong Kong in the wake of his revelations of the National Security Agency's (NSA) snooping operations in collaboration with internet giants like Google. Meanwhile Bradley Manning is on trial for passing confidential US State Department cables to Wikileaks. The UN has accused the US of treatment amounting to torture during Manning's long incarceration, mostly in solitary confinement. Several other whistleblowers on the doings of the self-proclaimed leader of the free world faces charges in US courts.

Their crime? In the words of Manuel Castells, they crossed a line most of us fear and constitute “a fundamental threat to the ability to silence, on which domination has always been based.” They have disrupted the agenda of the powers that be that they are really protecting 'us' against 'them' or fighting terror or crime when so frequently they are deploying scarce resources on spying on their own people or on their own allies - as shown by recent reports of Britain's setting up fake internet cafes for G20 delegates, intercepting communications in the hope of gaining some advantage. Obama's State Department was exposed, it should be recalled, of doing much worse in regard to UN delegations, in violation of international law.

There is a lot written about the democratising impact of the internet, the empowerment of the 'little guy' who can set the agenda and get the world talking and thinking outside the dominant discourse so ably maintained by the 'news' industry. The internet revolution has created an Achille's heel for the rulers of the world - just as the revolution in military affairs created experts in assymetric warfare. But the big batallions still hold great power and will, through a combination of vilification of individuals and silence, try to restore 'order'.

I think we can truly say that the 'unipolar' moment is over when Ecudaor stands on the world's stage for the principle of free speech, and protects one of its champions, and China (for its own reasons) appears to protect from the wrath of the US the latest whistle-blower to challenge the operations of US power. It used to be that the United States stood as the safe haven of the persecuted, open to those yearning to breathe free, and London the place of refuge of all kinds of people who needed a place to be - from disgraced dictators like Metternich to revolutionary exiles like Karl Marx. 

Today, those who stand for liberty seem to flee the US, and Britain warns airlines in Hong Kong to refuse passage to London to Snowden.
   
 

Wednesday, 20 March 2013

Iraq War: the illegal and imperial legacy of Bush and Blair



March 19th, 2013, marked ten years since the U.S. and its allies, especially Britain under Prime Minister Tony Blair, who continues to justify the war as necessary and right, illegally attacked, invaded and occupied Iraq - a nation that had not attacked the USA or Britain or posed any threat to their security.

It has also been ten years since the world rose up to proclaim its opposition to a threatened war in Iraq, as tens of millions of people poured into the streets of dozens of cities across the globe in what was the largest political demonstration in recorded history. 

Bush and his co-conspirators did not heed the will of the people because they were listening to other voices - of oil and other corporate executives, generals, arms manufacturers, their lobbyists, and their wealthy patrons, political cronies and privileged friends.  
Greed, hubris, arrogance and empire spoke louder than millions of people in the streets.
Nearly 5000 American, British and other allied troops were killed in "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Tens of thousands were wounded and tens of thousands more bear the unseen pyschological scars of war as evidenced by the epidemic of suicides among veterans and active service members.  The war cost the American taxpayers more than $812 billion in direct costs and another four to six trillion dollars when indirect and future costs are tallied up.

Whitehall (UK) figures released in June 2010 put the cost of British funding of the Iraq conflict at £9.24bn ($14.32bn), the vast majority of which was for the military but which also included £557m ($861m) in aid. 

But the cost to the people of Iraq has been far greater.  Estimates of Iraqi dead range from several hundred thousand to in excess of a million, overwhelmingly civilians.  Civilian infrastructure - water treatment and power plants, hospitals, schools - were destroyed, and ten years later have yet to be rebuilt.  Millions were turned into refugees, most of whom still have not been returned to their homes.

Because of the extensive use of depleted uranium weapons, the war continues to take its toll on those born years after most of the armed conflict ended.  Not only those immediately exposed but a new generation suffers with the consequences of radiation poisoning.  And among those victims are also thousands of U.S. troops and their children.
Iraq's economy has been turned into a giant yard sale, as multinational corporations move in to privatize every enterprise in which they see the potential for profit.  It's public heritage, resouces and sovereignty have been put up for sale to the highest bidder.  Corruption is epidemic.

The psychological wounds of war will haunt Iraqis for decades to come, but so too will they afflict U.S. and British troops who participated in and witnessed the horrors of battle, the barbarity of war.  War claims innocent civilians and combatants alike as its victims.
Iraqis too live with the political and social legacy of U.S. policy that divided the nation along religious, sectarian, tribal and ethnic lines and spawned violence that continues to claim victims more than a year after U.S. troops departed.

Iraqi trade unionists still don't have the legal right to organize and are targeted for discipline and repression when they act collectively in defense of their interests.  Some, like Federation of Oil Union President Hassan Juma'a, have been criminally charged for allegedly organizing strikes, and face stiff fines and possible incarceration. 
Meanwhile Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Rice (to name but a few) enjoy the luxuries and privileges that their class and wealth provide while those who sought to expose their crimes, like Bradley Manning, are persecuted, prosecuted and incarcerated. 

Thursday, 31 January 2013

Tory Plans to teach His-TORY

"History" is what historians do to the past but unlike professional historians, the Conservative government does not do nuance, conflict, or the idea that there may be much wrong or to be critically  reflected upon. They don't much like the notion of historical evidence. This Conservative government, which boasts several historians with creditable achievements with the pen, thinks that the essence of British history is the unfolding of its "illustrious past" - Churchill, empire and Margaret Thatcher. There's lots wrong with this aim but what the current plans for "citizenship" testing for would-be Britons belies is the openly partisan character of the British state.

New Labour's big guns - Blair, Brown and the rest - were proud of the empire and refused to apologise for it. So nothing new about Tory imperialism. What this latest episode shows is the degree of emasculation of the British civil service in the face of the power of party.

One of the greatest of virtues of Britain - its openness to a variety of ideas about what Britain is, and its tolerance of a thousands flowers and strands of opinion - does not appear on the agenda.

What appears is Winston Churchill without his electoral defeat in 1945; Margaret Thatcher but no striking mineworkers who challenged the authority of power itself.

Britain, it appears, was "involved" in Ireland: no mention of the colonial plantation system and ethnic cleansing of Catholics.

Britain left in an orderly way from the empire - but no mention of a million-plus people killed in communal violence in India in 1947. Nothing about the torture and brutalisation of Mau Mau suspects, currently suing HMG in the courts. Silence on alliances with headhunters in Borneo and Malaya to thwart nationalist resistance to British rule.

And a bipartisan silence on the Iraq war's origins and course, currently subject of an official enquiry into unlawful killings and torture..

Providing a narrative with its critical counterpart: that's what wanna be Brits should learn to pass a citizenship exam. Many of them are fleeing precisely the sorts of regimes that provide a bland and celebratory version of history.

The politics of our time, however, militate against critique of an imperial past: that is because, as British troops engage in Mali, having already civilised Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya, the present remains imperial.

Sunday, 20 January 2013

Obama's Establishment Straddles Democrats and Republicans

As we approach US President Barack Obama's second inauguration, attention must turn to the (now very) old question: why has Obama maintained the principal planks of the foreign and national security policies of the George W Bush administrations, despite promised radical change?

In their haste to explain, most commentators cling to what are now 'old favourites': Obama's legacy of wars and financial crises; his lack of experience in foreign affairs; his personal insecurities as commander-in-chief but having served in no wars. None of those arguments are without some merit but they remain wedded to arguments suggesting had this or that been different, Obama would have transformed US policy and power. This is patently false.

An article in a recent (pre-election) issue of Foreign Affairs, house organ of the US foreign policy establishment, unwittingly (almost) hit the nail on the head: "Obama is the Republican candidate", it declared. Actually, Obama was the Establishment candidate - and the real Establishment is bipartisan, welcoming millionaires from both its wings in the Democratic and Republican parties.

Obama's most recent nomination of former Republican senator, Chuck Hagel, illustrates this perfectly: variously described as a liberal realist or internationalist, or  a Republican realist, Hagel is endorsed by the big guns of the Establishment: Colin Powell, Robert Gates, Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and others, who have rushed to defend him against neo-con charges of anti-semitism  and weakness on Iran, Syria, etc... Hagel supported the Iraq war. He supports full-blooded aid to Israel. He just thinks military power isn't always the answer to every problem (this makes him, to neocons, weak on national security).

Obama's pick for secretary of state is Senator John Kerry - another pro-Iraq war advocate,as was Hillary Clinton, the hardline and hawkish state department head,and current vice president, Biden.

Withdrawn from nomination for head of CIA in 2008 - John Brennan is Obama's choice for that role in 2013. Brennan's complicity in use of torture, in supporting the Guantanamo facility and the secret prisons programme, escalated drone strikes ie illegal assassinations with plenty of civilian casualties is well known or widely suspected, but hardly thoroughly investigated. He is likely to sail through the Senate hearings to which all nominees to top posts are subject.

Obama promotes those who backed the most absurd American war since Vietnam not because he is insecure, inexperienced, lacking knowledge of foreign affairs, or because he inherited a mess. He is a paid up member of the Establishment, fully bought into the American global power programme, and who sees all problems through the prism of US Establishment interests. It is not public opinion that drives US foreign policy: it is the Establishment and its myriad of think tanks, foundations, and other experts and financial backers from Wall Street and other prestigious addresses, and who are responsible for the global financial crisis and the rapacious character of US power (dressed up as exporting US core values).

What is the "Establishment"? Long ago, Godfrey Hodgson, the keenest British observer of American political life, provided an excellent definition: these he, argued, are the power behind the throne, the people who know the right people who get things done, those operating outside the US congress and mainly as appointees in the executive branch, whose power is often exercised outside of the constitutional forms. The power to block the people who don't belong and promote those who do. Wall Street, not Main Street, runs America. When it is said that "millions stand behind me" by White House incumbents they are referring to big bucks from Wall Street banks and American multinationals like Lockheed Martin, arms firms at the heart of the military-industrial complex that continues to wield massive power in the United States.

In this, his second term, Obama should have have been able to break free from anxiety and inexperience and speak with his own voice, if the usual critics had it right. That he is not doing so is not because he is obtuse: it is because he buys the programme. And that programme is a bipartisan Establishment programme that Obama bought into bit by bit over the many decades from his private school education in Hawaii, in California, at Columbia and Harvard universities.

Obama's record in dealing with issues that were NOT inherited legacies gave the game away long ago: the president who would not do coercive regime change supported it in Libya; who professed friendship to the people of the Middle East provided record levels of aid to Israel; who won the Nobel Peace Prize dramatically increased drone strikes across the world and escalated the war in Afghanistan; who believed in democracy backed Hosni Mubarak's oppressive regime in Egypt until it was clear that he was yesterday's man; who backed Saudi military intervention in Bahrain against citizens fighting for their democratic rights; and so on.

Despite the great achievement that President Obama represents as the first African-American chief executive, it is important to bear in mind the myth that he represents: he is half-white; not a man of the people, let alone of black people; has dropped any pretence of dealing with the structural and historically-rooted problems of racial and social inequality; and has paid his dues to the Establishment that placed him the White House in 2008 to pick up the pieces of crisis-ridden American power after 8 years of George W. Bush.

So militaristic is Obama's foreign policy programme that he outflanked the neo-conservative-backed Mitt Romney and gave him no place to go but increased rhetorical stridency. This has proved embarrassing to liberals who tend to remain quiet on Obama's military escalations; and outflanked neoconservatives who harp on without credibility about America's weaknesses.

Neither liberals nor neoconservatives have a vested interest in recognising the truth of Obama's record: it is one of which George W. Bush would have been proud.

Friday, 28 September 2012

Romney's gaffe blows lid on the myth of US neutrality over Israel_palestine

Mr Romney: "And I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say there's just no way. And so what you do is you say you move things along the best way you can. You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that it's going to remain an unsolved problem. I mean, we look at that in China and Taiwan. All right, we have a potentially volatile situation, but we sort of live with it. And we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve. We don't go to war to try and resolve it."

Republican candidate for the White House, Mitt Romney, on Israel-Palestine. The irony is that Romney actually let spill an unspeakable truth in this 'post-truth' politics age: that the US is not and has not been a neutral in the 'peace process' and, indeed, favours Israel in the most strident terms and condemns the hapless Palestinians as aggressive and war-like.

Some facts:
According to Amnesty International: "Israel's military blockade of Gaza... left more than 1.4 million Palestinian men, women and children trapped in the Gaza Strip, an area of land just 40 kilometres long and 9.5 kilometres wide.

"Mass unemployment, extreme poverty and food price rises caused by shortages have left four in five Gazans dependent on humanitarian aid. As a form of collective punishment, Israel’s... blockade of Gaza is a flagrant violation of international law."

During its 2008/9 war on Gaza, "The Israeli army used white phosphorus, a weapon with a highly incendiary effect, in densely populated civilian residential areas of Gaza City, according to indisputable evidence found by an Amnesty International fact-finding team...

"When white phosphorus lands on skin it burns deeply through muscle and into the bone, continuing to burn until deprived of oxygen." The white phosphorous was supplied by US arms firms.

White phosphorous is not illegal under international law but was condemned when deployed by Saddam Hussein against the Kurds in 1991; but was then used in 2004, bu US troops in Fallujah, Iraq.

Illegal Settlements: No foreign government, including the US, recognises Israel's settlements in Sinai, the West Bank or the Golan Heights, nor in East Jerusalem. Yet, Israel continues to defy the International Court of Justice, the UN and the Oslo Accords.

Nuclear weapons:
Despite the attention to Iran's nuclear programmes, Israel has long possessed nuclear weapons and long range intercontinental ballistic missiles. It also has refused to sign the nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, citing "national security".

President Obama also pledged undying support for Israel, the only power with nuclear weapons in the region and which has violated UN resolutions for decades with American support. Israel continues to build illegal settlements on the West Bank; meanwhile Obama signed off Bush's $30 billion aid package to Israel and continues to sell weapons systems to Israel far superior to such aid and sales to US' Arab allies in the region - to maintain Israel's qualitative military edge. To the Palestinians he urged moderation and non-violence.

The 'Palestine Papers' published by The Guardian and other media showed quite clearly the double standards of the US and Israel in the peace process: the Palestine Authority offered practically everything Israel demanded. Like Israel, Obama refuses to recognise Hamas, despite its victory in democratic elections.

Romney's gaffe shows that little changes in US policy towards Israel from one administration to another.