US Arms Sales

Arms Around the World

It was the early 1990s and then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton was on the campaign trail making promises: "I expect to review our arms sales policy and to take it up with the other major arms sellers of the world as a part of a long-term effort to reduce the proliferation of weapons."

Ah, campaign promises. But the economy was in the doldrums, and the prospect of cutting arms sales -- sugar daddy to one of the nation's largest industries -- didn't thrill either labor or corporate America. What's more, the Gulf War had just ended the previous year, and it was the best extended commercial an arms salesman could ask for. (Indeed, some arms manufacturers incorporated bombing videos into their promotional materials.) Countries were clamoring for the high-tech weapons that made for such good TV.

So, once elected, Bill Clinton did what he does best: He took advantage of the opportunity. Rather than insert human-rights concerns into the arms-sales equation, as did his Democratic predecessor President Carter, Clinton decided to aggressively continue the sales policies of President Bush, himself no slouch when it came to selling U.S. arms.

Early on, Clinton required our diplomats to shill for arms merchants to their host countries. The results were immediate: During Clinton's first year in office, U.S. arms sales more than doubled. From 1993 to 1997, the U.S. government sold, approved, or gave away $190 billion in weapons to virtually every nation on earth.

The arms industry, meanwhile, has greased the wheels. It filled the Democratic Party coffers to the tune of nearly $2 million in the 1998 election cycle.

To examine the Clinton administration's eagerness to arm the world, the MoJo Wire has compiled a detailed look at America's top weapons customers during the Clinton years, tallying their total 1993-97 purchases through both the Pentagon (so-called "Foreign Military Sales," or FMS) and U.S. manufacturers ("Direct Commercial Sales," or DCS).

What we found is that while the U.S. obviously sells weapons to NATO countries and relatively democratic allies like Japan and South Korea, it also has a nasty habit of arming both sides in a conflict, as well as countries with blighted democracy or human-rights records, like Indonesia, Colombia, and Saudi Arabia.

All of this might be justified as a way to maintain a strong manufacturing job-base in the U.S., but some of these sales actually result in jobs being shipped abroad -- while arms manufacturers get tax breaks for merging, resulting in further layoffs here at home.

We examined the top dozen of these arms-exporting corporations, showing which does business where and how each has taken advantage of myriad federal tax breaks, reimbursements, and golden parachutes -- as well as the eagerness of Congress to keep one of the economy's largest employing segments happy.

In a separate story, we detail the arms industry's lobbying strategies in Washington: how it keeps the export pipeline wide open, and easily outmaneuvers Congress' occasional attempt to tie arms sales to human-rights records.

Lastly, we list organizations that you can join or support to help influence U.S. and corporate policies toward arms sales around the world.

[graph]

U.S. market share of worldwide arms sales Source

Below is a sample of some of our most interesting findings:

Shipping Jobs Overseas
According to the Pentagon, the defense industry laid off 795,000 American workers between 1992 and 1997. At the same time, many of these corporations were sweetening their arms deals to other countries by offering "offsets" -- incentives provided to foreign countries in exchange for the purchase of military goods and services. The programs often include agreements to manufacture some or all of the products in the purchasing country.

Turkey, for example, agreed to buy 160 F-16s from General Dynamics in 1987 (for delivery through 1994) for an estimated $4 billion -- on the condition that most of the planes be built in Turkey. The offset resulted in 1,500 jobs going to Turkey. In 1992, General Dynamics entered into a similar F-16 offset deal with South Korea and brought 400 Koreans to its Fort Worth, Texas, plant for training, after having laid off 10,000 workers in the previous two years.

Lockheed Martin has continued the trend since it bought General Dynamics' F-16 program in 1993: In vying for a contract to supply fighters to Poland, it is offering to build an assembly plant there for all future F-16 sales to Central Europe -- so the planes won't be made in the U.S. at all. Makes you feel patriotic, doesn't it?

Corporate Pork
Under a Defense Department policy initiated in 1993, U.S. taxpayers wind up covering a big chunk of the cost of defense-corporation mergers. The tally so far has reached $856.2 million in perfectly legal write-offs, including $405 million for the Lockheed/Martin Marietta merger, to name one example. Because of the policy, Lockheed was able to bill the Pentagon up front for $2.4 million of CEO Norman Augustine's salary.

In 1996, Congress created the Defense Export Loan Guarantee program to finance U.S. weapons sales to foreign countries. Its first beneficiary? A United Industrial sale of pilotless aircraft and training systems to cash-strapped Romania. If Romania defaults on its payments (not a bad bet for a country in economic turmoil), U.S. taxpayers will be left holding the bag: $16.7 million. But United Industrial gets paid either way.

Arming Both Sides
The Clinton administration has not been shy about arming potential foes in regional conflicts. For example, two of America's biggest arms customers are Greece and Turkey, which have been threatening to go to war with each other for decades over the tiny Mediterranean island of Cyprus.

Both countries stake a claim to the island, more than a third of which has been occupied by Turkish forces since 1974, and the two have clashed hundreds of times in the 25 years since.

Though barred by Congress from selling offensive weapons to Cyprus itself, in 1997 the U.S. sold (or allowed American corporations to sell) more than $270 million worth of weapons to Greece and nearly $750 million worth to Turkey. Now if there's a war, the two NATO allies can blast away at one another with far greater efficiency, thanks to the U.S. defense industry and its cheerleader, Bill Clinton.

Acknowledgments and Sources

Source: http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/arms/

Merchant of Death of the Month

Raytheon Company

Raytheon is the fifth-largest defense contractor in the United States. By its own accounting, the company is involved in more than 4,000 weapons programs and received more than $8.5 billion in Pentagon contracts in FY2004.

After Congress released the first full “war on terrorism” military budget in 2002, Raytheon Vice President Tom Culligan declared, “You see Raytheon’s brand name everywhere, from tanks and rifles to ships, aircraft and UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles],” all of which received increased funding in the fiscal year 2002 Pentagon budget. Since then, billion-dollar contracts have continued to flow, and by the end of March 2005, Raytheon announced net sales of $4.9 billion, an increase of $200 million over the same period last year.

Raytheon is best known for the Patriot air-defense missile, which received massive publicity during the 1991 Gulf conflict when it was used to defend against Iraqi Scud missiles. After the conflict, MIT’s Dr. Theodore Postol found that the Patriot was far less accurate than U.S. officials originally claimed, missing its target more often than not. Since then, the Pentagon has spent $3 billion improving the missile system, and foreign sales of the improved system account for a significant portion of Raytheon’s overseas sales.

Another high-visibility Raytheon product is the Tomahawk land-attack missile, described in promotional literature as the “Navy’s weapon of choice.” The company is proud of the Tomahawk’s combat record, noting on its website that Tomahawks have been used in “Operation Desert Storm, Bosnia, Iraq and Kosovo.” It adds, “Over 300 Tomahawks were used in Operation Desert Storm alone. Since Desert Storm in 1991, more than 1,000 Tomahawks have been fired.”

More than 50 of the missiles—which cost between $600,000 and $1 million each—were fired in Afghanistan in the opening salvo of the war against terrorism. The United States used even more—as many as 800—in the first hours of the attack against Iraq. The company’s “bunker-buster” weapons, like their GBU-28, a 5,000-pound bomb, and missiles like the TOW, Maverick and Javelin were used in both “Operation Enduring Freedom” in Afghanistan and “Operation Liberate Iraq.” The sensors and radar Raytheon built for unmanned and manned reconnaissance airplanes were also used extensively in both wars. The company calls its latest line of radar, surveillance and targeting systems “the Terminator family.”

Fueling Conflict
Raytheon is a major arms exporter, with billions in overseas arms sales in the past decade to a client list that includes Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, Oman, Singapore, Greece, Taiwan and South Korea.

Jim Maslowski, vice president of Raytheon’s international business, says weapons sales to foreign countries constitute “one of the key elements in our growth strategy.” In 2004, foreign military sales at Raytheon Missile Systems rose about 3 percent to $1.2 billion. Raytheon has gone to great lengths to get international business, to the point of defying federal regulations. In March 2003, Raytheon agreed to pay $25 million in fines to settle charges that it unlawfully tried to sell long-range microwave transmitters to Pakistan from 1990 through 1997 when the U.S. government prohibited such sales.

Raytheon denied it intentionally violated U.S. export laws, but a spokesperson admitted that the company failed to wait for the State Department to determine whether the system was commercial or military. This year, Pakistan announced its intention to buy $46 million in Raytheon-manufactured Sidewinder missiles.

Big Guns, Big Money
Raytheon CEO William H. Swanson’s salary increased almost 20 percent this year to $1.2 million, plus another $2.94 million in stock awards. Meanwhile, 350 workers at Raytheon’s wire harness plant in Wichita, KS, were laid off in April when the company subsidiarized the operation to Chihuahua, Mexico. Workers at the plant were making $15-20 an hour.

Like other major weapons makers, Raytheon makes a significant investment in political influence and access in Washington. Since 2000, the firm has doled out more than $3.14 million in soft money and Political Action Committee donations, ranking fifth in donations among major military contractors in the 2004 election cycle.

Raytheon makes its political connections work in other ways as well. In the past seven years, the company has hired 23 former senior government officials, according to the independent watchdog agency, the Project on Government Oversight. It’s a common theme in Merchants-of-Death watching; overall, more than 200 former members of Congress and senior government officials have gone through the “revolving door” to work for military contractors since 1997, the Project on Government Oversight said in a 2004 report.

* * *

Frida Berrigan is a Senior Research Associate at the Arms Trade Resource Center of the World Policy Institute at the New School University in New York City.

http://www.warresisters.org/nva0505-2.htm

Dear Dr. Laura

For those who haven't read it yet:

 

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan,

J. Kent Ashcraft

The Politics of Servility

Congress and the Israel Lobby

Shakespeare's Caesar caustically commented, "Cowards die many times before their deaths; / The valiant never taste of death but once." Curious how our lawmakers huddle behind their sophistries, their voice votes, their parliamentary play acting to avoid the daring feat that would force them to confront the moral consequences of their obsequious pandering to the lobbyists who pad their pin striped suits with the means to stay in office, all the while selling their souls to their executioners. Every day they die another death; every day a new resurrection to fulfill their obligation to their puppeteers. How different from their forebears who understood the valiant feast on liberty, even in the face of death: "Americans! Liberty or Death" rang through the hills of Massachusetts and all the colonies as the Revolution loomed, a fervor marked by foreigners because they could see the Americans really meant it. But how can our representatives be free if they are at the mercy of a foreign lobby? (David Fisher, Liberty and Freedom, Oxford University Press, 2005).

Consider the last annual gala held by AIPAC where Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D. Nev.) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R. Ky) appeared as keynote speakers to an audience that included half of the U.S. Senate and more than half of the House, an event that took place just as the newly constituted Congress of Democrats was asserting its response to the American electorate with a provision to require the President to get the Congress' approval before he took any action against Iran. By the end of the week AIPAC had successfully pressed for removal of this bipartisan provision from the bill ("Jewish News Weekly of Northern California," Ron Kampeas, 3/16/2007). David Corn, reporting in Nation magazine noted that keeping that provision in the bill "would not be to the liking of AIPAC, the powerhouse pro-Israel lobby, which has declared the Lantos bill a top priority (Lantos' bill pushes legislation to intensify sanctions against Iran). "In a recent speech AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr said that legislation restricting Bush's options would be 'a sign of weakness.' Asked if he can point to a political fight lost by AIPAC recently, Representative Larson replied, 'Not to my recollection.'" (Corn, Nation 4/23/2007). Pat Buchanan, four days later wrote "Why did Pelosi capitulate? Answer. She was 'under pressure from some conservative members of the caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groups that want war with Iran and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee,' writes John Nichols in the Nation."

M. J. Rosenberg, in a commentary on the Mearsheimer and Walt study of the influence of the Israeli lobbies on our representatives offered this reflection, an observation that came from his own experience serving representatives over the years: "Once again, Presidential candidates are being told that in order to earn the 'pro-Israel' label, they must heartily endorse the status quo. That means that when asked what they would do about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the candidates must state unequivocal support for Israeli policies. They must never use the words 'even-handed' or 'honest broker.' There is a script and candidates must not deviate from it." ("W-M's Best Seller: Why the Hysteria?" 09/07/07).

"There is a script and candidates must not deviate from it." So much for the valiant soul who searches his/her conscience, free in his/her mind to decide issues that send young Americans to their deaths or to varying states of dementia caused by roadside bombs that shake the brain inside the skull like a bartender preparing a cocktail. So much for the valiant legislator that hides behind the façade dictated to him or her by AIPAC extolling the desire of the Israeli government for peace with Palestine when, in fact, it desires nothing of the sort short of the slow, agonizing, and insidiously torturous ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from their own homeland. So much for the representatives of the people, who were voted into office with the expressed understanding that they would not just bring the invasion of Iraq to an end but would not create another unprovoked war with another mid-east nation that would cause the deaths of more U.S. soldiers to say nothing of the innocent people caught in the maelstrom of murderous slaughter their mild "yea" could cause even as it ushers forth from their respective mouths. So much for liberty, for the mind free to reflect, weigh and judge for self. So much for the mind Jesus sought to instill in the Christian, the true Christian who followed His teachings, not the venom hurled from the pulpit of Pastor John Hagee and his ilk, militant ministers of the AntiChrist they condemn, preaching a gospel of hate that supports the rabid minority of Zionists that debase the very beliefs of Christianity.

Listen to the voice of Christ that our representatives have buried under their fear of AIPAC retribution lest they have to confront the reality of Jesus' teachings, not the "reality on the ground" that the AIPAC vultures peck at them day in and day out. Hear the words of Jesus, words never uttered by Hagee who would find no peace in the inclusiveness they extol:

"He made strangers his own;
In their differences, they manifested his will." (Plate 99: 9)

"The Truth is one and many,
So as to teach us the innumerable One of Love." (Plate 102:12)

"So it is with the sons of God; wherever they are
They are just as precious to their Father." (Plate 110:48)

"Whoever is free of the world
Can no longer be made into a slave there." (Plate 113)

(from the Gospel of Philip, Jean-Yves LeLoup, Inner Traditions, VT)

 

Christ's intent, as expressed here as it is in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, is to show humans that they can be one with him by comprehending what he says and does ­ to see in the differences of people, including strangers, the Truth that there is in all diversity One Love that binds because all are precious to their Father. This is a gospel of inclusiveness, not divisiveness. But to attain that Truth, each must abandon the "wills" of the Hagee's and AIPAC that seek to force their intents on our representatives by coercion through money and fear through controlled power that destroys the politician. Our representatives must be free in mind and spirit, not slaves to the fanatics of Dominionism and Zionism.

There is an untold irony behind the research that Mearsheimer and Walt brought to light, a story that goes back to the years preceding the UN creation of the state of Israel. As early as 1941, and obviously for some years preceding that date, Jews living in Palestine found themselves under the total control of the "gangs" of Zionists who dictated the allegiance they must have to the establishment of the Zionist state they were determined to bring into existence. That allegiance they ensured through coercion and fear. These are the words of the British High Commissioner for Palestine, Harold MacMichael, addressed to the Secretary of State, dated 16th of October, 1941.

3. A second matter which deeply impresses me is the almost Nazi control exercised by the official Jewish organizations over the Jewish community, willy nilly, through the administration of funds from abroad, the issue of labor certificates in connection with the immigration quota, the forced contribution of funds and the power of the Histadruth. The Royal Commission were, in my view, fundamentally at error in describing the Jewish community in Palestine as "intensely democratic' (chapter V, paragraph 7). The Zionist organization, the whole social structure which it has created in Palestine, has the trappings but none of the essentials of democracy. The community is under the closed oligarchy of the Jewish official organizations which control Zionist policy and circumscribe the lives of the Jewish community in all directions ­ the Mapai, the Histadruth, the Vaad Leumi and the Jewish Agency. The reality of power is in the Agency, with the Hagana, the illegal military organization, always in the background. (copy of dispatch, Reference No. 0.8.573, Rhodes Library Archives, Bodleian Library, Oxford University).

The irony of course is that the Jewish people, roughly 500,000 in 1941, were, in the opinion of the High Commissioner for the British Mandate government, controlled by the Zionists by methods not dissimilar to those being used on Jews and legislators alike in our government today. M and W have recounted the techniques used to subdue criticism of the state of Israel so that our representatives fear even the use of "even handed" or "balanced broker" that might imply the need for some measure of justice by Israel for the Palestinians. MacMichael's report establishes the truth about the military power Zionists had at their disposal even as early as 1941. He notes they could field approximately 30,000 well trained and experienced troops, and in numbers and caliber they are a "formidable adversary." Yet, then as now, the Zionists proclaim that it is the Jews who are in danger, who are the victims despite their evident superiority then as now.

The issue is not that our representatives obsequiously cater to the desires of AIPAC and the Israeli lobbies; a brief recounting of the constant flood of resolutions and acts passed in support of their desires is sufficient to show that reality (this is not a complete list, only a smattering): HR 311, 371, 390, 398, 615, 617, 4235, 4681 (the Palestine Anti-Terrorist Act, not yet passed in the house but passed in the Senate as S2370), the Syrian Accountability Act, HR 1828 passed 398 to 4, and, perhaps the most cowardly resolution of all, one in direct opposition to the expressed condemnation of every nation in the UN, the one that endorsed Israel's ravaging of Lebanon, its unparalleled invasion of a nation that had done nothing to Israel in the late summer of 2006, a vote that effectively left every congressmen stark naked before the moral outrage of the world's community, and, one more that sets their cowardice before the public as if it glowed in florescent lights, one in striking contradiction to the reversed action under way on the remembrance of the Armenian Genocide, HR 52 paying tribute to Rev. Waitstill Sharp and Martha Sharp in commemoration of the Jewish Holocaust, passed unanimously 413-0, and HR583 which recognizes the 6 million Holocaust victims passed this year, September 17. Why do they have trouble remembering the Armenians?

And, finally, we must consider HR 2464 and HR 2953 to direct the Secretary of Education to provide grants to promote Holocaust education and awareness in K-12 in all states. This legislation does not promote the Holocausts most relevant to the American people, the holocaust against the Native indigenous peoples that lived on this land when Europe invaded or the Holocaust that our forebears and citizens executed through the "institution" of slavery where millions died at sea and millions more were buried in unmarked graves. It does not include the Armenian Holocaust or the Bosnian Holocaust of recent years or that in Darfur presently, or Rowanda, or our own taking place in Iraq where over a million civilians have died or in Palestine which is currently in its 60th year of genocide.

I would commend the learning outcomes that should result from study of the Holocaust, outcomes that are pertinent to all such barbaric behavior by humans against their brothers and sisters. "Teaching about Holocaust allows students to consider such issues as indifference toward suffering, use and abuse of power, prejudice, racism, and the disintegration of civilized values" (The Holocaust Education Project," Margnet Lincoln). Indeed, all our representatives might benefit from such study, but not by isolating it to the tragedies suffered by one group with no mention or concentration on others. Perhaps the heinous actions of the state powers that exist and terrorize their citizens and those under occupation, as in Darfur, Iraq, and Palestine, might force our legislators and those in the UN to intervene and stop the slaughters, not with military force, but moral force, that the teachings of Jesus as noted above, teachings now embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, become the shield of Justice for all.

But this is not to be. Our legislators hide behind their feigned love of Israel as dictated to them by the lobbies, feigned because they proclaim the friendship for that democratic state, the only one in the mid-east when they know in their heart of hearts that Israel is not a democracy, not in its constitution (which it does not have even after 60 years of existence), not in its apartheid restrictions imposed on its Arab (read Palestinian) citizens (which it proclaims are equal in all respects to Jews though Jews alone can purchase land in Israel), not in its moral adherence to international law or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (although it is a signatory to that document even as it defies 160 UNGA resolutions asking that Israel abide by international law). No, our legislators will continue to grovel before the lobby, to speak the script, to assure themselves the continued support of those who dictate how they will vote despite the consequences to the best interests of the United States.

Let's consider the consequences and weigh them before the "One Love" that Christ suggested might be a way to everlasting peace. I'm not going to relate a series of statistics that demonstrate the idiocy of the lobby's line that Israel is in danger of "being wiped off the map." Any staff member can be sent to gather that information should the congressman wish to contrast the enormity of the evidence that shows that the state of Israel dominates in all respects the reality on the ground over a population, an indigenous population, that has nothing ­ no army, no weaponry of consequence, no control of its own territory, no air force, no navy, no Revolutionary Guard, no tanks, no F-16s, no planes period, no water, no roads, no electricity, even no garbage pickup, except as Israel may grant in its largesse ­ it has only the force of moral superiority to throw against the occupiers, the oppressors who have been condemned by the international community over and over again, and but for the fawning obedience of our representatives as they cast their lone veto in the Security Council, Israel might have been forced to accept its moral responsibility before the world's communities and grant a tinge of justice to the people of Palestine.

Instead, let me offer a few images of the reality they allow to happen in the name of America, the land that in its foundational documents extols equality for all people, the Bill of Rights for all people, justice before the courts regardless of privilege, a voice in the government that is granted the right to govern by the consent of the people, and from these basic rights, the moral foundation that requires each and every citizen, most certainly our legislators, responsibility to ensure that justice for all is served. Instead, we are placed under the pall of a small group of our citizens who manipulate our legislators to their own ends by coercion and fear, and, in that control, they deny the rights of the American people to determine their own fate.

This is the same reality that Akiva Elder, the prominent journalist for Ha'aretz, the moderate Israeli newspaper, notes, in an interview with Amy Goodman, is his lot when covering military affairs in Israel. He and his colleagues must endure the review of their reporting by the military before it is published and any reporting on Israeli military actions must be seen through the lens of external newspapers, "the New York Times reported that." "The policy is that we have an Israeli military censorship, and there is an agreement between the military censor and the editors of the Israeli papers that when it comes to sensitive issues, we have to submit every story to the censor " When Amy Goodman asked, "You're in the United States now. Do you still have to abide by " "I'm afraid so." "Why?" "You don't want to put me into trouble, right? I have to go back to Israel. Well, if you offer me asylum, then I will consider it. But my children are waiting for me at home, so I ­ you'll have to forgive me." "What would happen if you defied the censor?" "My editor on my newspaper will be fined." Such is the state of open dialogue and investigative reporting in that democratic state. But then one might argue that our own press operates under similar restraints imposed by its corporate owners. (see interview with Amy Goodman on "Democracy Now," 10/8/2007). How similar Elder's comments to those made by Rosenberg that are imposed on our legislators. How similar the means of control imposed on the Jews in 1941 by the ruling oligarchy of "the Agency and Hagana."

Perhaps if our legislators had fought in the military, (there are some exceptions), they might envision the enormity of the contrast on the ground. The reporting talks about battles with Palestinian militants, about terrorist attacks against IDF forces, about military engagements with Hamas fighters, (the primary source of our main stream media information as it comes from Israeli officials), but does not mention that one side has tanks and humvies, a network of highways for military transport, satellite surveillance, F-16 fighter jets for air cover support, helicopters with missile launchers, state of the art machine guns for its soldiers, and night goggles while the Palestinian insurgent has spit and stones, homemade Qassam rockets, and ancient rifles. How difficult can it be to hurl such weaponry, $300,000 dollar missiles at paraplegic men in wheelchairs? How difficult can it be to drop 500 pound bombs on apartment tenements in refugee camps? How difficult can it be to prevent ambulances from taking injured people to hospitals? How difficult can it be to deal with children that throw stones at tanks and use them as target practice? How difficult can it be to prevent fishermen from catching a few fish off Gaza when the Israeli Navy controls the shore with state of the art ships? How difficult can it be to control the lives of all Palestinians when the state can field 700 checkpoints throughout the West Bank and Gaza, surround the entire area with a cement and steel and electric wall that literally imprisons the entire people, imposes identification systems that control movement throughout the occupied territory with IDs and colored license plates, and controls all legal matters of recourse to justice by courts totally controlled by the Israeli state? This is justice? This is the American way? This is the best use of our 3 to 5 billion dollars every year to ensure peace in Palestine? What hypocrisy. What mockery of our purported democratic system. What a way to ensure that America is hated around the world. Yet this is what our legislators have bought for the American people by fawning before their benefactors at AIPAC.

You have heard of the injustice done to Israel by the "kidnapping" of three soldiers, the ostensible cause of Israel's invasion of Lebanon? Strange that word "kidnapping." Israel has over 11,000 Palestinians, hundreds of them children, incarcerated without charge. They have not been kidnapped. They are potential terrorists. Yet according to Geneva Conventions, occupied people can legally fight against their occupiers. "Kidnapping" becomes "capturing" an enemy soldier. States negotiate the exchange of prisoners, they do not attack an innocent nation. You have heard that individual Palestinians attack Israelis, even commit suicide to destroy innocent people, yet we never hear that Israel daily commits crimes against humanity as declared in the Geneva Conventions and in the UN Charter against masses of Palestinians by collective punishment, house demolition in the thousands, confiscation of homes and land, stealing of natural resources to supply the settlements, torture of prisoners, extrajudicial executions, all illegal, all done with the complicity of our Congress, in our name.

These are the representatives that are devoted to America's security, its standing before the international community, and human rights. They like the first lady last month (USA Today, October 10, 2007) proclaim their intense desire to ensure that human rights are protected ­ in Burma, in Darfur, in Pakistan, in all the hot spots on the globe, but not in Palestine. The only human rights we protect in Palestine are those of the occupiers.

We overlook how the occupiers train their teenage troops to act against the people they oppress. Dalia Karpel reported in Haaretz' Hebrew Weekend Supplement September 21, 2007 the nature of that training based on interviews with former IDF soldiers. Needless to say it was not reported in the American press. This report describes the research of Psychologist Nofer Ishai-Karen and Psychology Professor Joel Elizur of the Hebrew University. "We Israeli Soldiers ­ were put there to punish the Palestinians, says Ilan Vilenda, an Israeli soldier who served in Rafah during the first Intifada." "The soldiers enjoyed the 'intoxication of power', and had pleasure from using violence," according to the researchers. "What is great is that you don't have to follow any law or rule. You feel that YOU ARE THE LAW; you decide. Once you go into the Occupied Territories YOU ARE GOD." "We drove through Rafah. A man of 25 walked nearby. He didn't hurl a stone at us or anything. Then without any reason "X" shot him in the stomach. We left him lying on the sidewalk." "He captured a kid and broke his elbow. Broke the kid's elbow! Damn me if I'm not telling the truth! Then the NCO treaded on the kid's stomach three times, before he moved on. We couldn't believe our eyes But the next day we went on patrol with that guy and the soldiers started to imitate him." "A woman threw a stone at me. I kicked her with my foot at her crotch. I broke her. She can't have children any longer. Next time she won't throw sandals at me and when another woman spat at me she got the butt of my gun in her face. She can't spit now." "He was real big, some 30 years old. He refused detention. We hit him but couldn't force him down. We beat him and told him to lie down. Till he finally did. We drove to the base with him. By that time he had lost consciousness. He died some days later." These are the compassionate humanitarians that oversee the International laws that govern the responsibilities of the occupying forces. These are the soldiers we support. This is the way we protect America.

And so our legislators, fearing their own potential loss of their House or Senate seat, continue to support the desires of the Neo-cons and AIPAC and its fellows despite the condemnation of the world's communities that see nothing but hypocrisy in their behavior. What the world sees is simple enough if Americans were given the truth by its main stream media: "700 checkpoints that strangle the Palestinians' freedom of movement, 68 women forced to give birth at checkpoints since the year 2000, half of the babies died and four of the women, 18,000 houses have been demolished by Israel since 1967, often over the heads of their inhabitants In the old city of Hebron, 400 fanatical settlers ­ protected by Israeli Defense Force soldiers ­ hold 30,000 Palestinians to ransom. They stone and kick the inhabitants, while the Israeli army forbids Palestinians to drive ­ in some areas, even to walk ­ on the streets. I saw for myself the concrete blocks, rubbish and human excrement thrown down onto passing Palestinians by the illegal settlers occupying the flats above Arab shops.. The racist graffiti is shocking " ("Go and See the Truth for Yourself, I Did," Asad Khan, Special Registrar, Respiratory Medicine Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, UK, British Medical Journal, October 7, 2007).

So while our legislators dress appropriately in their double breasted suits, with their American flag lapel pins glowing in the ballroom lights at the AIPAC gala, as they grovel before the keypad denizens of the posh offices that turn out the legislation they will vote on in the following weeks, the people of Palestine suffer the humiliation, the suffering, the agony of the occupation, the illegal occupation, that our friends on K street impose on people they do not know or could care less about. Yet there are those in the Jewish community who suffer a like humiliation as they watch their compatriots commit their non-Jewish atrocities to further their rapid Zionist ends, and they, like us, must endure the corrosive rot of our constitution and Bill of Rights as the cowards in our Congress convince themselves that they are obedient to the word of their Christ and uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights even as they lift their cocktail glass in celebration of the latest resolution they've passed for their masters.

William Cook is a professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California and author of Tracking Depception: Bush's Mideast Policy. He can be reached at: cookb@ULV.EDU

By William Cook

7 Nov 2007

http://www.counterpunch.org/cook11072007.html

 

Nicaraguans awarded $3.2m over pesticides

Six Nicaraguan farmworkers have won $3.2m (£1.53m) in damages after a Los Angeles jury agreed that they had been rendered sterile by the use of a banned pesticide by the US company Dole Food.

The judgment is the first in what could be a series of lawsuits against the company, and marks the first time that foreign farmworkers have successfully sued the US food giant in a US court. Four more cases are pending in Los Angeles, brought by thousands of workers from Central America.

The pesticide, DBCP, was sprayed on banana crops at night. Its makers, Dow Chemical Co, claimed that it eradicated pests that attack roots and boosted the weight of banana crops by 20%. But its use was suspended in the US in 1977 after workers in California were found to have a low or zero sperm count. Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that Dole continued to use the chemical even though it was aware of the potential health risks. The chemical, argued Duane Miller, lead counsel for the workers, robbed the workers of their "male sexual identity".

Court papers showed that in the mid-1970s Dow warned Dole of the dangers associated with the chemical and ceased production. But Dole threatened to sue if Dow did not honour its pre-existing contract. Dole subsequently took delivery of 500,000 tonnes of the chemical, using much of it in Central America.

Stephen Hendricks of the Pesticide Action Network praised the decision. "It's good to see justice done for all these workers," he told the LA Times. But Dole officials said the firm would appeal against it. Courts in Nicaragua have already awarded $600m against Dole and other companies over use of the chemical.

By Dan Glaister / 7 Nov 2007

~ Link ~

 

Reviewing James Petras' "Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire"

"...Petras sees an inevitable split between wealth-first financial ruling class objectives and militarists in the Bush administration, their counterparts in Israel, and the Lobby representing Israeli interests with a stranglehold on most of Congress. The battle lines shape up over Israeli Middle East dominance at the cost of imperial overreach, an escalating trade deficit, a ballooning national debt, decreasing capital inflows to offset it, and a declining dollar as other nations move to euros, yen and pounds sterling. Something has to give, says Petras, as both sides support opposing agendas that only a crisis-provoking widespread backlash may resolve.

For now, however, things couldn't be better for the ruling class (despite their disrupted plans in Iraq and Afghanistan) with the top 2% of adults in the world owning half its wealth, the top 10% with 85% of it, and the bottom half with just 1%..."

by Steve Lendman

10 Oct 2007

James Petras is Binghamton University, New York Professor Emeritus of Sociology whose credentials and achievements are long and impressive. He's a noted academic figure on the left, a well-respected Latin American expert, and a longtime chronicler of the region's popular struggles as well as being an advisor to the landless workers (MST) in Brazil and unemployed workers in Argentina. Petras is also a prolific author. He's written hundreds of articles and 63 books (and counting), published in 29 languages, including his latest one and subject of this review – "Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire."

The book is information rich on a core issue of our time. It discusses the US empire's "systemic dimensions," evolving changes in its ruling class, its corporatist system, myths about its coming collapse, contradictions in the current debate on immigration and market liberalization policies, the use of force and genocidal carnage, corruption as a market penetrating tool, the Israeli Lobby's power and influence, Latin American relations and events in the region, social and armed resistance, and much more in four power-packed parts under 17 subject chapter headings.

It's all covered below giving readers a detailed sampling of Petras' thoroughly documented, powerful and insightful account of his subject – who rules America, who's ruled, the US imperial role in the world economy and politics, and challenges to it in China, Latin America and the Middle East. This is another must-read book by a distinguished intellect and major figure on the left who writes dozens of them. This is his latest.

Part I: The US Empire As A System

Petras distinguishes between who sets policies and rules America and whose interests are served. He defines the ruling class as "people in key positions in financial, corporate and other business institutions" with rules "established, modified and adjusted" as the composition and "shifts in power" within the ruling class change over time. One example is manufacuring's decline (from outsourcing to low cost countries) as a "multidimensional financial sector" (finance capital) rose in prominence with Wall Street's influence especially dominant.

Petras defines "finance capital" to include investment banks, pension funds, hedge funds, saving and loan banks, investment funds and many other "operative managers" of a multi-trillion dollar economy they've all benefitted hugely from. They've been the driving force powering real estate and financial markets speculation, agribusiness, commodity production and manufacturing. Petras calls "finance capital" the "midwife" of wealth and capital as well as a "direct owner of the means of production and distribution."

He stratifies it into three sub-groups from top to bottom in importance: big private equity bankers and hedge fund managers, Wall street executives, and senior officials of private and Wall Street public equity funds as well as major figures in top law and accounting firms. Political leaders are drawn from their ranks with Wall Street in the lead and one firm in particular standing out – Goldman Sachs. Today, its former CEO Henry Paulson is the de facto US economic czar in charge of proving doomsayers wrong about the US economy with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's money creation power partnered with him. Both of them must also navigate around the powerful Israeli Lobby and its pro-war agenda that could lead to catastrophic consequences if the US and/or Israel attack Iran and the Middle East explodes and disrupts oil flows.

Petras sees an inevitable split between wealth-first financial ruling class objectives and militarists in the Bush administration, their counterparts in Israel, and the Lobby representing Israeli interests with a stranglehold on most of Congress. The battle lines shape up over Israeli Middle East dominance at the cost of imperial overreach, an escalating trade deficit, a ballooning national debt, decreasing capital inflows to offset it, and a declining dollar as other nations move to euros, yen and pounds sterling. Something has to give, says Petras, as both sides support opposing agendas that only a crisis-provoking widespread backlash may resolve.

For now, however, things couldn't be better for the ruling class (despite their disrupted plans in Iraq and Afghanistan) with the top 2% of adults in the world owning half its wealth, the top 10% with 85% of it, and the bottom half with just 1%. The result is an unprecedented wealth disparity with corporate CEO's on average earning over 400 times the median income of wage and salaried workers, and for top-earning speculators and hedge fund managers the ratio is 1000 to one with some having incomes topping a billion dollars a year. In addition, corporate wealth was at a record 43% of 2005 national income accruing to profits, rents and other non-wage/salary sources compared to a declining percentage of it to individuals, except for those at the top gaining hugely.

Petras states: "The growth of monstrous and rigid class inequalities reflects the narrow social base of an economy dominated by finance capital" with the US redistributing far less to its people than other developed nations like those in Western Europe. Democrats are as culpable as Republicans with both parties tied to big monied interests through campaign funding and the power of lobbies. It makes everyone in the political power structure unwilling to change things so they don't. The result is working Americans suffer hugely while those at the top never had it so good. It signals warnings of a potential worker backlash ahead that for now have gone unheeded. Elitists ignore it at their peril, so far without negative consequences to their dominance, but watch out.

Capitalism or US Workers in Crisis?

Petras notes how for years many on the left and some in the financial community have been predicting the "coming collapse, decline or demise of capitalism" as though (for some) wishing would make it so. They're still predicting, but it hasn't happened, and Petras explains why not. It's because business and government partnered (especially since the 1980s) to let workers take the pain so business could gain and prosper. It's done it hugely and continues to despite the resurgent summer doomsday predictions still ongoing.

In a letter to clients, noted investment manager Jeremy Grantham explained why business is resilient by comparing the global financial system (with its US anchor) to a giant suspension bridge. Thousands of bolts hold it together, so when some of them fail, even a lot of them, it's not enough to bring it down. Short of "broad-based[…].financial metal fatigue," even more bolts may fail, but he's betting the bridge will hold, supported by amazing "animal spirits," at least for now.

Grantham is likely right in the near term, while Petras takes a longer view, and his arguments are compelling. He sees labor today in crisis with living standards declining the result of reduced or eliminated business benefits, government services and stagnating wages. He also lists popular myths predicting doom ahead – the growing budget and current account deficits; ballooning national debt; excess speculation; weakening dollar; high energy costs; outsourcing of jobs at all levels, and more. Petras maintains these problems aren't as serious as claimed because:

budget deficits declined in 2006 as tax revenues rose from high-end earners' greater income at the expense of labor getting less;

foreign investment in the US remains high;

the dollar remains the world's reserve currency; over time, it weakens and strengthens based on interest rates, political events, and the overall level of economic activity; nonetheless, the dollar weakened considerably after the Fed cut interest rates and depreciated to an all-time low against a basket of six of its major peer currencies that include the euro, pound and yen; in addition, the New York Board of Trade index hit its weakest level since it came out in 1973, and the same is true for the Fed's trade-weighted dollar index since its creation in 1971; what's ahead? Likely more of the same until everyone believes the dollar is dead; then, watch out;

a decade-long trade deficit hasn't caused apocalypse;

strong economic underpinnings (Grantham's giant suspension bridge) offset excess speculation, and workers, not capital, take the pain;

high energy profits overseas are recycled back into dollar-based investments and have been for years although countries like Iran, Venezuela and others are moving away from the dollar at least for now;

the potential of new technologies is underestimated;

corporate profits have had their longest ever run of double-digit gains; the number of millionaires and billionaires is growing; the rich are becoming super-rich; and the beneficiaries are largely in North America, Western Europe (plus Russia) and Asia.

Petras concludes that as long as worker exploitation continues, the fundamental law of "casino capitalism" applies – the house never loses, or in this case the neighborhood (of developed nations) with some in it doing better than others and the US their anchor. The weakness of US labor and its history of overpaid, underperforming, corrupted leaders explains why with only 7.4% today in the private sector organized compared to 34.7% in the 1950s. Unless new social and political movements surface under activist leaders, Marx's "dirty secret" and Adam Smith's "vile maxim of the masters of mankind" will continue proving "the wealth of all nations" depends on the rich taking it "all for ourselves and (leaving) nothing for" the working class.

Market Liberalization and Forced Emigration

Migration and so-called illegal immigrants make headlines but never the reasons why that are two-fold: fleeing political strife (as in Iraq) or for economic reasons that the imperial globalized market system causes horrifically. The latter forces millions of Mexicans el norte because of NAFTA. Its disastrous effects on their lives leaves them no choice – emigrate or perish.

Petras explains when protective trade barriers come down, millions of small farmers and entrepreneurs are no match for the power of subsidized agribusiness, big manufacturers and corporate service providers. They're displaced when their livelihoods are lost, and that creates a huge surplus army of labor on the move and an opportunity for business to exploit for profit. It affects all skill types and levels (farm workers to computer specialists to doctors), undermines unions, and allows management to replace higher-paid US workers with low-wage immigrants at their mercy and getting little. Pay is kept low, benefits few or none, working conditions unsafe, unions weakened, and dare complain and be sent home.

Petras notes that as imperial power grows, "the massive movement of dislocated workers toward the imperial center multiplies," and there's no end in sight nor will there be as long as highly exploitative sectors like agriculture, construction and low-end manufacturing and services thrive on it. Workers lose and so do "sender" countries. They bore the costs of raising, educating, training and providing services for millions with "receiver" nations getting the benefits. It amounts to multi-billions in the form of critically needed skilled areas lost that include professionals like doctors, nurses, teachers and others. This won't ever change unless worker movements unite against it.

Empire-Building and Corruption

Petras notes how empire-building "is the driving force of the US economy (especially post-9/11)," corruption a key corporate predator tool to re-divide the world, and nations with the greatest firepower get the choicest slices. Business profit growth depends on exploiting overseas opportunities for their resources, markets and cheap reserve armies of labor with four so-called "BRIC" countries especially targeted:

China for its cheap labor and opportunities in finance, insurance and real estate;

India for its low cost information technology services;

Brazil for its high interest rates that hit 19.5%, were then greatly cut, but are still around 11%; and

Russia for its high profit oil and gas reserves, transport and luxury goods markets with booming opportunities in real estate once political leaders are bought off in a country rife with corruption as is China.

Petras notes that today over half the top 500 transnational corporations earn most of their profits overseas, and for many it's 75% of it. This trend will continue, he says, as these companies shift most of their operations abroad for greater cost savings. In addition, "political corruption, not economic efficiency, is the driving force of economic empire-building (with) the scale and scope of Western pillage of the East[…].unprecedented in recent world history." It's from business-friendly legislation on low wages, pensions, job tenure, land use, worker safety and health, all designed for maximum profit. Political leaders are bought off to get state-owned businesses privatized, markets deregulated, wages kept low, with a huge reserve army of exploitable labor the payoff for "the US Imperial System."

Hierarchy of Empire and Use of Force

Petras explains the US imperial system in terms of its "hierarchy of empire" rankings. Imperial powers top it (the US, EU and Japan) followed by emerging powers (China, Russia, India), semi-autonomous client regimes (Brazil, South Korea, South Africa), and collaborator regimes on the bottom (Egypt, Mexico, Colombia). Then come independent "revolutionary" (social democratic) states like Venezuela and nationalist ones like Iran as well as "contested terrain and regimes in transition (Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Palestine)." Client regimes provide "a crucial link in sustaining imperial powers" by allowing them to project and extend their state and market reach.

One "anomaly" in the hierarchy is Israel. It's a colonialist and nuclear power and world's fourth largest military power and arms exporter that's breathtaking for a country of 7.1 million and 5.4 million Jews. It's influence over US Middle East policy, however, inordinately outweighs its size with Iraq exhibit A and Iran moving up fast. More on this below.

Petras notes the constant flux within the imperial system the result of wars, national struggles and economic crises. They bring down regimes and elevate others with examples like Russia, the Eastern European states, South Africa and Venezuela. It shows "no singular omnipotent imperial state[…].unilaterally defines the international or[…].imperial system (that in the case of the US) proved incapable of[…].defeating popular[…].resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Even in Somalia, a US proxy war is in trouble, but it's too early to predict the outcome. The easy 2006 overthrow of the popular Islamic Courts Union (ICU) put an unsupported warlord regime in charge (that plundered the country from 1991 – 2005) with predictable results – strong resistance against the US puppet regime and its deeply corrupted Transitional Federal Government (TFG) "president," Abdullahi Yusuf.

Washington backed a hated regime and an equally detested Ethiopian government that's been "prop(ping) up its Somali puppet" with a lift from US-supported force. Earlier in 1993-94, the Clinton administration's intervention failed. It spawned mass opposition, took thousands of Somali lives in retaliation, and ended in defeat and a humiliating US pullout. That may repeat despite Washington's establishing an African Command (AFRICOM) to solidify its hold on the continent and its strategically important Horn. So far, it's very much up for grabs with US presence in the region unwelcome and greatly destabilizing. The "empire" never learns, so it's on to the next target that looks like Iran. More on that below.

Imperialism and Genocide

Petras explains how Korea, Vietnam and other wars hid their true cost in lives, devastation and human wreckage. It's the way of all empires sweeping over populations like crabgrass. It becomes "an accelerating predisposition to genocides to accomplish political aims," and in an age of "shock and awe," it can come with "awesome" speed. An example is from the latest O.R.B. British polling data reporting 1.2 million Iraqi deaths since March, 2003 alone plus another 1.5 million up to that date. The true toll may be even higher with huge uncounted numbers of daily violent and non-violent deaths that one estimate by Gideon Polya places at 3.9 million from 1990 to the present. No one knows for sure, and his estimate may be as good as any other. All of them are horrific.

Petras notes the "quantity" of killings elsewhere – six million Jews and 20 million Soviet civilians in WW II as well as 10 million Chinese civilians in Asia. He explains genocide as policy from a "state (promoted) racialist-exterminationist ideology (as well as from) an historical antipathy of one culture to another." This allows ruling classes to legitimize their ideology and achieve "uncontested dominance" and ability to economically exploit domestic and overseas markets. An omelet requires breaking eggs. Mass human slaughter is the frequent fallout from consolidating empires with living beings having no more worth than egg shells.

Genocides also result from revolutionary challenges to unpopular puppet rulers with Korea, Indo-China and Iraq Exhibits A, B, and C. Up to eight million perished in Asia, and three (or maybe four) million could be reached in Iraq in 2008 at the present pace. There's no end to it in sight with billions funding it, and no reporting on the carnage in the mainstream.

Petras reviews examples of imperialism becoming genocide with the Reagan administration alone responsible for its share. It committed multiple proxy genocides in Africa, Afghanistan and Central America, but you'd never know it from reports at the time about a president being prepped for Mount Rushmore with a spot for George Bush beside him until Iraq got him in trouble.

Another unreported genocide is Israel's six decade-long crusade against the Palestinians with predicable results. It caused many thousands of deaths, mass population displacement, and excessive use of detentions and torture to deny a people freedom and justice in their own land. The policy continues because Israel has a powerful ally in Washington and an even more influential Lobby working on its behalf. More on that below.

Petras notes genocides are "repeated, common practices," impunity for committing them the norm, and no effective international order is in place to stop them. Victors justice prevails so victims face kangaroo tribunals like the ICTY for Yugoslavia and the equally corrupted one for Iraq. Genocides will only end when imperial powers are defeated and their leaders held to account for their crimes, but that goal is nowhere in sight.

The Global Billionaire Ruling Class

The number of world billionaires reached 946 in March, 2007, they have an estimated combined wealth of $3.5 trillion, and over half of them are in three countries – 415 in the US, 55 in Germany and 53 in Russia where never did so many people lose more so a handful of others could gain so hugely in so short a time. India ranks high as well with 36 billionaires with China next in the region at 20. The number of millionaires exploded as well with close to 10 million in 2007, and in 2006 their numbers grew by an estimated 8.3%.

Balzac was right saying behind every great fortune is a crime (and most often a small fortune as seed money) but likely nowhere more rapaciously than in Russia. Petras notes "Without exception, the transfers of (state) property were achieved through gangster tactics – assassinations, massive theft, and seizure of state resources, illicit stock manipulation and buyouts." They strip mined over a trillion dollars of Russia's wealth into private predatory hands who, in turn, stuffed them in offshore accounts. It happens everywhere with the US exhibit A. The Rockefellers, Morgans, Fords and Carnegie's didn't amass wealth by being neighborly or nice. They got it the old-fashioned way – by strong-arming and stealing.

In developing countries, it came faster under Washington Consensus rules favoring capital over people with billionaires coming out on top. Latin America has 38 of them, mostly in Brazil (with 30) and Mexico (with industrialist Carlos Slim Helu now the world's third richest man). These "two countries[…]. privatized the most lucrative, efficient and largest public monopolies," and benefitted hugely from regressive taxes, tax exemptions, deregulation, big subsidies, and the ability to hike prices and make vital services unaffordable to millions who can't pay for them.

"How to become a billionaire," Petras asked. No need for an MBA or market savvy when the "interface of politics (aka friends in high places) and economics" works much better. The road to super-riches came from privatized state assets that began with bloody military coups in Latin America. In countries like Chile, Colombia and Argentina, results were always the same – great riches at the top, stagnant economies, vast poverty, high unemployment, two-thirds of the region's population with "inadequate living standards," and the long shadow of US involvement backing military dictators, business elites, and neoliberal politicians to assure lucrative ties to corporate interests in America. More on this below.

Part II – The Power of Israel and Its Lobby in the US

Petras covered how the Israeli Lobby defeated the Jim Baker Iraq Study Group's (ISG) proposal released December 6, 2006. Its alternative US Middle East agenda lost out to the Israeli Lobby's influence on Congress, a massive supportive propaganda campaign in the major media, and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert being as able to "have the US president under our control" as Ariel Sharon once boasted.

For a time it looked like the ISG plan would prevail with top Bush advisors recommending dialogue with Iran; high-ranking military, active and retired, wanting a phased withdrawal for a failed effort; and the Army, Navy and Marine Corps weekly publications wanting Defense Secretary Rumsfeld sacked shortly before he resigned. Even Big Oil interests backed Baker because stable conditions favor business more than conflict (at least to pump oil), and that won't happen without a change of course now off the table.

Iran wants rapprochement as well but not on the usual US terms – making demands and offering nothing in return. Iran's objectives are simple and reasonable – normalized relations and an end to Washington's confrontational stance and military threats. They're off the table because the "Israel-First power structure (Lobby-Congress-Mass Media-Democratic Party Donors)" reject them. Syria is just as compliant, but its overtures are also rebuffed for the same reason.

Petras explained that AIPAC wants war with Iran as its top priority objective. In addition, the publications, conferences and press releases of the Conference of Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations (CPMAJO) asked their members "to go all-out to fund and back candidates (mostly Democrats) who supported Israel's military solution to Iran's nuclear enrichment program" even though IAEA agrees it's in total compliance with Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty rules while Israel violates them with impunity.

In the end, Prime Minister Olmert co-opted George Bush, got him to reject the ISG proposal and ally with Israel's aim to solidify its Middle East dominance by removing a non-existent Iranian threat with Syria also targeted. In many respects, this flies in the face of logic as many influential US figures know. Petras believes Iran is a key interlocutor for a Middle East settlement that might let Washington retain its strategic Arab allies. Tehran is willing to cooperate but not when its government is lumped with Al-Queda, the Taliban and Iraqi resistance and is being threatened with war. That's the current condition with renewed Bush administration efforts to prep the public to accept more of it if it comes.

Hamas also has been conciliatory. Its leaders made two peace proposals as a show of good faith, is willing to recognize Israel if Palestinians get justice, pledged a cease-fire in the face of Israeli attacks, and was rebuffed with rejection and an Israeli blockade of Gaza along with frequent hostile incursions. Conflicts rage in Iraq and occupied Palestine, more war threatens in Iran, and the road to peace in the region runs through Jerusalem providing Washington concurs. But it's not possible, in Petras' judgment, unless foreign military bases are closed, there's public control or nationalization of the region's resources, and Israel ends its colonial occupation of Palestine. So far, those objectives are nowhere in sight.

The Lobby and Media on Lebanon

In Petras' powerful 2006 book, "The Power of Israel in the United States," he documented how this power derives from a vast pro-Israel Lobby in the country supporting all aspects of its agenda. It's position is firm – "Israel is always right, Arabs and Muslims are a threat to peace," and the US should unconditionally support Israel across the board. In Petras' view, that's the main reason why the Bush administration attacked Iraq and may now target Iran and Syria. Israel perceives these countries as threats, Washington seems willing to remove them, and a chorus of media-driven propaganda approves.

They always support Israel and jumped right in last summer backing "Operation Change of Direction" against Hezbollah and "Operation Summer Rain" against Hamas that caused many hundreds of deaths and mass destruction. It was all papered over in the major media and characterized as Israel's "defensive, existential war for survival against Islamic terrorists." It was pure baloney. In fact, and unreported, Israel launched dual long-planned aggressive wars with Hezbollah's capture of three IDF soldiers in Lebanon the pretext and Hamas taking one Israeli corporal the justification in occupied Palestine. Never mentioned are the many thousands of Palestinians illegally abducted, imprisoned and tortured, and that unprovoked aggressive wars and their fallout are war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Also unmentioned is that if Hezbollah and Hamas hadn't provided the pretexts, Israel (as it's often done) would have manufactured them to launch its summer aggression. With full US support and backing from its Lobby and dominant media, these type actions continue at the expense of their victims with US taxpayers duped into funding them generously.

US Empire and the Middle East

Petras notes key factors help explain US Middle East policy that in his judgment are "challenged from within and without, are subject to sharp contradictions," and are likely to fail.

First, is the influence of the Israeli Lobby he documented powerfully as have Mearsheimer and Walt in their work. It's likely the most potent lobby in Washington and can practically mobilize the entire Congress, every administration and the dominant media to back pro-Israeli policies even when they run counter to US corporate interests that in Middle East means those of Big Oil primarily.

The Lobby wanted war with Iraq and got it. Now its top priority is stiff sanctions and war on Iran, and if the orchestrated media hate frenzy targeting President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Columbia University address September 24 is an indication, it may get it. As Petras notes, the Lobby's fanatical support for Israel is so extreme and uncompromising, it's even willing to risk world war and economic collapse to get its way.

Another key factor is the US ability to enlist and co-op client states and proxy forces to serve our interests – the Kurds in Northern Iraq; the Abbas-Dahlan Fatah militants in Palestine; the Sinoria-Hariri-Jumblat pro-US/Israel, anti-Syria/Hezbollah/Hamas alliance in Lebanon; Mubarak in Egypt; King Hussein in Jordan; pro-US regimes in Turkey; the Saudis and others.

Petras then explains how the Israeli Lobby's influence runs counter to the US "Arab agenda." It shows up in Washington's failure to construct a NATO-style power-sharing alliance in the region, except for Turkey and Israel, and the former may not prove solid. The Iraq policy has been disastrous, each tactic tried failed, resistance is unabated, the Arab street overwhelmingly rejects occupation, and Arab leaders offer tepid support.

Petras calls Washington's permanent war strategy (next targeting Iran and Syria) "an irrational gamble comparable to Hitler's attack on Russia" that doomed him. Today in the Middle East, attacking these two countries may only compound the Iraq failure with "greater defeats, greater domestic rebellion" and still more wars without end promising gloomy prospects ahead.

Part III – The Possibility of Resistance

Petras discusses China and the "general consensus (it's) emerging as the next economic superpower" to challenge US dominance. Petras expresses doubts that can only be summarized briefly. He notes Chinese capitalism not only depends on growth and the ability to generate jobs, but also on "the social relations of production, circulation and reproduction." They come at a high price – ferocious labor exploitation, rampant corruption and nepotism, mass small farmer displacement, firing millions of workers from state-owned and bankrupt enterprises, ending social services, and higher living costs increasing class warfare in the streets against billionaire kleptocrats and foreign investors profiting hugely at the expense of most Chinese.

Petras then distinguishes between "made in China" and Chinese-owned and whether the former enhances China's growth or foreign investor profits instead. He sees China taking on "features of both a neo-colony and an emerging imperial power," but mostly the former. He notes the standard of living for most Chinese "declined precipitously;" air, water and ground pollution greatly increased; the quality of life for most Chinese suffers; class inequalities are vast; and gains from a consumerist society for a minority of the population are offset by dirty air, loss of leisure, job security, near rent-free housing, state-provided health care and education, deteriorated working conditions and more. Paradise it's not, at least for workers, and conditions aren't improving.

Petras then discusses China's transition from state to "liberal" capitalism. As it deepened, trade barriers were dismantled; protective labor laws abolished; price controls lifted; the countryside ravaged; a massive new army of unemployed workers created; and an export-driven market strategy followed. The result today is a new class of billionaires and about 2900 former party "princelings" who control around $260 billion of wealth. In addition, property, real estate and construction boomed, an export strategy concentrated development on coastal regions, and domestic consumption is relatively constrained.

In contrast, "millions of construction workers, miners, domestic servants and assembly-line workers (labor) under the most abominable conditions" – long hours, low pay, awful sanitary conditions and little regard for safety in an unregulated environment structured for maximum profit. China today is a "magnet for capitalists and investors worldwide," a free market paradise that's hell on workers paying hugely for the country's marketplace "success."

Petras envisions China's capitalism deepening and mainly benefitting foreign investors. He sees their "initial beachheads as minority shareholders" extending into production, distribution, transport, real estate, telecommunications, consumer goods and services, entertainment, finance and more and eventually gaining more control. As a result, he believes China's next great leap forward will be from liberalism to neoliberalism, the country will lose its national identity, it will become a "territorial outpost" for foreign-owned transnationals, and the country's bid for world power status will be subverted.

Petras sees 21st century China emerging as a "gigantic proxy for imperial powers," but China won't be one of them. Its "Great Leap Backwards" will be consummated when the nation's "share of profits shifts from the national bourgeoisie" to foreign investors in a process now accelerating.

But it won't come easily as a new generation of China's leaders may stop or curtail it. In addition, growing mass resistance has now emerged for obvious reasons cited above. Already, close to 100,000 mass demonstrations have occurred involving millions of Chinese protesting a workers' hell. Social crisis is deepening, class struggle has returned, and the government has taken note. It's beginning to address concerns but giving back pathetically little considering China's massive population. Petras calls these remediating actions "too little and too late." Ahead he sees decentralized protests becoming organized urban worker movements that when joined with displaced farmers may set off a new rebellious period. This may then blossom into "a new revolutionary struggle" that will determine China's future and its climate for investors.

The US and Latin America

Petras has studied Latin America for decades and knows the region as well as anyone. Here he dispels notions of a revitalized regional populism with US dominance waning. His case is compelling as he argues Washington's influence has increased in recent years (though not to the level of the 1990s) despite the success of Hugo Chavez and his ability to thwart US efforts to unseat him.

The Bush administration lost out on FTAA but has had other successes:

bilateral trade agreements with numerous Latin American states from the Caribbean to Chile;

an expanded number of military bases despite the possible loss of one in Ecuador ahead;

US business interests in the region flourishing, including in Venezuela where they're booming; and

neoliberal free market policies intact despite campaign rhetoric promising change.

Aside from Venezuela and maybe Ecuador (where it's too soon to tell), the left's appraisal of progressive change is nowhere in sight, so what are they seeing that's not there.

Petras assesses the current state of things in the region after reviewing its recent history readers can get from the book. He notes signs of Washington's declining influence that's had no adverse affect on corporate interests except in Venezuela where taxes are now fair compared to earlier when they were too low. He also explains so-called center-left regimes in Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Uruguay and elsewhere tamed mass social movement demands while embracing 1990s neoliberalism. In Brazil, if fact, President Lula da Silva actually deepened and extended the privatization and restrictive budget policies of the preceding Cardoso regime, and despite his Workers Party background, demobilized mass movements and trade unions instead of supporting them as people expected. Many now see him for what he is – a traitor, but sadly, he's got company, too much of it.

Of great significance is the way Petras explains four competing regional power blocs representing varying degrees of accommodation or opposition to US policies and interests.

1. The Radical Left

It includes:

the FARC guerillas in Colombia (active since 1964); some trade union sectors; and peasant and barrio movements in Venezuela;

the labor confederation CONLUTAS and sectors of Brazil's Rural Landless Movement (MST);

sectors of the Bolivian Labor Confederation (COB) and the Andean peasant movements and barrio organizations in El Alto;

peasant movement sectors (CONAIE) in Ecuador;

teachers and peasant-indigenous movements in Oaxaca, Guerrero and Chiapas, Mexico;

nationalist-peasant-left sectors in Peru;

trade unionist and unemployed sectors in Argentina; and

other Central and South American social movements and some Marxist groups in several countries.

2. The Pragmatic Left

Hugo Chavez in Venezuela who combines grassroots participatory democracy and redistributive social policies with support for business interests;

Evo Morales in Bolivia;

Fidel Castro in Cuba;

various large electoral parties and major peasant and trade unions in the region; leftist parties including the PRD in Mexico, FMLN in El Salvador, CUT in Colombia, Chilean Communist Party, Peru's nationalist parliamentary party, sectors of Brazil's MST, Bolivia's MAS governing party, CTA in Argentina, and PIT-CNT in Uruguay.

3. The Pragmatic Neoliberals (the most numerous political block)

Lula in Brazil;

Kirchner in Argentina;

the major trade union confederations in Brazil and Argentina;

business and financial elite sectors providing subsistence unemployment doles and food aid; and

similar groups in Ecuador, Nicaragua (the Sandinistas and their split-offs), Paraguay and other countries.

4. The Doctrinaire Neoliberal Regimes

Calderon in Mexico;

Uribe in Colombia;

Bachelet in Chile (in spite of her being imprisoned and tortured under Pinochet);

the Central American countries: El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica and Guatemala;

Garcia in Peru;

Paraguay with the region's largest military base;

Uruguay's ex-leftist regime now rightist;

US-occupied Haiti through proxy thuggish paramilitary UN peacekeepers; and

the Dominican Republic.

The notion that populism swept Latin America in the new century is pure fantasy. In fact, there's a "quadrangle of competing and conflicting" regional forces with Washington having less market leverage than in the 1990s "Golden Age of Pillage" but still enough to be dominant and able to keep business flourishing.

Petras continues his analysis with detailed examples of key center-left regimes in Brazil under Lula, Argentina under Kirchner, Uruguay under Vazquez, Bolivia under Morales plus some comments on Peru and Ecuador under leaders preceding their current ones. Each case substantiates the fantasy that these regimes represented "new winds from the Left" sweeping the region. Hot air maybe, but little, if anything, in the way of progressive change despite the beliefs of many intellectuals on the left.

However, that's not to say leftist forces aren't strong enough to bubble up and bring change. Insurrectionary forces brought Evo Morales to power in Bolivia and can take him down if he fails them as he's now doing. The same is true in other countries with Hugo Chavez their model. He challenged US imperialism, brought real social change, has mass public support and thus far withstood US efforts to oust him. In Cuba, Fidel Castro thwarted every Washington effort against him since 1959 and is still in charge, larger than life, although frail and weak following his protracted illness from which he's still recovering. Petras sees a new generation of young committed leaders emerging in the region. "They are the 'Left Winds' of Latin America," and it's in them that hope lies.

Foreign Investment (FI) in Latin America

Petras demystifies FI's impact, explains the risks in attracting it, and exposes six myths about its benefits.

Myth 1.

It's untrue FI creates new enterprises, market opportunities and more. Most, in fact, aims to buy privatized and other enterprises while crowding out local capital and public initiative.

Myth 2.

FI doesn't increase export competitiveness. It buys mineral resources for export with little done to create jobs or stimulate the local economy.

Myth 3.

It's false to think FI provides tax revenue and hard currency. An FI export model creates more indebtedness and a net loss.

Myth 4.

It's false believing debt repayments to international lenders is key to a good financial standing. Much foreign debt is odious and repaying it harms borrower countries.

Myth 5.

It's false believing FI provides developing countries needed capital. It's used instead to buy local companies and control a country's markets.

Myth 6.

It's false believing FI attracts further investment. Capital freely moves to wherever it gets the best returns and is anchored nowhere.

Developing countries benefit most by relying less on FI and more on national ownership and investment. The former is predatory. The latter accrues profits to the national treasury and grows the country's economy. FI demands conditions favoring capital over labor that results in a widening economic gap and greater inequalities in political and social power. The 20 year (1980 – 2000) record of Latin American FI is socially disastrous. Living standards plunged while unemployment and poverty soared. Hardly reasons to attract it and clear ones to stay away or restrict it.

Part IV – An Agenda for Militants

Petras considers FI economic alternatives and ways to buck its strategic countermeasures. FI generally threatens disinvestment when a country wants to enhance its own economy and benefit popular living standards. Hardball tactics cut both ways, and the state can use its own effectively to counter capital flight threats as well as adopt policies in advance serving its needs first ahead of those FI wants to have things its own way.

Petras notes that FI "is incompatible with any notion of an independent, socially progressive country" even though at times it can be useful in a regulated environment controlling it. He explains a country's own financial and economic resources can be used instead of FI to enhance its internal development and technological advance by reinvesting profits from export industries; controlling foreign trade to increase retention of foreign exchange; investing pension funds productively; imposing a moratorium on debt payments; recovering stolen public treasury funds and unpaid taxes; maximizing under-employed labor, and more.

Most countries can avoid FI by relying on multiple sources of its own capital. They can also employ alternative effective strategies when outside help is needed by minimizing its ownership, employing short-term contracts on favorable terms, imposing stiff penalties on capital flight, and barring it from returning if it leaves. Petras concludes: "The historical and empirical evidence demonstrates that the political, economic and social drawbacks of (FI) far exceed any short-term benefits perceived by its defenders."

The Middle Class and Social Movements in Latin America

Petras observes that middle class attitudes in the region depend on the "political-economic context" confronting it. It's attracted to the right under expanding right-wing regimes and to the left in times of economic crisis. On the other hand, under a "popular, anti-dictatorial, anti-imperialist populist government, the middle class supports democratic reforms" but not radical policies harming it for the benefit of the working class. Three examples make his case – in Brazil under Lula when it took over his Workers Party; in Argentina when it benefitted under Menem and Cardoso and later under Kirchner; and in Bolivia under Morales who combines "political demagogy" to his base and neoliberal IMF austerity in his policies attractive to middle class and business interests.

Petras notes social movements failed by not developing political leadership or a program for state power and depended instead on "electoral politicians of the upwardly mobile professional middle class." The Left's key challenge, he believes, is to "convert the public sector middle class from anti-neoliberalism to anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism, and to combine urban welfare (with) agrarian reform."

Iraq and Afghanistan's Importance in Defeating the Empire

Petras concludes by noting Washington's imperial wars were stopped in their tracks in Iraq and Afghanistan by resistance too powerful to contain. A "shock and awe" blitzkrieg failed when Iraqis wanted a say in running, rebuilding and transforming their country and rejected its US-installed puppet regime. The country is a wasteland, the nation creation project bankrupt, and the prospect for success bad and worsening with multi-billions expended and nothing gained except huge profits for administration favored contractors that always benefit whoever wins or loses.

The same situation holds in Afghanistan. An easy five week walkover turned into an endless debacle with no end in sight. Washington planned successive wars for unchallengeable world dominance, but local resistance in two countries stopped it cold (so far), may defeat its proxies in Somalia, and resilient opposition in Palestine and South Lebanon may prove equally formidable as well.

The US is now over-extended and its "imperial grand strategy" weakened. It's made preemptive wars against Iran and Syria and trying again to topple Hugo Chavez less likely, but none of these possibilities are off the table. Cornered and facing defeat, rhetoric is heated making anything possible, and the September 20 Lieberman-Kyl "Sense of the Senate" (no legal force) resolution/amendment to the FY 2008 Defense Authorization bill ratchets up the possibility of attacking Iran and its regional "proxies" with potentially catastrophic fallout the risk.

For now, emboldened resistance and strong anti-war opposition are matched against an administration desperate to turn things around and willing to try anything to do it. How this may end is a crapshoot, the stakes on its outcome too great to risk but may be waged anyway, and the world trembles as it waits and watches. Stay tuned and hope Petras is right believing Iraq and Afghanistan thwarted the empire and prevented further aggression against Iran and beyond, now off the table. Or maybe not. When wounded and cornered, desperate animals and politicians may try anything with nothing to lose. Keep a close watch.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

www.doublestandards.org/lendman4.html