Jack Layton May Have Sold Out for Nothing

I mentioned yesterday being surprised that every single NDP voted in favour of bombing the hell out of Libya.

Layton performed his usual posturing, saying yes drop those 1000 bombs, but then I'm going to say enough. What an amazing blowhard he has turned out to be.

Well, Jack, you may have sold out a little too soon. Apparently Gaddafi is now negotiating with the rebels.

I know that the NDP could not stop Harper, but a "no" vote would have been symbolic. For years those on the left have been critical of the Liberals, for too often supporting American Imperialism. The NDP would never do that, or so we were led to believe.

Well, guess what? Not only would they, but they did.

And in a surprising twist, the Republicans are questioning the U.S. reason for the "mission". (bombs for oil)

Republican leaders demanded a written justification of military involvement in Libya from President Barack Obama on Wednesday as the traditionally hawkish party shows signs of losing its appetite for war.

This puts the NDP just right of the Republicans.

Poor Harper. If there is a truce, and peace is negotiated with Gaddafi's son, and a promised election on their terms, what is he going to do with all those damn bombs? $130 million worth.

What a screwed up country we've become. And just think. Another 4-5 years of a Harper majority with Jack Layton "holding the bully's coat". I'm so thrilled.

What is Really Going on in Libya?

I can't help feeling that this so called "mission" in Libya is just more blood for oil. You can't save people by bombing them, and yet we are bombing the hell out of the place.

I'm no fan of Muammar Qaddafi, but the oil companies were, and in 2008, lobbied the U.S. government on Qaddafi's behalf.

Steve Mufson writes in the Washington Post:

It struck some visitors to the Houston office of ConocoPhillips chief executive Jim Mulva as peculiar that he displayed a photograph of himself and Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi.

They were an odd couple: a veteran of corporate politics at a U.S. oil company and the colonel who had survived four decades of confrontation with the West while maintaining repressive rule over his North African nation.

But we learn from Wikileaks, that the love affair ended when the Libyan dictator began making demands that the oil companies pay more. Big mistake.

After making some very compelling arguments against extending the "mission", I was surprised that the NDP supported the continuation of this war.

Apparently, only Elizabeth May voted for sanity.

Canada has also announced its support for the National Transitional Council, which surprisingly already boasts a bank and national oil company. Its interim leader, Mustafa Abdul Jalil , seems a decent sort, but what do we really know of this group?

In 2007, Westpoint tied several factions to Al Qaeda and according to the UK Telegraph:

The result of the present inquiry is that the Libyan branch of Al Qaeda represents a continuum with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group centered in Darnah and Benghazi. The ethnic base of the Libyan Islamic fighting group is apparently to be found in the anti-Qaddafi Harabi tribe, the tribe which makes up the vast majority of the rebel council including the two dominant rebel leaders, Abdul Fatah Younis and Mustafa Abdul Jalil. The evidence thus suggests that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, the elite of the Harabi tribe, and the rebel council supported by Obama all overlap for all practical purposes.

Peter MacKay now admits to not knowing much about the NTC, but shouldn't he have done a bit of research first?

Mustafa Abdul Jalil is an Islamic fundamentalist, which doesn't mean terrorist, but what kind of government would be replacing Qaddafi? And are we now going to train and arm the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group?

In the video below you'll hear a former CIA agent say that we should not get involved. He sees a repeat of the Taliban, that Ronald Reagan trained and armed.

I think we are making a huge mistake. If the oil companies want Libya's oil, they should pay for it like everyone else.

A Harper Majority and the Future of the FTAA

The Free Trade Area of the Americas, was supposed to be a follow up to NAFTA, with a trade agreement that extended from Alaska to Chile.

An extension of the corporate dream as markets would be open to every country in Central America, South America and the Caribbean.

The deal was to be finalized January 1, 2005, but has been delayed because of strong social movements across the hemisphere, bringing the debate to the public's attention.

After the destruction of the Southern Cone by Milton Friedman and his "Chicago Boys", many South American countries are not so eager for a repeat.

Friedman had turned the area into a laboratory for the Chicago School of Economics, at a heavy human toll.

The Chicago School also begat the Calgary School, and the Calgary School begat Stephen Harper, a man still determined to complete the free marketeer agenda.

Why else would he unleash John Baird on the world?

Canada and the FTAA

According to Todd Gordon in Imperialist Canada:

Canada has been the most vociferous proponent of the FTAA. The U.S. Congress cooled on free trade in the latter half of the 1990s, making it harder for successive American presidents to successfully pursue the FTAA.

Canada took the lead negotiating role in the early stages, chaired the Summit Implementation Re?view Group, hosted a trade ministerial meeting and several other Summit of the Americas (of which the FTAA is a part) meetings. In this leadership role, Canada has tried to exploit its image as a benign international force to push the agreement through. "We do not have the baggage," one trade negotiator notes when assessing the prospect for FTAA negotiations led by Canada."

And the Harperites are hoping to use that image of a "benign international force", to push through an aggressive agenda.

They have established an advisory panel and are trying to recreate a "democratic" movement, according to University of California's Michael Allen, modeled on existing foundations such as the National Endowment for Democracy (2).

According to the New York Times: "The National Endowment for Democracy is a quasi-governmental foundation created by the Reagan Administration in 1983 to channel millions of Federal dollars into anti-Communist 'private diplomacy.'"

And it was fashioned after Milton Friedman's Chicago style gangster diplomacy.

Pamela Wallin's appointment to the new advisory panel is fitting. According to Michael Byers:

Ms. Wallin, who served as consul general in New York, played a central role in persuading American opinion-makers that Canada was fully supportive of the "war on terror." She now works as a senior adviser to the Council of the Americas, a free trade-promoting organization that counts some of the largest U.S. corporations among its members. (3)

The problem facing these free marketeers, is that Latin America is not as keen on the FTAA and all that "democracy". They want to create their own trading bloc, setting their own terms.

They still bear the scars of the "Authoritarian Democracy", while Canada is now in the process of receiving the blows from our own. According to Wikipedia, Brazil is taking the lead as they try to establish a new foundation.

With a Harper majority, we may see an attempt to thwart such a move, with full military force. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that Canada recently dropped 240 bombs on Libya and is in the market to buy 1300 more.

For what purpose?

We have got to start paying attention to what is being done in our name. Harper may be trying to exploit our reputation to pursue his agenda, but that good name is wearing thin. We are increasingly being viewed as an aggressor nation.

Is this really your Canada?

Sources:

1. Imperialist Canada, By Todd Gordon, Arbeiter Publishing, 2010, ISBN: 978-1-894037-4507, Pg. 154-55

2. The D-word out of favor? Don’t tell the Canadians, By Michael Allen, Democracy Digest, December 4, 2009

3. Why I said no to Manley, By Dr. Michael Byers, Ottawa Citizen, December 13, 2007

Friedman's Gold and Argentina

In his new book Imperialist Canada, Todd Gordon discusses Canadian company Barrick Gold and their mining at Pascua Lama, Argentina.

Toronto-based Barrick is the largest gold producer in the world, with properties—and opposition movements challenging its practices—on nearly every continent. As testament to the international unpopularity of the company, May 2, 2007, was the International Day of Action against it. One of Barrick's most controversial projects is Pascua Lama. Pascua Lama is a gold, silver and copper open-pit mine site located in the Andean mountains. It straddles the border between Argentina and Chile, in the province of San Juan in Argentina and on the outer edges of the Atacama Desert in Chile. .. (1)

Further exploitation of Chile and Argentina by the free-marketeers.

It's interesting that Peter Munk, founder of Barrick, is quoted in Time magazine praising Augustus Pinochet, the Chilean dictator who ran torture chambers and held massacres in football stadiums.

Munk defends his position by saying: "Maybe I'm less sensitive to these issues because I see that what people need first is economic security, and only when they have that can they afford to focus on human rights." The alternative to liberalized economies, he argues, "is the true enslavement of the people." (2)

An odd commentary that fits with Milton Friedman's shock therapy.

Barrick's initial plans for the mine was to "relocate" sizable portions of three large glaciers that were blocking deposits in the area. According to investigative journalist Jenn Ross, "these glaciers span approximately 24 hectares". The plan calls for moving roughly 10 hectares—about 25 acres—of that surface area, which amounts to 800,000 cubic metres of ice." (1)

Argentine ecologist, Raul Montenegro, argued that "Barrick is treating the glaciers like 'piles of ice' rather than essential parts of a fragile desert ecosystem. 'You cannot just pick up a glacier, move it, and then tell the rain to fall somewhere else."

Farmers of grapes, peaches, figs, lemons and avocados, among other crops, cultivate their land in the Huasco Valley, underneath the projected mine site. There is little rainfall in the area, so the crops are dependent on run-off water stored in the glaciers .

Local communities are also concerned about water pollution, a common fear of those living near mining developments. Barrick will use 7,200 kilograms of cyanide daily, and plans to divert rivers in Argentina for cyanide solution production, which is necessary for the extraction of gold. Vice-president for corporate communications at Barrick, Vincent Borg, has also admitted that the company plans to utilize arsenic in its extraction processes. The company assures the Chilean government and community activists that it has taken all necessary precautions to prevent spillage of pollutants into streams and rivers. However, Luis Fara, a farmer and councillor in the adjacent Chilean town of Alto del Carmen, points to the fact that the extreme weather conditions at the high altitude may very well overwhelm the containment systems put in place by Barrick. The U.S. Geological Survey has also recorded three earthquakes in excess of 6.7 in magnitude in the last four years in the area.

Stephen Harper visited the region in 2007, but only met with Barrick Gold officials, refusing to address the protesters.

And while Barrick is attempting to do better with PR, and has helped to build irrigation ditches, and provide alternative income, it is not nearly enough. They have also since dropped the bid to move the glaciers, but much damage has already been done. "So the protests continue.

And to help kill a Liberal private members bill, which sought to hold Canadian mining companies to account, the company had some inside help.

Corporations like Barrick Gold and Visa Canada both hired former government staffers to act as lobbyists last year, despite a 2006 law that aimed to end such political influence. The New Democrats say that’s because a loophole exists that allows politicians and ministerial staff to advise corporations so long as they spend less than 20 per cent of their time doing so.

For example, Alanna Heath, a former adviser to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, was hired to advise Barrick Gold last year but wasn’t required to register as a lobbyist because of the loophole. (Heath was paid to help stop a bill that would have required the government to probe alleged human-rights abuses by Canadian mining companies in other countries.) NDP MP Pat Martin tells Bloomberg News the hirings violate “the spirit of the law.”

But they help to fulfil the neoconservative agenda.

The Canadian mining situation continues to be a controversial subject, and is greatly damaging Canada's reputation abroad.

But with Milton Friedman followers now in government, what hope do we have that this will change?

Not much, I'm afraid.

Sources:

1. Imperialist Canada, By Todd Gordon, Arbeiter Publishing, 2010, ISBN: 978-1-894037-4507, Pg. 210-212

2. Canada's Gold Tycoon, By Andrew Purvis, Time Magazine, November 09, 2007

The Deficit Cure: Acupuncture or Shock Therapy?

When the neoconservative movement in Canada first appeared on the radar of many journalists, it was tied to the administrations of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Both of these leaders launched aggressive attacks on the welfare state, and left devastation in their paths.

Grant Devine in Saskatchewan, Ralph Klein in Alberta and Mike Harris in Ontario, all sought to experiment with the Thatcher/Reagan theories in their respective provinces.

On the federal scene, the Reform Party had their ideology in check, and were just waiting for their turn.

At the time, Thatcher and Reagan were not on tour, so Canada's neocons were taught strategy by New Zealand politician, Roger Douglas.

He held information seminars, speaking to the Harris caucus in Ontario, with Tony Clement, John Baird and Jim Flaherty in attendance; and Klein's in Alberta, indoctrinating Stockwell Day.

But the most important lecture, when it comes to the future of Canada, was presented to the Reform Party of Preston Manning and Stephen Harper, at their 1991 Assembly.

Douglas was introduced by Preston Manning, the only assembly speaker to be so honoured. And Manning told the delegates: There are three basic reasons why we have invited Sir Roger Douglas to be with us ... and three reasons why Reformers should pay close attention to what he has to say ... Sir Roger is an authority in fiscal reform and has advocated and promoted many of the fiscal reforms ... He is not only a reformer in word, he is a reformer in deed. Sir Roger deregulated the financial sector, phased down agricultural and other subsidies .. phased out import controls and drastically reduced tariffs levels. He instituted a 10% flat rate consumption tax (GST)*, with virtually no exemptions ... (1)

And Roger Douglas's most important message to his followers was "don't blink". Once you start cutting, keep going.

And if you developed a case of blepharospasm, uncontrollable eye blinking, a little acupuncture would fix you right up.

Because what Douglas failed to mention was how his policies affected New Zealand.

Dr. John Warnock, travelled to New Zealand to study the effects of what New Zealanders dubbed 'Rogernomics.' The figures tell a story of devastation - a word used by New Zealand's own agricultural minister to describe the state of agriculture in four years after the 'reforms': A 40 per cent drop in farm income; a 50 per cent drop in the value of farm land; a policy of paying 3,000 farmers incentives of $ 45,000 to leave and the suggestion that another 15,000 (out of 79,000) should follow them. Unemployment, which had been at 4 per cent before Douglas's reforms, jumped to over 12 per cent in just over a year and is still increasing.

"Douglas completely eliminated regional development grants and subsidies to rural services. Says Warnock, 'They had things like subsidized petroleum - regardless of where you were the price was the same - subsidized train service, bus service, airport service. They privatized all these things and the prices immediately skyrocketed.' A massive de-population of the countryside resulted, and approximately 40,000 New Zealanders per year have since left the country for Australia to find work ... (1)

He should have blinked.

Shock Therapy

While Roger Douglas may present us with a little trip down memory lane, Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty will probably forgo acupuncture for shock therapy.

This is the remedy prescribed by Milton Friedman, and articulated at places like the Fraser Institute. Friedman believed in taking advantage of disasters, like Katrina, but when none presented themselves, they could simply be created.

His most famous induced disaster, was the Chilean experiment.

In 1970, when a socialist, Salvador Allende, was elected president, many of Chile's elite, were not pleased.

Allende, a physician by training, understood the cost that malnutrition imposed upon the poor and set out to alleviate the grinding poverty in which so many Chileans were trapped. He ensured that every Chilean schoolchild had access to at least a half-liter of milk each day, and that their parents had access to jobs and the means to feed and educate their children. Median incomes began to rise dramatically in the first two years of Allende's term.

To pay for these social programs designed to create opportunities for the poor, rich Chileans who had lived all their lives off of rents, dividends and interest and who had never paid a dime in taxes, found themselves paying taxes for the first time and being forced to morally justify their lives of luxurious leisure at the expense of the poor. They didn't like it one bit. And they began to complain to their friends in Washington. (2)

Fortunately for them Washington was already aware of the situation, and with the help of several corporations, engineered a coup to oust Allende and place the murderous Augustus Pinochet in the presidential palace.

Friedman then took over, encouraging Pinochet to implement "shock therapy" on the people of Chile.

Friedman advised Pinochet to impose a rapid-fire transformation of the economy—tax cuts, free trade, privatized services, cuts to social spending and deregulation. Eventually, Chileans even saw their public schools replaced with voucher-funded private ones. It was the most extreme capitalist makeover ever attempted anywhere, and it became known as a "Chicago School" revolution, since so many of Pinochet's economists had studied under Friedman at the University of Chicago. Friedman predicted that the speed, suddenness and scope of the economic shifts would provoke psychological reactions in the public that "facilitate the adjustment." He coined a phrase for this painful tactic: economic "shock treatment." In the decades since, whenever governments have imposed sweeping free-market programs, the all-at-once shock treatment, or "shock therapy," has been the method of choice. (3)

And though Friedman and his Chicago School are still being hailed as heroes by Neoliberals/Neoconservative/Free Marketeers everywhere, his remaking of Chile was an absolute failure.

.. The country's period of steady growth that is held up as proof of its miraculous success, did not begin until the mid-eighties, a full decade after the Chicago Boys implemented shock therapy and well after Pinochet was forced to make a radical course correction.

That's because in 1982, despite its strict adherence to Chicago doctrine, Chile's economy crashed: its debt exploded, it faced hyperinflation once again and unemployment hit 30 percent—ten times higher than it was under Allende. The main cause was that the piranhas, the Enron-style financial houses that the Chicago Boys had freed from all regulation, had bought up the country's assets on borrowed money and run up an enormous debt of $14 billion.

The situation was so unstable that Pinochet was forced to do what Allende had done: he nationalized many of these companies. In the face of the debacle, almost all the Chicago Boys lost their influential government posts. (4)

So despite the fact that both of these experiments in economic reform were catastrophes, we know that it will not change Flaherty's or Harper's ideology.

Canadians will probably be subjected to a little "shock" in the upcoming budget, or if not then, in the not too distant future. The convoluted belief being that if we associate pain with social programs, we will not be too quick to want to reintroduce them (Friedman was a nut), especially if they convince us that they have been replaced with something better.

Poverty being good for the soul.

So slap on the electrodes boys. I'm ready.

Footnotes:

*The Reform Party was conflicted about the GST, with most wanting it scrapped if they came to power. Harper himself convinced them to keep the GST but eliminate any exemptions.

Sources:

1. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin, Goodread Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 113-114

2. Free Market Fundamentalism: Friedman, Pinochet and the "Chilean Miracle", By Scott Bidstrup

3. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, By Naomi Klein, Vintage Canada, 2007, ISBN: 978-0-676-97801-8, Pg. 8

4. Klein, 2007, Pg. 123

Milton Friedman and the Destruction of Argentina

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

It is just as important to study Milton Friedman as Leo Strauss, in understanding Canada's neoconservative movement.

Friedman is one of the authors of the "shock therapy" economic system, where disasters are created or exploited, by the corporate sector. Free Marketeers will call it progress. Others see it as shocking and inhumane.

Because in order for the U.S. to control a foreign nation's economy, an authoritarian is needed, and that authoritarian is often a ruthless dictator. Case in point, Augustus Pinochet in Chile.

If you read Lawrence Martin's Harperland, or Christian Nadeau's Rogue in Power, you'll see how Stephen Harper took control, using ruthless means, and is now in a position to implement Friedman's policies. A bloodless coup.

Argentina's Shock Therapy

In her memoirs, Margaret Thatcher says of Argentina:

Whatever the Argentineans thought about it at the time ... the Falklands War provided a shock which brought first democracy and more recently, under President Menem, the economic benefits of free-market policies. Inflation has been brought down and a far-reaching privatization programme has been undertaken. Subsidies, regulation and tariffs have all been cut. Economic growth has sharply accelerated.

A little "shock" was good for them, says the lady who once declared that there was "no such thing as society".

In their book Commanding Heights, Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw, provide a bit of insight into the pre-coup Argentina, and what Thatcher called a "black economy".

Argentina had long been an economic paradox. How did a country that was one of the world's richest in the first decades of the twentieth century, end up in such economic disorder? A good part of the answer rested with Juan Peron. He is now best remembered, of course, as the husband of Evita, but in the years after World War II he was the embodiment of populism with an almost fascist tinge. Building on the prewar popularity of fascist ideas, Peron turned Argentina into a corporatist country, with powerful organized interest groups, big business, labor unions, military, farmers—that negotiated with the state and with each other for position and resources. He incited nationalist passions, stoked pretensions of grandeur, and pursued stridently anti-American policies. He nationalized large parts of the economy and put up trade barriers to defend them. He cut Argentina's links to the world economy which had been one of its great sources of wealth—embedded inflation in the society, and destroyed the foundations of sound economic growth. (2)

Viewed through a free-market lens, Peron would have been a disaster. So many opportunities for profit going to waste.

Peron was no saint, but according to Namomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine, life for Argentines was not as bad as suggested. Protectionism made many things unaffordable ($2000 just to install a phone), but the welfare state was alive and well. And like Chile, before their U.S. financed coup, the country had just undergone an intellectual revolution, where the arts thrived.

By the 1950s, Argentina had the largest middle class on the continent. Juan Peron had introduced Keynesian style economics "pouring public money into infrastructure projects such as highways and steel plants, giving local businesses generous subsidies to build their new factories, churning out cars and washing machines, and keeping out foreign imports with forbiddingly high tariffs." (3)

Naturally, this was anathema to the free marketeers, and when Peron died and his widow Isabel named leader, they sprang into action. From Henry Kissinger's records, recently made public, we learn that the U.S. were behind the 1976 coup that initiated the Argentine shock therapy.

Wages fell to 40% of what they had been and poverty became the norm.

But worse, was the wave of terror, under the planted dictator, General Jorge Videla, that followed the Chilean blueprint, to the Milton Friedman letter. According to Klein's Shock Doctrine:

When someone was targeted to be eliminated, a fleet of military vehicles showed up at that person's home or workplace and cordoned off the block, often with a helicopter buzzing overhead. In broad daylight and in full view of the neighbours, police or soldiers battered down the door and dragged out the victim, who often shouted his or her name before disappearing into a waiting Ford Falcon, in the hope that news of the event would reach the family.

Some "covert" operations were even more brazen: police were known to board crowded city buses and drag passengers off by their hair. In the city of Santa Fe, a couple was kidnapped right at the altar on their wedding day in front of a church filled with people."

The public character of terror did not stop with the initial capture. Once in custody, prisoners in Argentina were taken to one of more than three hundred torture camps across the country. Many of them were located in densely populated residential areas; one of the most notorious in a former athletic club on a busy street in Buenos Aires, another in a schoolhouse in central Bahia Blanca and yet another in a wing of a working hospital. At these torture centres, military vehicles sped in and out at odd hours, screams could be heard through the badly insulated walls and strange, body-shaped parcels were spotted being carried in and out, all silently registered by the nearby residents.

The Argentine junta was particularly sloppy about disposing of its victims. A country walk could end in horror because mass graves were barely concealed. Bodies would show up in public garbage bins, missing fingers and teeth (much as they do today in Iraq), or they would wash ashore on the banks of the Rio de la Plata, sometimes half a dozen at a time, after one of the junta's "death flights." On occasion, they even rained down from helicopters into farmers' fields."

All Argentines were in some way enlisted as witnesses to the erasure of their fellow citizens, yet most people claimed not to know what was going on. (much like Nazi Germany). There is a phrase Argentines use to describe the paradox of wide-eyed knowing and eyes-closed terror that was the dominant state of mind in those years: "We did not know what nobody could deny." (4)

As Canada is now in the throes of its own shock therapy, the need for torture chambers are not necessary.

We have our authoritarian leader in Stephen Harper, who allows no dissent. Witch hunts are now the norm, and while people don't disappear, their careers are ruined or threatened, if they dare to challenge.

The G-20 saw the worst human rights abuses and mass arrests in Canadian history; and police brutality at protests like the one over the Prison Farm closures, saw no age barrier. Those from 14 to 88 were victimized.

We are now part of the Shock Doctrine under the Harper regime, and what is happening in our country is just as shocking to many, as they were in places like Chile and Argentina.

And "the paradox of wide-eyed knowing and eyes-closed terror", was evident, when despite the horrors of the G-20, many Canadians simply shrugged and said "you should have stayed home".

Sources:

1. The Path to Power, By Margaret Thatcher, Harper Collins, 1995, ISBN: 0-06-017270-3, Pg. 583

2. The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy, By Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw, Touchstone, 2002, ISBN: 0-684-82975-4, Pg. 242

3. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, By Naomi Klein, Vintage Canada, 2007, ISBN: 978-0-676-97801-8, Pg. 63

4. Klein, 2007, Pg. 106-107