US Ruling Oligarchy Imperialism: Panama & Panama Invasion 1989

Article SOURCE http://web.stanford.edu/class/e297a/Panama%20Imperialism%20and%20Struggle.htm US Ruling Oligarchy Imperialism:  Panama source - circa. 2003 http://web.stanford.edu/class/e297a/Panama%20Imperialism%20and%20Struggle.htm Iraq: a Lesson from Panama Imperialism and Struggle for Sovereignty By Coleen Acosta             If History is to be the signifier of lessons learned, then why do wars continue to happen? The United States has never really been considered an Imperialist nation, but as history proves, the US has had a long stake in international geopolitical control over various countries, as well as economic markets that have made these countries dependent on the United States for survival. In light of recent events in Iraq, one should take a step back and look at the US’ history of hostile invasions to “make the world safe for democracy.”  This mantra had devastating [edit: consequences] on the tiny country of Panama 14 years ago. Why did the US invade Panama? To free Panama from its oppressive dictator, Manuel Noriega. The result was the a death toll of three thousand, and the country’s further dependence on the US for economic survival. Who again was the US trying to save Panama from? In reviewing the story of Panama, one is able to draw uncanny connections to the current situation in Iraq. The administration even has many of the same people that decided to invade Panama under Bush senior. Now the same minds have decided to invade Iraq under George W. Bush, under the same pretext of “freeing the Iraqi people.” Based on history however, what will be the consequences for the Iraqi people and the Iraqi nation?             On December 20,1989 President Bush ordered US forces into Panama as he explained, “to safeguard the lives of Americans, to defend democracy in Panama, to combat drug trafficking, and to protect the integrity of the Panama Canal Treaty.”[1]   In December of 1989, 26,000 US soldiers occupied Panama in search of Manuel Noriega to be seized and tried on trafficking and racketeering charges in a US Federal court. The invasion ended two weeks later when Noriega was captured and transported to Miami. Subsequently, a new colonial government under the leadership of Guillermo Endara was hand-picked by the United States which was followed by economic and political disaster. What lead to such a drastic action against Latin America’s least populated country, and what were the lasting traumatic effects on a people faced with an imperialist, nationalist struggle?             The situation in Panama in 1989 had been the result of a vacillating sense of national pride at odds with an eighty year old American imperialist presence. Panama had been the bearer of imperialist tensions since the turn of the century solely because of its strategic location and possible economic advantages that such a location would yield. Panama is a country that occupies the isthmus dividing North and South America. With its passage way saving sea-farers 5,000 miles of additional sailing around the tip of Tierra del Fuego, it is no wonder that Panama had been so highly sought out, and so strictly guarded.             In 1903 President Theodore Roosevelt supported a Panamanian uprising that enabled the country to gain its independence from Colombia. Roosevelt promised that warships would be placed off the coast of Panama, allowing Panama to declare its independence on November 3rd. As a trade-off, Panama had conceded to the US sole rights to the isthmus. Following Panama’s declaration of independence, it entered into a treaty agreement with the United States allowing it to build the canal and gain sovereignty over a ‘canal zone’; a ten mile wide strip of territory along the canal that divided the nation in two. In effect, panama’s independence from one nation, marked its subjugation to another. This imperialist presence remained in place for the next eighty-five years with no significant changes until the Treaty of 1977.  On September 7th US President Jimmy Carter and Panamanian President Torrijos signed a treaty in Washington promising that the US would concede control of the waterway over to Panama on December 31st 1999.             Midway between these years, World War II had a profound effect on Panama’s sense of nationalism. In spite of internal strife and class-conflicts that pervaded Latin America during this period, “the Panamanian people were bent on promoting development that would benefit everyone.”[2] This economic development was closely associated with the national recovery of the Canal and the closing down of US military bases. This “nationalist” feeling began to grow increasingly strong between World War II and the treaty of 1977 to the consternation of the United States. After 1977, this spirit of nationalism began to wane and the US government sought to retain control over one of its most strategic protectorates.[3]             Upon approval of the 1977 Canal treaties, Panama lost much of its national stability as the country began to be divided. When the treaties were signed, much of the population expected immediate results, economically and geo-politically. When these results were not realized, civil unrest began to imbed itself into the fabric of the Panamanian people. Economic recession only fueled this feeling of resentment at the government as well as imperialist powers still occupying the canal zone. When Torrijos Herrera came to power in 1968 as a result of a junta of National Guard officers in 1968, he embarked on an impressive public works program that in hindsight proved to be over-ambitious.[4] As a result, Panama declined into economic recession that only further instigated public dissatisfaction with the administration. In 1981, this instability came to a head when in 1981, Torrijos was killed in a plane crash. The result would be a power struggle leading up to the invasion of Panama in 1989.             After Torrijos’ death, his dictatorship was usurped by Colonel Manuel Noriega Moreno, an army successor to Torrijos as well as Chief of Panamanian Secret Police and CIA operative. With Noriega’s ascendancy to dictator, civil strife worsened in Panama. Noriega instituted new economic reforms that called for a more centralized policy controlled by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. This meant shifting emphasis from productive industry investments and raw materials to service activities.[5]     The economic             consequences proved to be increased unemployment coupled with factional aggravation between business groups belonging to the ‘national’ alliance verses that of a free market.             Another change that Noriega instituted was the increased presence and strength of the Panamanian Defense Forces (PDF) to guarantee social order endangered by the new economic policy. Obviously this caused unrest at the notion of being watched and controlled by a military government. By 1988, the Panamanian government had turned into a military regime.             Also during 1988, Noriega had been indicted by a U.S. Federal court in Miami on drug trafficking and racketeering charges. A year later the opposition leader, Guillermo Endara won the presidential race by a large margin. In response to his ouster, Noriega nullified the election and proceeded to install one of his own constituents as president on September 1st 1989. On December 15th after surviving a violent coup, Noriega sought to gain increased dictatorial powers from the legislature whose members were placed there by him. The corruption ensuing in Panama under Noriega was palpable. On the same day, Noriega declared war on the United States. One day later his regime solicited the harsh response by US upon killing an unarmed American Marine Officer. On the December 19th the US decided to go to war.             The economic damage caused by the invasion and subsequent civil disobedience had been estimated to be between $1.5 and $2 billion balboas, which would be comparable to US dollars.[6]  Unemployment rose to record highs as the government infrastructure was left in chaos. According to the chamber of Commerce, 10,000 employees lost their jobs in the aftermath of the war.             Sanctions that had been placed on Panama since 1988 had created staggering financial ruin as well. North American sanctions included the freezing of  $120 million in funds at the National Bank of Panama operating in the United States.[7] In addition, 200 US firms suspended their fiscal obligations which included payment of Panamanian taxes valued at $400 million annually.[8] Panama’s sugar quota had been suspended which accounted for 30,000 tons of sugar exports along with the prohibition on US loans, donations and economic assistance. The US also announced sanctions on those merchant ships registered in Panama.[9]             Why however did the US respond with such a heavy hand to a country that posed no logical threat? When the US invaded Panama, it did so under the banner of restoring order, protecting its citizens and to defend democracy. Whose democracy was the US defending however? In the words of Xabier Gorostiaga, “The complexity of the Panamanian crisis is not only the product of a long history but of a dialectic struggle between the Panamanian people in search of sovereignty while living under the imperial eagle.”[10]  This crisis was not a simple event related to the removal of one corrupt leader or the US’ concern for democracy. Philip E. Wheaton would argue that, “the fundamental motivation was US military control over Panama after the year 2,000.”[11] Wheaton argues that the time-table for Panama to achieve complete sovereignty was reaching a critical moment, with the United States facing the danger of losing its century-long control over the Isthmus.             It is true that neither US defense of the canal or judicial prosecution of Noriega justified an invasion which has, “cost possibly a thousand lives or more, tremendous suffering and damage to the county, an action that has not resolved but complicated the emergence of democracy in Panama under a colonial government.”[12] US invasion into Panama served to remind the rest of the world that Washington retained hemispheric hegemony.             Long before the invasion of Panama in 1989, the US sensed the budding seeds of nationalism within Panamanian society that lead to the treaty of 1977. The US however was not prepared to disavow the economic and strategic gains that control over the canal would provide. Throughout the 1980’s therefore, the Reagan administration strove to contain a stronghold on control of the canal. Since the Carter-Torrijos treaties had been ratified by the US congress and approved by a Panamanian plebiscite, the US would never be able to renege a treaty returning a geographical wonder back to its owners. At the same time however, the treaty had to be created in 1977 or else the US would have run the risk of being condemned as an imperial colonizer. The US wanted to disentangle itself from the world perception of ‘Roosevelt and his 'big stick’ oppressing the people of Latin America. The US therefore had the task of circumventing popular perception by first creating the treaty of 1977 and then surreptitiously trying to weaken it so that it could legally retain control. As Luis Restrepo commented, “the Reagan Administration’s strategy was to weaken the treaties, to debilitate them through non-compliance, to condition their content and modify their implementation.”[13]             Two examples of such debunking tactics may be found in the passage of ‘International Law 96-70’ which fostered and justified a judicial position for the United States over the canal through, “jurisdictional, operative and administrative powers which violently disrupt the spirit and wording of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties.”[14] The anti-juridical tactic of 96-70 denies the sovereignty of the Republic of Panama over the zone territory. In addition to subversive measures to retain power in the region, Reagan violated the Treaties on over 50 separate  occasions such as, “the establishment of a Panama Canal Commission linked to the executive branch, under direct authority of the US President.”[15] Another example of such a violation would be, the reduction of the oversight functions of the Joint Board of Directors, established by the Treaty, to a mere supervisory role.[16] The invasion of Panama therefore was merely an extension of the Reagan policy to circumvent the language of the Treaty in order to retain some degree of influence if not control.             The persons most harmed by the ensuing power struggle over control of the canal, were the Panamanian people. Ambushed from all angles, the Panamanian people existed at the whims of dictatorial regimes at the local echelon and imperialist forces at the international echelon. As a result, the Panamanian people were locked into subjugation in all possibilities. Where were they to go if the greatest superpower in the world was manipulating their own government? Noriega, the dictator that relegated Panama’s government to a military dictatorship had been a former employee of the US government and an army successor to Torrijos who had been supported by the US. Now that the superpower and the dictator were at odds, what would be the alternative be upon ousting that same leader? A higher power able to install yet a new leader while undertaking the forceful invasion of the country. Who was worse then? Noriega or the US?             The bitter feeling of entrapment in light of the 1989 invasion seems to have been the lasting sentiment among the Panamanian people. This is a sentiment stemming not only from the invasion of 1989 but also nearly a decade of control, influence and presence; the manipulation of their sovereign government so that the Panamanian people are left incapable of actually living under a democratic government; resentment towards the US for all of these maladies in addition to the arrogance with which such a policy is carried out. It seemed ludicrous to the Panamanian people that the US would pretext the invasion to “defending democracy” when democracy was non-existent due to US policy.             Exemplified in an interview with ‘Chuchu’ Martinez, one of Torrijos’ personal confidant and member of his ‘personal security team,’ bitterness towards the US seems unabashedly clear. When asked a question about when the United States began planning the invasion, Martinez responds, “The ‘gringos’ were absolutely firm about not losing their military presence in Panama after the year 2,000. The problem was how to accomplish this goal.”[17] He further makes a vehement remark about one of Bush’s comments; “‘If Endara doesn’t win, we invade.’ This is Washington’s so called democratic option: either vote for Endara or we invade. So, the Panamanians went to the polls thinking that if Noriega’s candidate wins, the Yankees will either kill Noriega or invade. . .”[18]  He later comments that, “There is only one progressive thing about Noriega’s government: his clash with the Empire. . .”             In another interview Wheaton speaks with a Panamanian writer and a Chilean woman from an upper middle-class neighborhood, February 1990. In the first interview, an anecdote was shared that reflect some of the contradictions about the invasion and point to the difficulties facing those committed to building a new Panama.[19] The first involves a unique robbery by the US occupation forces, reminiscent of WWII;             In Buenos Aires, Argentina word came to the intellectual circles here that the North American forces had stolen the entire library of Dr. Ernesto Castillero Pimental, along with the art collection of Noriega, valued in the millions of dollars, from the National Museum, thence taking it the United States . . . Incredible! The robbery in this anecdote is important because it represents a premeditated crime but more importantly, the fact that the US thinks it has the right to steal such treasures precisely because they consider it a US colony.                        More than lasting resentment against the United States, it is important to take note of the thousands of people that lost their lives in this conflict. That fact, more than any imperialist ploy serves as a stinging reminder of US imperialism; that these people died because the US was sending a “humanitarian mission” to make Panama safe for democracy. In one account from the Codehuca province, the fatalities from the bombings were described as somewhere between 700 and 800 people, both civilian and military.[20] Other accounts from the same province quote the US Army as carrying out ‘sanitation’ activities in which they use, “flamethrowers to burn hundreds of bodies. They also used common graves in which they buried hundreds of bodies.”[21] These activities can be linked to the rumors of disappearances of people reflecting the discrepancy between the numbers of missing persons and the lists of prisoners.             Other accounts of torture tell of one the US military acting against a ‘Macho del Monte’, a soldier from the Panamanian Defense Force. The soldier reported that a wound on his lower leg was caused by a projectile which had lodged in the sole of his foot. US soldiers took a metal cable that had been used to hang up laundry and introduced it into the hole until it touched the projectile producing intense pain. Another Macho del Monte soldier was hung up by one arm on which he already had an injury to his elbow, though that wound had not been stitched up.[22]             In another report from Coco Solo, Colon,[23] the headquarters of the of the Panamanian Defense Forces and the second largest city in the country, a reporter observes, “one can hardly see any remains from the battle. The headquarters are intact with only a few smoke stains around its main windows. There isn’t a single explosion hole in the facade, yet the three-hundred Panamanian soldiers who were inside died there without a single US soldier losing his life.”[24] It was speculated that the explanation for the unusual phenomenon is that a bomb landed inside the building with such force that it caused the building to implode instantly killing everyone.             In another town of El Chorrillo,[25] some 14,000 persons were left homeless as a result of the bombing visited upon El Chorrillo barrio from December 20th onwards. In this report, it was estimated that approximately 3, 983 homes located around the central headquarters were destroyed. Census data shows that 14,170 people lived in that part of the barrio that was destroyed. Of that population, 40% were minors aged 14 years and younger.             One of the few reports concerning attacks on places in the interior of the country came from the village of Pacora, near Panama City.[26] The village was bombed with chemical substances by helicopters and aircraft from Southern Command. Residents reported that this chemical substance, “burned their skin, producing intense stinging and diarrhea.”[27] Other people of Pacora reported that their town had been converted into a huge concentration camp surrounded by barbed wire, “as the Nazis used to do,”  so that its residents could not offer any assistance to Panamanian soldiers in the area.             Panama also served as a testing ground for new US weapons. On January 9, 1990, Reuters published an article that stated the US military as, “being proud of the demonstration of their new weapons and techniques used during the Panama invasion, ranging from 500-foot parachute jumps to high-tech apparatus for night vision.”[28] A ‘humanitarian mission’ seems like an inappropriate operation to show off military might. Given the level of opposition that US forces encountered, there was no need for much of the advance military fighters used to bomb Panama. For example, it was reporter in Reuters that, “the most exotic weapon in the invasion was the F-117A ‘Stealth bomber.’” Reuters reported that at least one of these attack aircraft flew to Panama from its desert base in Tonopah, Nevada to command an attack on the FDP base in Rio Hato where it fired two 2,000 pound bombs to stun and disorient Noriega’s troops.[29] A fighter of that magnitude was clearly not necessary for the defeat of Noriega’s army. In a war most often referred to as the “invasion,” one may deduce how much military force would have been necessary.             What then was the United States trying to demonstrate? Clearly it wanted to accomplish more than simply apprehending Noriega in order to save the people of Panama from its leader. Perhaps the US wanted to send a message to the Panamanian people that it is not to be intimidated, or much more importantly, denied continued control of the Panama Canal, specifically before the date which the Treaty had specified the US should turn over the canal.             The invasion of Panama left an irrevocable mark on the psyche of the Panamanian people. The sense of trauma, grief and tremendous sense of loss suffered at the hands of a dictator as well as an imperial power began to emerge in the culture of Panama during and shortly after the invasion. The sense of Trauma could be summed up in the words of Dr. Mauro Zuniga, a popular civic leader; “From December 20th on, we no longer have a nation. . . In an attack without precedent in military history, the United States has leveled the defenses of the Panamanian army and in less than four days, that institution lays in ruin.”[30]  He continued to say that, “During this new period, the struggle will be for us Panamanians to define what we intend this nation to be. . .”[31]  That redifinement was subsequently expressed in cultural mediums. One such medium was that of literature and poetry. Norah de Alba wrote a poem in the early days of the invasion entitled Mortal Cry. Alba is the earliest known poet to reflect on the suffering and protest of the Panamanian invasion.  In her poem she describes the outrage that the Panamanians felt in response to the US’ false banner of war and the hardships that incurred.             Alba’s first stanza;                                                 The arrived                                                 as do thieves in the shadows                                                 --imperceptibly—                                                 In complicity with our sleep. She describes the US military as “thieves,”  clearly expressing Panamanian sentiments towards the US as plunders that have been stealing from the people; stealing economic riches from the canal.  In a later stanza she remarks on the completely ludicrous claim that the US had come to help the Panamanian people;                                                 They arrived                                                 and said – casually –                                                 that they had come in the name                                                 of peace to make war;                                                 That they had come to “democratize”             It is clear that the Panamanians were no better off after the US show of ‘democratization’. The economy was in ruins, 3,000 people were dead, the country was divided, people were homeless and the US retained control over the canal.             In the aftermath of the invasion, the Panamanians moved quickly to rebuild their civilian constitutional government. On December 27, 1989, Panama’s Electoral Tribunal invalidated the Noriega regime’s annulment of the May 1989 election and confirmed the victory of the opposition candidates under the leadership of President Guillermo Endara. When President Endara took office, he pledged to foster Panama’s economic recovery, transform the Panamanian military into a police force under civilian control, and strengthen democratic institutions.[32] During the subsequent years, the Endara government struggled to meet the public’s high expectations for reform.             An important US congressional concern was the status of Panama's economic recovery during the aftermath. Before the military intervention, the economy had been severely damaged by two years of  U.S. economic sanctions and economic disruption caused by the political crisis. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) had declined some 25% between 1987 and the end of 1989. The intervention added further to the economic decline. Some sections of Panama City were heavily damaged, leaving thousands homeless, and subsequent looting left businesses with damages in the hundreds of millions.             The canal was indeed returned to Panama in just before midnight, December 31st 1999, ending nearly a century of American jurisdiction over one of the world’s most strategic waterways. There is still however  a large military presence in Panama. Today, Panamanians regard the US with mixed feelings. The invasion of 1989 remains a sore point in US-Panama relations however the relationship between the two countries is a mutually beneficial economic arrangement. Some observers maintain that Panama has to be concerned with other nations' views of its legitimacy and its independence from the United States. Others, however, would welcome the beginning of military base negotiations, and argue that many Panamanians favor a permanent U.S. presence because of jobs and income associated with the U.S. military facilities. Some 6,000 Panamanians work directly for the U.S. military, while thousands of others provide a variety of services to the U.S. military community.[33] The bases reportedly bring in about $360 million annually to the Panamanian economy, directly and indirectly.[34] Still other Panamanians oppose any kind of U.S. military presence. Some argue that only with the U.S. military out of the country will Panama be able to break the dependent relationship it has with the United States and recover its own national identity. Bibliography [ listed in original document ] source http://web.stanford.edu/class/e297a/Panama%20Imperialism%20and%20Struggle.htm ---------------------- ---------------------- COMMENT Hey, so much for 'humanitarian' intervention ... again. I'd say it's a war crime to bomb civilians, to use excessive force, to destroy civilian dwellings, to use chemical weapons & to use targets of aggression as guinea-pigs for weapons testing. The invasion was probably illegal as well, but the Three Amigos (USA, Britain & France) vetoed condemnation of invasion) and therefore OK'd it in the UN (probably after extorting a 'no' (to condemnation) vote from a bunch of poor countries?).  So much for the UN farce. US should have been sent the bill for the obscene, massive destruction of the country's infrastructure, which was probably done so US creditors and contractors could benefit reinstating what was destroyed, or so that the country is otherwise somehow dependent on the US oligarchy and friends. Iraqi assets were also looted.  So were Germany's:  the Americans and British helped themselves.  US stole most of the patents, I think. It's interesting that World Bank and IMF have a hand as money lenders to Noriega's govt. in advance of the destruction in 1989.  The impression I had was that they were the vultures that come in after a country or region has been destroyed, but maybe the lenders are a constant presence?

Monsanto Colonises Ukraine

Monsanto in Ukraine: IMF loan for Ukraine may give GMO giant a backdoor into EU http://on.rt.com/z0ekxl Published time: August 30, 2014 15:33 Ukraine’s bid for closer ties with the west could come at a cost. With the IMF set to loan the country $17 billion, the deal could also see GMO crops grown in some of the most fertile lands on the continent, warns Frederic Mousseau. Very few, not least the Ukrainian population are aware of these details, but according to Mousseau, who is a Policy Director at The Oakland Institute, in return for the cash, Ukraine could very well become a test ground for GMO crops in Europe, something the rest of the European Union has been looking to prevent. RT caught up with the Frenchman, who voiced his concerns at what may lay ahead. RT: When this $17 billion deal is approved by the IMF and the Ukrainian ban on GM crops is lifted, does that mean it is just a matter of time before Ukrainian farmers grow modified crops? Frederic Mousseau: This is very likely because there is a lot of pressure from the bio-technological industry, such as Monsanto, to have these approved in Ukraine. It is also part of the EU Association Agreement, which has a particular article which calls for the expansion of bio-technology and GMOs in Ukraine. RT: If it was one of the pre-conditions of the multi-billion dollar loan, do you think it is fair to say that Monsanto has considerable influence over the IMF and the World Bank and even dictates terms to them? FM: We saw in 2013 that Monsanto invested $140 million in new seed plans in Ukraine. It is clearly the bread basket of Europe and it is a key target for a company like Monsanto, which sees this huge potential for production and this huge market. Europe has been quite resistant in allowing GMOs, but if they are successful in Ukraine then there might be a domino effect in Europe. RT: Was it a coincidence or a pre-planned action back in December 2013, when the ban on GM goods was lifted in Ukraine, just weeks before the IMF was supposed to give that county a loan? FM: It can’t be a coincidence because we have seen a very strong mobilization of the industry and the agro business in lobbying the government and the EU to have these changes in the legislation. Also we have seen this investment coming in prior to any adoption of GMOs. So clearly this pressure was there and to have such a clause in the EU Association Agreement means that the lobbyists in the industry must have been at work for months before that. RT: The president of the US-Ukraine Business Council has said that it is necessary to get the Ukrainian government out of the agriculture business and transform it into a private sector industry. Can we say that America has set its sights on the vast fields that could be a gold mine for agriculture? FM: There are these seed businesses like Monsanto and pesticide companies, but there is also the land of Ukraine, which has so far been under the control of the Ukrainian government and has not been available for sale. There will be a big push to privatize this land and make it a valuable commodity, which can be acquired by foreign corporations. What we have seen in recent years is that even if the land could not be purchased, it has been leased on a massive scale. Already 1.6 million hectares have been acquired by foreign entities and it is very likely that if the reform programs continue, there will be more companies, more interest and they will be looking to strike deals for Ukrainian land. RT: There is considerable anti-GMO sentiment around the world. If you take this into account, how beneficial would it be for Ukraine to rely on the US-based GMO crops industry? FM: It comes as part of an agreement with the EU and we know that European citizens and farmers are against GMOs, but still we have a deal with the European Union, who have worked out a deal with Ukraine to expand the use of GMOs. It seems like it has been something that has been arranged by the lobbyists of corporations and the civil servants within the European Commission. We have seen all over the world that this is not beneficial for farmers, it is not beneficial to citizens. It is just in the interest of the corporations who are taking over control of seeds used by farmers around the world. The food that is produced does not become better or cheaper. RT: How harmful potentially do you think growing GMO crops could be for those rich fertile Ukrainian soils? FM: We have seen in the US, where GMO crops have been cultivated for a couple of decades now. We have concerns about the quality of soil because the use of GMOs comes with a high level of the use of fertilizers and this destroys a lot of the organic materials in the soils. There is also a very high risk of contamination for those farmers who choose not to use GMOs and we have seen this very clearly in North America where there has been a lot of contamination. SOURCE - RT News - here.

Good article, worth reading.

Found it anger provoking.

Big American business is behind what's going on in Ukraine.

And check out the power these people have:  laws were changed before the IMF came through with the bail-out.

Looks like they've got friends in the EU as well.

And check out the land grab. 

The whole thing's sickening.

US - CORPORATE IMPERIALISM - AFRICA

Getty Images Blurb & Pic President And Mrs. Obama Host White House Dinner For US-Africa Leaders Summit By Chip Somodevilla (GETTY) – 5 minutes ago WASHINGTON, DC - AUGUST 05: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (L) talks with former President Jimmy Carter during a dinner on the occassion of the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit on the South Lawn of the White House August 5, 2014 in Washington, DC. President Barack Obama is promoting business relationships between the United States and African countries during the three-day U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, where 49 heads of state are meeting in Washington http://www.google.com/hostednews/getty/article/ALeqM5gdC9kehjCB6lopysJOLS7JIPFnYQ?docId=453229576

Awkward.
Wonder if Kerry and Jimmy Carter had a chat about Palestine?

The only thing Obama's promoting is US enrichment and advantage from Africa.  LOL

At US-Africa summit, Obama announces $33 billion in new commitments to Africa By Julie Pace Associated Press Tuesday, Aug 5, 2014 The bulk of the commitments came from private-sector companies, including Coca-Cola and General Electric, underscoring Africa’s growing appeal to businesses. The continent is home to six of the world’s fastest-growing economies and a rapidly expanding middle class with increased spending power. Yet Obama noted that U.S. trade with the African continent is about the same as its trade ties with Brazil and that just about one percent of U.S. exports go to sub-Saharan Africa. “We’ve got to do better, much better,” he said during closing remarks at a daylong session that brought together U.S. and African politicians and business leaders. “I want Africans buying more American products and I want Americans buying more African products. The U.S. is hardly alone in seeing economic potential in Africa, with China, Europe and India moving aggressively to tap into Africa’s growing markets. China in particular is hungry for oil, coal and other resources and is eager to develop the roads, bridges and ports needed to pull them out of Africa. “We also realize we have some catching up to do,” said Michael Bloomberg, the former New York mayor and billionaire businessman who opened the summit Tuesday. “We are letting Europe and China go faster than the U.S.” Obama has sought to cast the U.S. as a better partner for African nations than China, arguing that his administration has a long-term interest in the continent’s success and is not simply seeking to extract resources for its own purposes.  [Aaww, he's wooing Africa's potential for the US.] ... About 100 U.S. companies were represented at Tuesday’s conference. Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry also addressed the attendees, as did former President Bill Clinton, who declared that the U.S. has “only barely scratched the surface” of Africa’s economic potential.   [More.  Gimme more.] In conjunction with the meeting, U.S. companies announced $14 billion in investments for Africa. Among them: a $5 billion investment from Coca-Cola to fund manufacturing lines and production equipment; $2 billion investment from GE by 2018; $200 million in investments across Africa by Marriott, and a $66 million commitment by IBM to provide technology services to Ghana’s Fidelity Bank. The White House also touted another $12 billion in new commitments for Obama’s Power Africa initiative from the private sector, World Bank and the government of Sweden. Obama announced the Power Africa initiative last summer, setting a goal of expanding electricity access to at least 20 million new households and commercial entities. The president said that with the new financial commitments, he was boosting that goal to 60 million homes and businesses. Obama also announced $7 billion in new government financing to promote U.S. exports to and investments in Africa. That includes $3 billion in financing from the U.S. Export-Import Bank aimed at supporting American exports to Africa over the next two years. The Ex-Im Bank is at the center of a political controversy in Washington, with some Republicans seeking to shutter the bank and threatening to block its reauthorization when Congress returns from recess this fall. The GOP lawmakers seeking to shut down the bank argue that its spending is politically motivated and unnecessary. GE CEO Jeff Immelt, who was among the business leaders participating in Tuesday’s summit, appealed to Congress to renew the bank’s charter, saying its existence signals to other countries that the U.S. government believes in investing overseas. “The fact that we have to sit here and argue for it is just wrong,” Immelt said. Obama also signed an executive order Tuesday creating an advisory committee comprised of private sector representatives who will advise the White House on ways to boost economic ties with Africa. http://beta.mirror.augusta.com/news/business/2014-08-05/us-africa-summit-obama-announces-33-billion-new-commitments-africa?v=1407275383

$14 billion in investments for Africa

• $5 billion investment from Coca-Cola to fund manufacturing lines and production equipment
• $2 billion investment from GE by 2018

• $200 million in investments across Africa by Marriot
• $66 million commitment by IBM (technology services) to Ghana’s Fidelity Bank
• $12 billion extra for Obama’s Power Africa initiative*

  (*from the private sector, World Bank and the government of Sweden [Sweden's corporate fat cats have got drilling licenses in Africa.])

• $7 billion new govt financing (promo U.S. exports + investments in Africa.)

(includes $3 billion in financing from the U.S. Export-Import Bank aimed at supporting American exports to Africa over the next two years)

Look how tight the US is with Sweden.  They're raiding Africa together.  LOL.

All these big corporations aren't putting money into Africa because they're wanna-help-nice-guys; Africa has what they want -- and they don't want China, India and Europe getting ahead of them in the moolah (+ resources, strategic advantage etc) stakes in Africa and it's all about ... erm, ... tapping into Africa's markets. 

'Power Africa' initiative is just another way to exert influence in Africa and keep a hold on investments.

Lenin would probably call this imperialism. 

So this is a corporate imperialist race to grab resources, markets and to wield influence in Africa, for the enrichment of the corporate elite.

Don't know why the Republican's are whining about the Export-Import Bank; they'd be first to finance export/import etc - it's right down their alley.

Get a load of the 'advisory committee comprised of private sector representatives' that Obama's signed off on.  LOL  That's who runs the White House then.  

US AID TO PAKISTAN - PAKISTAN STAND ON FOOD SECURITY - WTO TRADE FACILITATION AGREEMENT

US ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE and MILITARY AID TO PAKISTAN Commenced shortly after the country’s creation in 1947 US obligated nearly $67 billion (in constant 2011 dollars) to Pakistan between 1951 and 2011 2009 US renewed commitment to Pakistan US approved the Enhanced Partnership for Pakistan Act  (commonly known as the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, or KLB) Act authorized a tripling of US economic and development-related assistance to Pakistan, or $7.5 billion over five years (FY2010 to FY2014). Between FY2002 and FY2009, only 30 percent of US foreign assistance to Pakistan was appropriated for economic-related needs; the remaining 70 percent was allocated to security-related assistance. Since the KLB authorization (FY2010 through the FY2014 budget request), 41 percent of assistance has been allocated for economic-related assistance. [So that would mean military assistance exceeds economic] US aid pledged to Pakistan remains significant compared to funding for other development initiatives.  US $1.16 billion request for foreign assistance to Pakistan exceeds requests for: Global Hunger and Food Security initiative ($1.06 billion); Millennium Challenge Corporation ($0.90 billion); Global Climate Change initiative ($0.48 billion).  US $1.6 billion request for foreign assistance to Pakistan: not far behind the requested $1.36 billion for the World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA) which makes loans and grants to the world’s 81 poorest countries and is the single largest source of development finance in these locations. Source:  Greenbook - obtained from site:  CGDEV.ORG Pakistan is the fourth largest recipient of US assistance, trailing Israel, Afghanistan, and Egypt.  US has pledged seven times more aid to Pakistan than to Bangladesh, a neighboring country with a comparable population size and similar development needs. US largest contributor, nearly a third of total Official Development Assistance (ODA) to Pakistan (30 projects total commitment $5 billion), followed by: World Bank’s International Development Association (21 percent of total ODA); Japan (14 percent); United Kingdom (8 percent); and EU Institutions (4 percent). Asian Development Bank (ADB) is Pakistan’s biggest multilateral partner, providing assistance of $4.4 billion from 2009 through 2012. IMF disbursed credit worth $5.2 billion to Pakistan from FY2008 to FY2010 following the 2008 economic crises.  In 2011 the Government of Pakistan decided to end the IMF program, but following the country’s civilian election in May 2013 the new government, led by the Pakistani Muslim League (Nawaz), has entered into a new provisional agreement with the Fund worth $6.6 billion for a bailout package for FY2013-2016.  Although the IMF and Pakistan have an ‘unhappy history’, the new government is said to have little choice due to its balance of payments crisis and sharply declining foreign exchange reserves. Extracts Only -  Source -   http://www.cgdev.org/page/aid-pakistan-numbers

In an earlier post - here - it was noted that a World Trade Organisation (WTO) 'Trade Facilitation Agreement', freeing up trade to bring TRILLIONS into the world economy, is being negotiated.

India, Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela are seeking to increase public stockholding for food security.

WTO stipulates no more than 10%' value of food/grains production to be allocated to 'public stockholdings'.

However, this is based on calculations dating back to 1986-1988 and therefore not in step with inflation figures.

While India is staying strong in the negotiations, asking for a permanent solution on food security, US Secretary of State, John Kerry is unsympathetic and playing games with peoples lives:

Secretary of state John Kerry, before starting for India on Wednesday morning, had expressed the hope that India’s opposition to TFA would wither away, adding that this was a test case for the country’s commitment to advance liberalisation of global trade and investment.  [source - here]

Hmmmm ... let's see, 'test case' for 'liberalisation of global trade' VERSUS 'food security' ... and John Kerry's hoping these countries' food needs are just going to 'wither away'?

Never mind food.  Let's make PROFIT and let's sell WEAPONS.

China and Pakistan, also parties to the proposed agreement, are ready to sign the WTO trade agreement set before them.

China, I figured, is cashed up.  Oddly, it's not very community minded for a communist nation (or are they no longer communists?).

What's Pakistan's story?

Pakistan looks like it's 'owned' by 'US and company', judging by the amount of US financial support it has received and continues to receive, as well as financial support from US allies and the IMF.


What I found shocking is that the amount of US support Pakistan has received is almost as much as the US contribution request for World Bank's allocation to 81 of the world's poorest countries!

Apparently, large portions of the US aid in Pakistan go on military spending.

The guess is that the US supplies Pakistan with arms, so the money would go from the US public purse back to back to US private military manufacturing companies.

What I'm unclear about is what is a freebie and what is repayable by Pakistan.

It looks like there may be non-reimbursable portions of US aid, which is what?  Is that non-repayable?

Well if 'reimbursable' is repayable, non-reimbursable must be non-repayable. 

Until 1990, the United States provided military aid to Pakistan to modernize its conventional defensive capability. The United States allocated about 40% of its assistance package to non-reimbursable credits for military purchases, the third-largest program behind Israel and Egypt.

The remainder of the aid program was devoted to economic assistance.

Sanctions put in place in 1990 denied Pakistan further military assistance due to the discovery of its program to develop nuclear weapons. Sanctions were tightened following Pakistan's nuclear tests in response to India's May 1998 tests and the military coup of 1999. The events of September 11, 2001 and Pakistan's quick agreement to support the United States led to a waiving of the sanctions, and military assistance resumed to provide spare parts and equipment to enhance Pakistan's capacity to police its western border. In 2003, President Bush announced that the United States would provide Pakistan with $3 billion in economic and military aid over 5 years. This assistance package commenced during FY 2005. [source - US Dept of State - http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/pakistan/47936.htm]

Receipt of non-repayable money sounds pretty good.  Send some my way.  LOL.
 
As for the Nuclear weapons?  We're all doomed! 

Anyway, that's a bit of a fill-in on Pakistan, which might be handy if you're anything like me and clueless about what's going on.  LOL.

US & friends in no position to lecture

US and allies ‘in no position to lecture anyone on the sanctity of human life’ John Wight is a writer and commentator specializing in geopolitics, UK domestic politics, culture and sport. Published time: July 24, 2014 08:34 The destruction of a Malaysia Airlines passenger aircraft over eastern Ukraine nobody disputes is a terrible tragedy. Almost 300 people have been killed in the most awful circumstances and though it is self-evident that a full and thorough investigation must follow to find out what happened its conclusions will be scant comfort to the families and loved ones of those who perished. That said, the mind boggles that a civilian passenger aircraft should be flying anywhere near a war zone, especially one in which fighter jets, military aircraft, and military transport aircraft are playing such a key role in hostilities. The alacrity with which Washington and its allies have sought to exploit this tragedy to attack Russia has been as unedifying as it has been despicable. If it turns out that the aircraft was downed by a missile, and as yet no one knows for certain how this disaster occurred, it is highly likely to have been an accident and there is something to be said for understanding the conditions in which such a tragic event has taken place. What we do know for certain at this point is that the conflict which has been raging in eastern Ukraine over the past few months, and which has intensified since the election of Petro Poroshenko as President of western Ukraine in May, was sparked by the toppling of the last legitimate democratically elected Ukrainian government of Viktor Yanukovich by an armed mob in Kiev in February, in which avowed neo-Nazis played a key role. Some of those neo-Nazis currently occupy ministerial offices in the regime led by Mr. Poroshenko and are prevalent in the violence that has been visited on the people in the east of the country, who have risen up in resistance to Kiev and its sponsors in the West. [...] The recent signing of the Association Agreement between the EU and the regime in Kiev has brought the EU into disrepute. Just think about this for a moment: the EU has just entered a state into its ranks bathed in the blood of its own citizens. There is another very important aspect to the continuing fallout from the Malaysian airliner disaster that helps us understand the level of anti-Russian vitriol and propaganda it has sparked. Vladimir Putin has just enjoyed a successful trip to South America. There he played a key role in the establishment of a new development bank to rival the dominance of the US and European-led World Bank. With a capital base of $100bn this new institution will provide developing economies with alternative funding without the punishing conditions and exploitative strings attached to funding obtained from the World Bank and its affiliate the International Finance Corporation. This is a massive step forward for the developing world, turning a new page in the continuing struggle to forge a multipolar alternative to the status quo of Washington’s and the West’s unipolarity, which has retarded the development of the Global South since the Second World War. There is also the no small matter, as far as the West is concerned, of the Russian President’s visit to Cuba and the forging of closer relations with its former Cold War ally. Again, this will have undoubtedly resulted in the gnashing of teeth in Washington, further evidence of the challenge that is being mounted to its hegemony in what it considers its own backyard. Furthermore, the stridency when it comes to the tragic deaths of the 298 people on the Malaysian airliner has been significantly absent when it comes to the comparable number of civilians slaughtered in Gaza as a result of Israel’s ongoing brutal military assault. The hypocrisy here is striking, if not surprising. For many years Washington and its European allies have provided political cover for Israel’s war crimes vis-à-vis the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors. They are in no position to lecture anyone on the sanctity of human life. The pressure being brought to bear against Russia, exploiting this tragedy as a pretext, should not blind us to the role of the West in fomenting and prolonging military conflicts around the world for their own geopolitical interests. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Palestine; their crimes would shame all the devils in hell. Only when Washington and its allies understand that their days of uncontested hegemony and unipolarity are over will there be a chance for a new global framework in which respect for national sovereignty and international law is returned to prominence and upheld as the non-negotiable arbiter of international affairs and foreign policy. The alternative is more conflict and more of the chaos we are witnessing today. Extract only...full @... Source - RT News - here.

Hopefully you cyber travellers like reading as much as I do.

It seems a lot to wade through but it's really worth a read to see the other side's viewpoint.

I think the article speaks a lot of truths about the way Russia is vilified, how MH17 victims are exploited for political point scoring and about hypocrisy.