Duncan-Williams LASHES OUT AGAIN

Duncan Williams, a very angry man

Archbishop Nicholas Duncan-Williams says Ghanaians are fast losing respect for the elderly.
According to him, the age-old Ghanaian culture of deferring to elders even when a child is right and the elder is wrong appears to have disappeared.

“…You haven’t done anything and you just get up, just because you don’t agree with somebody’s belief or faith, you just insult and criticise them; that is not our culture”, he said.

According to him, “we are not used to this kind of culture”.

“We have respect for the elderly. In our culture we don’t insult people. Even when you are right and you are wrong, you still give respect to the elderly. Something is changing in this culture”, he bemoaned in an interview with Sammy Darko.

The Christian Action Faith Ministries’ (CAFM) General Overseer recently came under a hail of criticism for praying for the local currency – cedi – to recover against the dollar and other major international currencies.

He suffered similar fate when he said non-achievers were not qualified to criticise him.

Editorial                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

Recent events in Venezuela point in only one direction.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States of America has not abandoned its plot to overthrow the government of Venezuela and to replace it with its own puppet.

 The effort reached a peak in 2002, when the CIA in collaboration with local reactionary forces attempted to overthrow the popularly elected government of President Hugo Chavez.

On that occasion, the masses of Venezuela rose up and with determination defeated the coup plotters and restored Chavez to power.

Unfortunately, the US is still determined to control the oil resources of Venezuela and it knows that it is impossible under the leadership of Maduro.

As always the US and its intelligence services are stopping at nothing to overthrow the legitimate government of Venezuela.

 Over the last month or so, they have encourage the right wing opposition to resort to violence  and disorder as part of the effort to achieve their objective.

The Insight states emphatically that the plot against the Venezuelan government and people will fail once again.

Venezuela is not going back to the gambling house of US imperialism because its proud people will fight to defend their independence.

 We declare our full solidarity with the people of Venezuela fighting to preserve their national independence.

GHANA’S PLANT BREEDERS BILL LACKS LEGITIMACY! IT MUST BE REVISED

Hon. Alban Bagbin

The Hon. Chairperson, Parliamentary Select Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, Alban Kingsford Sumana Bagbin,

Hon. Members of Parliament, 

We, the undersigned organizations from Africa and around the world are concerned with the conservation of agricultural biodiversity for livelihood security and food sovereignty, promoting farmers’ rights and self-determination and citizen involvement in the decision-making process. 

The undersigned organizations would like to express our solidarity with farmers and civil society groups in Ghana that have expressed serious concerns with the Plant Breeders’ Bill pending in the Parliament (“the Bill”).

The Bill is modeled on the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants of 1991 (UPOV 1991) which a rigid and an inflexible regime for plant variety protection (PVP). It is worth noting that today out of the 71 UPOV members, only a fraction - about 22 developing countries are members of UPOV. Most of these developing countries (e.g. Brazil, China, Argentina, South Africa) and even some developed countries (e.g. Norway) are not members of UPOV 1991 but rather UPOV 1978, which is a far more flexible regime.   

Ghana has full flexibility under the World Trade Organization (WTO) to develop an effective “sui generis” system for plant variety protection, i.e. to develop a unique system that suits its needs. In view of this, it is truly unfortunate and even irrational that instead of designing a PVP regime that reflects the agricultural framework and realities of Ghana as some other countries have done (e.g. India, Thailand, Ethiopia), Ghana is choosing to adopt and be bound by UPOV 1991 without any concrete evidence or impact assessment of the necessity and impacts of adopting such a regime.  

As a member of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources (ITPGRFA) we expect Ghana to take steps to realize farmers’ rights to use, sell, save and exchange farm-saved seeds, to protect their traditional knowledge and to allow their participation in national decision-making. 

It is thus extremely disappointing to see that the Bill is heavily tilted in favor of commercial breeders and undermines farmers’ rights. The Bill does not allow farmers to sell and exchange seeds. Farmers’ use of farm saved seed on its own holdings is limited to “personal use” and regulations by the Minister and may be subject to payment of royalties. Noting the widespread protests by farmer groups in Ghana earlier this year it is clear that farmers have not been consulted sufficiently in the development of the Bill. 

We are of the view that it is entirely possible to have an effective law on plant variety protection without compromising Ghana’s international obligations and farmers’ rights. Today, several countries have used innovative approaches in their PVP legislation that balances the interests of the breeding industry and farmers’ interests. India is one such example.[1] The African Model Law for the Protection of the Rights of Communities, Farmers and Breeders discussed and endorsed at the African Union level also contains innovative approaches for consideration.[2]

The Memorandum to the Bill misleadingly argues that farmers have the right to use protected varieties as a source for further research and breeding activities. In actual fact under the Bill, if a protected variety is used for further breeding and where the variety developed from the protected variety is an essentially derived variety (EDVs), breeders’ rights extend to the EDVs. This concept of EDVs is highly contentious and uncertain. Many advanced developed countries are still grappling with this concept and its implementation. What is or is not an EDV is a question subject to extensive court and arbitration disputes. These types of provision favor multinationals, which have immense financial resources at the expense of farmers and even local breeders. It is simply not necessary to include such a provision in the PVP legislation. Many developing countries with successful PVP regimes do not incorporate such a clause in their national legislation. 

It is also being argued that the Bill will lead to the development of varieties that are suitable for the needs of Ghana and is important for food security. 

In reality the Bill only incentivizes “uniform” varieties. The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) estimates that about 75% of the genetic diversity of agricultural crops has been lost due to proliferation of commercial uniform varieties replacing native land races. The erosion of crop genetic diversity poses a serious threat to food supplies as it reduces resistance to pests, diseases and changing weather patterns. Genetic diversity within crops is also decreasing. 

Additionally it is erroneous to suggest as the Memorandum does that the Bill will develop varieties that are suitable for the needs of Ghana. PVP systems tends to incentivize and orientate development of new varieties where a commercial market exists and where significant profits can be made. It is definitely not the solution to addressing the nutritional and food security needs of Ghana. 

The argument in the Memo that the Bill will “help farmers break out of their cycle of subsistence farming” is also flawed. The Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food has noted in a recent report that “This shift has led to grant temporary monopoly privileges to plant breeders……through the tools of intellectual property, as a means to encourage research and innovation in plant breeding. In this process, however, the poorest farmers may become increasingly dependent on expensive inputs, creating the risk of indebtedness in the face of unstable incomes. …. The farmers’ seed systems may be put in jeopardy, although most farmers in developing countries still rely on such systems, which, for them, are a source of economic independence and resilience in the face of threats such as pests, diseases or climate change.”[3]

The Bill also contains a “presumption” whereby a plant breeder is considered to be entitled to intellectual property protection in the absence of proof to the contrary.[4] Usually the onus is on the applicant to prove that he or she has complied with the necessary requirements and is thus entitled to protection. But in this case there is a presumption in favor of the plant breeder. This “presumption” provision and the lack of an explicit provision that calls for the disclosure of origin of the genetic material used in the development of the variety including information of any contribution made by any Ghanaian farmer or community in the development of the variety creates opportunities for breeders to misappropriate Ghana’s genetic resources using the PVP system and to exploit smallholder farmers.

 

It is important to note that Ghana is a member of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) and the Convention on Biological Diversity and both these instruments champion fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources. Including a disclosure of origin provision in the Bill is critical as it is widely recognized as an important tool to safeguard against biopiracy.  Several countries have included such a provision in its PVP legislation and there is no reason why Ghana should not do the same. 

The Bill also lacks provisions that will ensure that intellectual property protection will not be granted to varieties that adversely affect public interests. 

The undersigned signatories strongly urge the Parliament to refrain from adopting the Bill. We are of the view that in its current form the Bill lacks credibility and legitimacy and does not benefit Ghana.  Extensive consultations involving all stakeholders including the farming communities and civil society should be initiated urgently with the aim to develop a balanced and equitable legislation, with appropriate safeguards to protect the interests of smallholder farmers and public interests.

Signatories  

1.       Alliance For Food Sovereignty (AFSA)	A Pan African platform that represents small-holder farmers, pastoralists, hunter/gatherers, indigenous peoples, citizens and environmentalists from Africa. It comprises networks and farmer organizations working in Africa including the African Biodiversity network (ABN), Coalition for the Protection of African Genetic Heritage (COPAGEN), Comparing and Supporting Endogenous Development (COMPAS) Africa, Friends of the Earth- Africa, Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee (IPACC), Participatory Ecological Land Use Management (PELUM) Association, Eastern and Southern African Small Scale Farmers Forum (ESAFF), La Via Campesina Africa , FAHAMU, World Neighbours, Network of Farmers' and Agricultural Producers' Organizations of West Africa (ROPPA), Community Knowledge Systems (CKS) and Plate forme Sous Régionale des Organisations Paysannes d'Afrique Centrale (PROPAC).
2.      African Biodiversity Network	Regional network that represents 36 member organizations in 12 African countries seeking African solutions to the ecological and socio-economic challenges that face the continent.
3.      Participatory Ecological Land Use Management (PELUM) Association	A regional network of 220 organizations working with small-scale farmers in East, central and Southern Africa (Botswana, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe).
4.      Abalimi Bezekhaya (South Africa)	An urban agriculture and environmental action association operating in the socio-economically neglected townships of Khayelitsha, Nyanga and surrounding areas on the Cape Flats, near Cape Town, South Africa.
5.      Actions pour le Développement Durable/ Actions for sustainable Development NGO (Benin)	Working on issues of sustainable development
6.      African Centre for Biosafety (South Africa)	Non-profit organization working on issues dealing with the genetic engineering, privatization, industrialization and corporate control of Africa’s food systems.
7.      Alliance for Agroecology and Biodiversity Conservation (Zambia)	An umbrella organization working on issues of biodiversity and GMO free agriculture.
8.     Berne Declaration (Switzerland)	A Swiss non-governmental organization with more than 20,000 members promoting more equitable, sustainable and democratic North-South relations.
9.      Bia´lii, Asesoría e Investigación, A.C.(Mexico)	Non-profit organization, seeking to promote a culture of legality, democracy and substantive participation and active citizenship.
10.  Biowatch South Africa	Non-governmental organization publicizing, monitoring and researching issues of genetic modification to promote biological diversity and sustainable livelihoods.
11.   Center for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD)	An indigenous, non-profit, research and advocacy organization which is pioneering the enforcement of human rights and the justiciability of the right to health in Eastern Africa.
12.  Community Mobilization Against Desertification (Kenya)	Non-governmental organization, working on agricultural extension and natural resource management programs and small holder capacity building.
13.  Dachverband Kulturpflanzen- und Nutztiervielfalt (Germany)	Umbrella organization for crop and livestock diversity
14.  EcoNexus (UK)	Not-for-profit public interest research organization analyzing developments in science and technology and their impacts on environment and society.
15.   Farm and Garden National Trust (South Africa)	A NGO that spreads knowledge, expertise and resources to emerging micro-farmers and gardeners nationally
16.  Focus on the Global South (India)	Think tank providing analysis and building alternatives for just social, economic and political change.
17.   Food Matters Zimbabwe	Volunteer movement focusing on food issues such as GMOs in Zimbabwe
18.  Food Rights Alliance - Uganda (FRA)	Coalition of NGOs advocating for food security as a human right, sustainable agriculture systems and fair trade in Uganda.
19.  Gaia Foundation (UK)	Foundation working with local communities to secure land, seed, food and water sovereignty.
20. GardenAfrica (UK)	Non-profit organization focusing on the establishment of productive organic training gardens, and growing nutritious food and medicinal herbs in Southern Africa.
21.  GRAIN International	International non-profit organization working to support small farmers and social movements in their struggles for community-controlled and biodiversity-based food systems.
22. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (US)	Works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems.
23. Kasisi Agricultural Training Centre (Zambia)	Farmer training institution based in Lusaka, Zambia.
24. MELCA Ethiopia  (Movement for Ecological Learning and Community Action)	Non-profit organization working for the revival and enhancement of traditional ecological knowledge and protecting the rights of communities in Ethiopia.
25.  National Association of Professional Environmentalists (NAPE) (Uganda)	Non-governmental organization, working on the sustainable use of natural resources in the areas of water and energy, as well as for the sustainable future of Uganda communities.
26. OGM Dangers (France)	Non profit organization working against GMOs in agriculture
27.  Pan-Africanist International (Belgium)	Platform serving as a tool for the identification, defense, and the advancement of the interests of main street Africa
28. Save Our Seeds (Europe/Germany)	European initiative in favor of the purity of seeds against genetically modified organisms (GMO)
29. South Asia Watch on Trade, Economics and Environment (Nepal)	A regional network of NGOs from five South Asian countries: Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka
30. Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE)	A regional non-government organization that promotes and implements community-based conservation, development and sustainable use of plant genetic resources in partnership with civil society organizations, government agencies, academic research institutions and local government units in Bhutan, Lao PDR, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia.
31.  Southern and Eastern Africa Trade Information and Negotiations Institute (SEATINI-Uganda) and (SEATINI- South Africa)	Regional non-governmental organization strengthening the capacity of key stakeholders to take a more effective part in and influence global, regional and national agricultural trade and financial processes
32. Tanzania Alliance for Biodiversity (TABIO)	Alliance of civil society and private sector organizations concerned with the conservation of agricultural biodiversity for livelihood security and food sovereignty.
33. Terra Nuova (Italy)	Membership-based association supporting and implementing development co-operation projects in Africa and Latin America focusing on sustainable management of natural resources; and rural development.
34. The Ram’s Horn (Canada)	A monthly newsletter with stories and analysis of what is happening in the food system, locally and globally.
35.  Third World Network (Malaysia)	An international NGO working on issues relating to development and developing countries.
36. Verein zur Erhaltung der Nutzpflanzenvielfalt-(Seed Savers’Association, Germany)	An association based in Germany working to promote GMO free crop diversity and GMO free seeds and breeding.
37.  World Development Movement (UK)	Movement of local campaign groups in UK fighting for economic justice and end to global poverty

---

[1] The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act, 2001

[2] See http://www.cbd.int/doc/measures/abs/msr-abs-oau-en.pdf

[3] See UN General Assembly Document A/64/170 titled “Seed Policies and the right to food: enhancing agrobiodiversity and encouraging innovation”

[4] Clause 10 of the Bill

Demolishing University of Ghana’s toll booth is proper

Demolition Man, Lt Col Gbevlo Lartey

By Dr. Michael J.K. Bokor

Folks, we woke up this morning to be told that operatives of National Security Secretariat demolished the toll booth constructed at the Okponglo entry point of the University of Ghana from where the University of Ghana's designated collectors charged motorists fees for plying that route.

The National Security Coordinator Larry Gbevlo Lartey has justified the demolishing of a toll booth; and I wholeheartedly support him and the action taken by the security operatives.
Let me state Col. Gbevlo Lartey's justification before adding my own voice to the matter.

 
He had said that the structure had to be pulled down to ease congestion at the University’s entrance since it had been wrongly cited.
“They have started some construction at that point which I can see the intent to turn into a toll booth when completed and that has been removed because it cannot be there,” Col. Gbevlo Lartey said.
He added that, “there are two parts of this, the first thing is that it shouldn’t be there in the first place because they are causing complete nuisance to everybody and the second is that their intent to construct a toll booth there must be stopped now before they complete it”.

BACKGROUND: 
The University of Ghana started charging road tolls at the beginning of February to recoup a loan it took to fix its roads. The Students' Representative Council protested, and two students of the University have taken the matter to court and it is yet to be decided on.
Interestingly, the universities authorities sought to blackmail government by demanding about 2.63 million Dollars to not go ahead to collect tolls. The government didn't heed that request.

 
Unfortunately, the Minister of Transportation talked loosely (that he wished every community would repair roads in its environs and collect tolls, which might have motivated the University of Ghana authorities to go ahead with their plan to collect tolls).
Then, Parliament stepped in to worsen matters as its sub-committee on transportation approved the University of Ghana's intentions to collect the tolls.
Right then, the stage was set for what would cause the demolition of the toll booth and the insistence by Col. Gbevlo-Lartey that his Secretariat would quickly move to demolish anything of the sort re-constructed because the University of Ghana is part of Ghana and anything it does that conflicts with the norms must be tackled before it festers!!
I commend Col. Gbevlo-Lartey for being so resolute as to level the toll booth and prove that no one can do anything without authorization in Ghana.

REACTION
An NPP-oriented lawyer, Egbert Faibille, condemned the demolition of the toll booth, describing it as "unlawful" and threatening to go to court against Col. Gbevlo-Lartey.
His claim that the demolition pre-empted the pending court case against the University authorities by two students whose lawyer he is, seems to be his main argument.
He claimed that the national security has no right to enter into the property of a semi-autonomous institution, albeit a public one, and pull down structures without a court order.

 
To him, the action is arbitrary and an anathema to the rule of law. 
He wondered: “What aspect of national security operations say that when there is traffic on an ordinary course of road it has national security implications and National Security can just go in and pull structures down”?

 
To this "kokompe lawyer", I respond that he is ignorant of national security matters and should have known his station as such and kept to it.

 
The inconvenience caused motorists could trigger anti-government protests and constitute a major security crisis, if this "kokompe lawyer" cares to know. What constitutes national security is known to those charged with ensuring national security, not some so-called "kokompe lawyers" who have gained some kind of prominence because of their involvement in partisan politics.

MY COMMENTS
I am delighted at what has been done to prove that no institution in Ghana is an island and that no one has any right to take any unilateral action with wide-ranging negative impact on national life.

 
The University of Ghana authorities may claim to have repaired that portion of the Accra-Madina road with funds from their own coffers; but they haven't told us how the funds were generated. Were the funds not part of the subvention given to such institutions by the government, meaning that it's public funds over which the university cannot claim authority?

 
Of course, the university authorities deserve commendation for taking steps to repair the road to make it motorable—and the government deserves maximum contempt for neglecting its duty in that context; but nothing warrants the imposition of tolls by the university authorities.

 
Tolls on roads are imposed by the requisite institution in charge of roads and highways (the Ghana Highway Authority and its mother-Ministry, with the approval of the government or Parliament, if need be).

 
No institution can just get up to do anything as has been done by the university authorities because anything of this sort has serious repercussions on people's lives and governance, generally.

What will happen if the people in areas endowed with natural resources also get up one day to impose tolls and levies on companies exploiting those resources or to erect barriers and begin giving conditions?

Law and order must be respected. In this case, National Security made the proper move.
Those who are condemning it over this action have a lot of thinking and learning to do. I am glad that sanity has been brought into this matter and will urge Col. Gbevlo-Lartey to sit up to take on anybody wishing to capitalize on this situation to cause needless trouble for national security.

 
The time has long since passed for stern action to be taken to check recklessness in public life.

 
Col. Gbevlo-Lartey and his team are security experts and know better than people like you which seed will germinate to cause national security problems. He is in control and has done the right thing.

People like you are too uninformed to poke your noses into those areas. Just stay off and let the security experts tackle the problem.

Beyond that point, you need to know that there are specific procedures for constructing toll booths and collecting tolls. The University of Ghana isn't mandated to do what it did.

You and Egbert Faibille are treading where you will be scarred. Don't go there. Allow Col. Gbevlo-Lartey and his team to keep Ghana peaceful and tranquil.

Those attributing the demolition exercise to a jungle situation are lost. This action is timely and most warranted. It doesn't signify a return to "military days" but it reassures Ghanaians that law and order can be ensured by the requisite institutions charged with sustaining national security.

All things said, though, the government must be ashamed for not paying attention to the problem when it first cropped up. Knowing very well the importance of that road, it shouldn't have looked on unconcerned for it to deteriorate to the point as to force the University of Ghana to step in, using resources from its coffers.

How do our Ghanaian leaders think?

I shall return…

E-mail: mjbokor@yahoo.com

·         Join me on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/mjkbokor to continue the conversation.

Capitalism has written off the human race

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Capitalist economic theory teaches that free price and profit movements ensure that capitalism produces the greatest welfare for the greatest number. Losses indicate economic activities where costs exceed the value of production, thus investment in these activities is curtailed. 

Profits indicate economic activities where the value of output exceeds its cost, thus investment increases. Prices indicate the relative scarcity and value of inputs and outputs, thus serving to organize production most efficiently.

This theory doesn’t work when the US government socializes cost and privatizes profits as it has been doing with the Federal Reserve’s support of “banks too big to fail” and when a handful of financial institutions have concentrated much economic activity. Subsidized “private” banks are no different from the former publicly subsidized socialized industries of Great Britain, France, Italy, and the former communist countries. The banks have imposed the costs of their incompetence, greed, and corruption on taxpayers. Indeed, the socialized firms in England and France were more efficiently run and never threatened the national economies, much less the entire world, with ruin as do the private US “banks too big to fail.” The English, French, and communists never had to print $1,000 billion dollars annually to save a handful of corrupt and incompetent financial enterprises.

This only happens in “free market capitalism” where the capitalists, with the approval of the corrupt US Supreme Court can purchase the government, which represents them and not the electorate. Thus, the taxation and money creation powers of government are used to support a few financial institutions at the expense of the rest of the country. This is what is meant by “markets are self-regulating.”

Several years ago Ralph Gomery warned me that the damage done to US labor by jobs offshoring was about to be superseded by robotics. Gomery told me that the ownership of the technology patents is highly concentrated and that breakthroughs have made robots increasingly human in their capabilities. Consequently, the prospect for employment of humans is dismal.

Gomory’s words reverberated with me when I read RT’s February 15, 2014, report that computer and robotic experts at Harvard have constructed mobile machines programmed with the logic of termites to be self-organizing and able to complete complex tasks without central direction or oversight. http://rt.com/news/self-organizing-termite-robots-172/

RT doesn’t understand the implications. Instead of raising a red flag, RT gushes: “The possibilities are vast. The machines can be made to build any three-dimensional structure on their own and with minimal instruction. But what is truly staggering is their ability to adapt to their work environment and to each other; to calculate losses, reorganize efforts and make adjustments. It is already clear that the development will do wonders for humanity in space, hard-to-reach places and other difficult situations.”

The way the world is organized under a few powerful and immensely greedy private interests, the technology will do nothing for humanity. The technology means that humans will no longer be needed in the work force and that emotionless robotic armies will take the place of human armies and have no compunction about destroying the humans on whom they are unleashed. The picture that emerges is more threatening than Alex Jones’ predictions. Faced with little demand for human labor, little wonder thinkers predict that the rich intend to annihilate the human race and live in an uncrowded environment served by their robots. If this story has not been written as science fiction, someone should get on the job before it becomes ordinary reality.

The Harvard scientists are proud of their achievement, as no doubt most of the Manhattan Project participants were about their achievement in producing a nuclear weapon. But the success of the Manhattan Project scientists was not very nice for the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the prospect of nuclear war continues to cast a dark shadow over the world.

The Harvard technology will prove to be an enemy of the human race.

This outcome does not have to be, but free market ideologues think that any planning or foresight is an interference with the market, which always knows best (thus, the current financial and economic crisis). Free market ideology stands in the way of societal control and serves the short-term interests of powerful and greedy private groups. Instead of being used for humanity, the technology will be used for the profits of a handful.

That is the intention but what is the reality? How can there be a consumer economy if there is no employment? There cannot be, which is what we are gradually learning from the offshoring of American jobs by global corporations. For a limited period an economy can continue to function on the basis of part-time jobs, drawing down savings, food stamps, and extended unemployment benefits.

However, when savings are drawn down, when the heartless politicians who demonize the poor cut food stamps and unemployment benefits, the economy ceases to provide a market for the offshored goods that the corporations bring home to sell.

Here we see the total failure of Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Each corporation in pursuit of greater managerial “performance bonuses” as determined by profits did its part in producing the destruction of the US consumer market and greater misery for all.

Adam Smithian economics applies to economies in which capitalists have some sense of commonality with other citizens of the country like Henry Ford did, some sense of belonging to a country or to a community. Globalism destroys this sense. Capitalism has evolved to the point where the most powerful economic interests, interests that control the government itself, have no sense of obligation to the country in which their business entities are registered. Except for nuclear weapons, international capitalism is the greatest threat humanity has ever faced.

International capitalism has raised greed to a determinant force in world history. Unregulated greed-driven capitalism is destroying the jobs prospects of First World labor and the ability of Third World countries, whose agricultures have been turned into export monocultures serving the global capitalists, to feed themselves. When the crunch comes, the capitalists will let the “other” humanity starve.

As the capitalists declare in their high level meetings, “there are too many people in the world.”

 

Russia under attack

Vladimir Putin, Russian President

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

In a number of my articles I have explained that the Soviet Union served as a constraint on US power. The Soviet collapse unleashed the neoconservative drive for US world hegemony. Russia under Putin, China, and Iran are the only constraints on the neoconservative agenda.

Russia’s nuclear missiles and military technology make Russia the strongest military obstacle to US hegemony. To neutralize Russia, Washington broke the Reagan-Gorbachev agreements and expanded NATO into former constituent parts of the Soviet Empire and now intends to bring former constituent parts of Russia herself–Georgia and Ukraine–into NATO. Washington withdrew from the treaty that banned anti-ballistic missiles and has established anti-ballistic missile bases on Russia’s frontier. Washington changed its nuclear war doctrine to permit nuclear first strike.

All of this is aimed at degrading Russia’s deterrent, thereby reducing the ability of Russia to resist Washington’s will.

The Russian government (and also the government of Ukraine) “foolishly” permitted large numbers of US funded NGOs to operate as Washington’s agents under cover of “human rights organizations,” “building democracy,” etc. The “pussy riot” event was an operation designed to put Putin and Russia in a bad light. (The women were useful dupes.) The Western media attacks on the Sochi Olympics are part of the ridiculing and demonizing of Putin and Russia. Washington is "determined" that Putin and Russia will not be permitted any appearance of success in any area, whether diplomacy, sports, or human rights.

The American media is a Ministry of Propaganda for the government and the corporations and helps Washington paint Russia in bad colors. Stephen F. Cohen accurately describes US media coverage of Russia as a “tsunami of shamefully and unprofessional and politically inflammatory articles.”

As a holdover from the Cold War, the US media retains the image of a free press that can be trusted. In truth, there is no free press in America (except for Internet sites). See for example. During the later years of the Clinton regime, the US government permitted 5 large conglomerates to concentrate the varied, dispersed and somewhat independent media. The value of these large mega-companies depends on their federal broadcast licenses. Therefore, the media dares not go against the government on any important issue. In addition, the media conglomerates are no longer run by journalists but by corporate advertising executives and former government officials, with an eye not on facts but on advertising revenues and access to government “sources.”

Washington is using the media to prepare the American people for confrontation with Russia and to influence Russians and other peoples in the world against Putin. Washington would love to see a weaker or more pliable Russian leader than Putin.

Many Russians are “gullible.” Having experienced communist rule and the chaos from collapse, they naively believe that America is the best place, the example for the world, the “white hat” that can be trusted and believed. This idiotic belief, which we see manifested in western Ukraine as the US destabilizes the country in preparation for taking it over, is an important weapon that the US uses to destabilize Russia.

Some Russians make apologies for Washington by explaining the anti-Russian rhetoric as simply a carryover from old stereotypes from the Cold War. “Old stereotypes” is a red herring, a misleading distraction. Washington is gunning for Russia. Russia is under attack, and if Russians do not realize this, "they are history."

Many Russians are "asleep at the switch," but the Izborsk Club is trying to wake them up. In an article (February 12) in the Russian weekly Zavtra, strategic and military experts warned that the Western use of protests to overturn the decision of the Ukraine government not to join the European Union had produced a situation in which a coup by “fascist elements” was a possibly. Such a coup would result in a fratricidal war in Ukraine and would constitute a serious “strategic threat to the Russian Federation.”

The experts concluded that should such a coup succeed, the consequences for Russia would be:

— Loss of Sevastopol as the base of the Russian Federation’s Black Sea Fleet;

— Purges of Russians in eastern and southern Ukraine, producing a flood of refugees;

— Loss of manufacturing capacities in Kiev, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov where contract work is done for the Russian military;

— Suppression of the Russian speaking population by forcible Ukrainianization;

— The establishment of US and NATO military bases in Ukraine, including in Crimea and the establishment of training centers for terrorists who would be set upon the Caucasus, the Volga Basin, and perhaps Siberia.

— Spread of the orchestrated Kiev protests into non-Russian ethnicities in cities of
the Russian Federation.

The Russian strategists conclude that they “consider the situation taking shape in Ukraine to be catastrophic for the future of Russia.”

What is to be done? Here the strategic experts, who have correctly analyzed the situation, fall down. They call for a national media campaign to expose the nature of the takeover that is underway and for the government of the Russian Federation to invoke the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 in order to convene a conference of representatives of the governments of Russia, Ukraine, the USA, and Great Britain to deal with the threats to the Ukraine. In the event that the Budapest Memorandum governing the sovereignty of Ukraine is set aside by one or more of the parties, the experts propose that the Russian government, using the precedent of the Kennedy-Khrushchev negotiations that settled the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, negotiate directly with Washington a settlement of the developing crisis in Ukraine.

This is a pipe dream. The experts are indulging in self-deception. Washington is the perpetrator of the crisis in Ukraine and intends to take over Ukraine for the precise reasons that the experts list. It is a perfect plan for destabilizing Russia and for negating Putin’s successful diplomacy in preventing US military attack on Syria and Iran.

Essentially, if Washington succeeds in Ukraine, Russia would be eliminated as a constraint on US world hegemony, Only China would remain.

I suspected that Ukraine would come to a boiling point when Putin and Russia were preoccupied with the Sochi Olympics, leaving Russia unprepared. There is little doubt that Russia is faced with a major strategic threat. What are Russia’s real options? Certainly the options do not include any good will from Washington.

Possibly, Russia could operate from the American script. If Russia has drones, Russia could use drones like Washington does and use them to assassinate the leaders of the Washington-sponsored protests. Or Russia could send in Special Forces teams to eliminate the agents who are operating against Russia. If the EU continues to support the destabilization of Ukraine, Russia could cut off oil and gas supplies to Washington’s European puppet states.

Alternatively, the Russian Army could occupy western Ukraine while arrangements are made to partition Ukraine, which until recently was part of Russia for 200 years. It is certain that the majority of residents in eastern Ukraine prefer Russia to the EU. It is even possible that the brainwashed elements in the western half might stop foaming at the mouth long enough to comprehend that being in US/EU hands means being looted as per Latvia and Greece.

I am outlining the least dangerous outcomes of the crisis that Washington and its “stupid” European puppet states have created, not making recommendations to Russia. The worst outcome is a dangerous war. If the Russians sit on their hands, the situation will become unbearable for them. As Ukraine moves toward NATO membership and suppression of the Russian population, the Russian government will have to attack Ukraine and overthrown the foreign regime or surrender to the Americans. The likely outcome of the audacious strategic threat with which Washington is confronting Russia would be nuclear war.

The neoconservative Victoria Nuland sits in her State Department office happily choosing the members of the next Ukrainian government. Is this US official oblivious to the risk that Washington’s meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine and Russia could be triggering nuclear war? Are President Obama and Congress aware that there is an Assistant Secretary of State who is provoking armageddon?

Insouciant Americans are paying no attention and have no idea that a handful of neoconservative ideologues are pushing the world toward destruction.