REDUCE TAX: Telcos And Others Tell Government

Vice President Mahamoud Bawumia

Telecoms operators and other corporate organisations are kicking against the 5% National Fiscal Stabilisation Levy and have appealed to the new government to scrap it from its first budget.

Opposition to the tax stems from the argument that it has outlived its purpose and is now hurting the bottomline of businesses.

President John Dramani Mahama's government introduced the NFSL on July 15, 2013 to help reduce Ghana’s growing deficit. It was pegged at five per cent of the accounting profits of specified companies and institutions.

The categories of companies selected to pay this special tax include telecom service providers, banks,  (excluding rural and community banks) non-banking financial institutions, insurance companies, breweries, inspection and valuation companies, companies providing mining support services, as well as shipping lines, maritime and airport terminals.

The levy was expected to last for 18 months (ending January 2015) however the companies are still paying the tax.

Moreover, the new Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta has promised to get rid of all "nuisance taxes" in the country, and the payers of the NFSL expect that it will be included because it is a nuisance.

"We expect the new Finance Minister, Ken Ofori-Atta to announce in this year's budget that the NFSL is finally out," one telco CEO said.

Ken Ofori Atta, Minister of Finance

Meanwhile, months ago, CEO of MTN Ghana, Ebenezer Twum Asante, said when the NFSL was introduced, the selected organizations were happy to pay because it was to help stabilize the economy.

He noted that on two previous occasions, the issue of waiving it was mentioned in the former president's state of the nation address but no action was taken and so the affected companies continue to pay.

"But we continue to do so at the expense of our own reinvestments and payment of dividends to our shareholders so we believe it is time for the government to start a discussion on how to wave it," he said.

Ebenezer Asante said the NFSL has overrun the period set for it to last for, and because the affected companies did not expect it to go beyond 18 months, it is now beginning to impact plans for expansion and more reinvestments.

"We were expecting the government to wave it latest by this year so that we can go back to our mandatory taxes, duties, and levies which we are very happy to continue paying," he said.

The MTN boss said telcos and other corporate institutions will continue to engage government on this matter and other related matters to ensure the best for the country.

Editorial

A PROMISE INDEED!

Yes, it is true!

The New Patriotic Party (NPP) in opposition made heavy weather out of the fact that taxes in Ghana are relatively high and promised to reduce them significantly.

Normally, it is alright to insist that all the promises which the NPP made must be fulfilled especially when spokespersons of the Party created the impression that they knew the state of the economy better than the sitting government.

However, all Ghanaians can see and know that any drastic reduction in taxes now would have very drastic and negative effect on the national economy.

Ghana does not simply generate enough revenue to pay public sector wages and to invest in social and economic development.

We urge those who are clamouring for substantial tax reductions to please cool down.

After all, we all knew that the promises were without substance.

Mawerehene Pushes For Gold Refinery In Ashanti Region 

By Farida Shaibu

The Mawerehene for the Asantehene, Baffour Hyeaman Brantuo, has advocated for a gold refinery in the Ashanti Region to help in processing the gold before it is exported.

According to him, this will bring more revenue into the country, and also create jobs, instead of the current system where gold is exported in its raw state.

At a press conference in Kumasi on Sunday, Baffour Brantuo said he was hopeful that the one-district, one-factory initiative by government would make this idea a reality as he cited Tepa as his ideal location.

“It is our belief that if the gold in Asanteman is not exported raw but refined, one can be sure that there will be a lot of benefits to the people of the region and I am working with the Tepahene to set up a refinery in Tepa.”

“I know that once we refine our gold, the source of gold will become important and for that reason, if your source is not a legal source, you cannot send gold for refinement and then for export. There is a lot of work to be created with this idea of one-district, one-factory. It is part of the agenda that is in this new city,” the Mawerehene said.

Ghana has mined gold for decades, but has failed to add value to the raw material, as the commodity is exported and refined outside, and sold back to Ghanaians at high cost.

The country has also failed to develop areas where the minerals are mined, despite the huge taxes government earns from the mining firms.

Some Observations on Production and Productivity

Jeremy Corbyn

By Edgar Hardcastle

In the August issue reference was made to the comparative slowness with which industrial productivity increases. (See “This Age of Plenty.”) As that statement runs counter to a widespread belief, it will be worthwhile setting out some of the relevant factors in order to justify the conclusion arrived at.

First of all, let us look at the claims made by those who believe that we have entered into an age of astounding productivity, an “age of plenty.”

The American group who call themselves “Technocrats” claim that the output per head of the workers in industry has increased thousands of times within a comparatively short period. Then Mr. J. L. Hodgson, author of “The Great God Waste” (see review in July SOCIALIST STANDARD), claimed in a broadcast talk delivered on April 17th, 1934 (obtainable from Mr. Hodgson at Eggington, Beds., at 2d. a copy), that “we have devised machines which speed up output per man of such things and processes as shoes, flour, pig-iron, bricks, ploughing and reaping, from fifty to three thousand times.”

In “The Great God Waste,” Mr. Hodgson tells us that the tractor and combined harvester and thresher “have during the last fifteen years increased the daily output of the wheatfield worker by some seventy fold&38221; (page 10); and that his experience has revealed to him “a vast and continuous increase in both industrial efficiency and in actual productive capacity” (page 9). These two statements appear in a section headed “Our Immense Potential Productivity.”

Mr. H. Norman Smith, prospective Labour Candidate for Faversham, writing in Forward (August 11th), claims, in complete seriousness, that mechanical progress has gone so far in the direction of increasing output per head that we are within measurable distance of “one immense robot factory, employing no workmen at all,” which “can deliver an unending stream of all the goods mankind needs.”

Black-shirted Sir Oswald Mosley, ever greedy to appropriate the more spectacular theories of his former Labour Party associates, now shares this “age of plenty" notion with his green-shirted Douglasite opponents. In his “Greater Britain” (1934 edition, page 61) he says that “Science, Invention, Technique, have recently increased the power to produce out of the range of all previous experience.”

There is no need to multiply instances, they abound in the journals published by the Technocrats, the Douglasites, the Mosleyites, the I.L.P. and the Labour Party. (The Communists, at least in Great Britain, have taken a sounder line on this question, due perhaps to Russian industrial experience.)

Now let us indicate what would be some of the results if these astounding increases of productivity had occurred.

First, it is obvious that if the output of each worker increased enormously, then a given number of workers would produce an enormously greater total output. On the other hand, if the total output were not increased, then the number of workers needed to produce the former total output would be enormously decreased.

By applying that test to industry we can at once dispose of one group of believers in an “age of plenty,” viz., the group that believes this enormous increase of productivity has actually been utilised in industry, in the direction, not of decreasing the number of workers, but of enormously increasing the total product. They can be shown to be wrong, because no such enormous increase has taken place. In Great Britain several reliable inquiries agree that only a very moderate increase in total output occurs year by year.

For example, in 1928 The Economist published “A British Index of National Prosperity,” by Mr. G. D. Rokeling, with a commendatory preface by Sir Josiah Stamp. Mr. Rokeling estimated the annual changes in the amount of “real national income” per head of the population. It is a little difficult to explain briefly what “real national income” meant in this connection, but roughly it represented the amount (not the value) of production of all kinds during each year. Although the final index included also income from abroad, and income from abroad had increased very rapidly, Mr Rokeling showed that the “real national income” per head of the population in 1927 was only four per cent, greater than it was in 1920, while in the intervening “crisis” years, 1921 to 1923, it was actually very much less than in 1920. Mr. Rokeling later extended the index to the year 1929, by which year there had been an increase to eight per cent, above the level of 1920, giving a total increase of only eight per cent, in nine years.

A second set of figures to support the view here put forward, is provided by the London and Cambridge Economic Service, which compiles an index of the “physical volume of production,” covering all the chief groups of manufacture, mining, food production, etc. This index at its peak (end of 1929) reached to only fifteen per cent, above the level of 1924. It then declined in 1932 to a point nearly twenty-five per cent, below the level of 1924, and did not reach the 1924 level again until 1934. (See Royal Economic Society September Reports on Economic Conditions. Memorandum No. 46, April, 1934.)

Estimates compiled by the Board of Trade, and others, give a similar picture. Our first conclusion is, therefore, that even during a period of more or less continuous expansion of production and sales, such as that from 1924 to 1929, the total output of industry increased by only a small percentage; in the above instance an average of two per cent, or three per cent, a year. (At certain periods, and in other countries, a somewhat larger increase has been estimated, but still of a quite moderate size. Some American figures suggest an increase of factory productivity of about five per cent, a year.)

Is Labour Still Needed in Production?

We now come to the second line of defence of the believers in an “Age of Plenty.” The Technocrats, and others, say that productivity per head increases, but not the total volume of production, because fewer and fewer workers are being employed in production. Thus one of the Technocrats, Mr. W. W. Parrish (New Outlook, New York, November and December, 1932), claimed that “man-hours per unit of product and the labour cost per unit have dropped in recent years to levels approaching zero.”

Mr. Norman Smith says (Forward, August 4th, 1934) that “mechanical invention steadily reduces the number of man-hours in production,” so much so in fact that, as we have already seen, Mr. Smith is contemplating the idea of wealth production by machines without workers. He wants the Labour Party to consider dropping its name because there isn’t any “labour” any more, while the Douglasites try to make our flesh creep with threats that 'soon' (how soon, nobody knows; Major Douglas has been playing fat-boy for at least twenty years and his “theories” are a century or more old), all the workers, except a mere handful, will be unemployed.

The Census of Production Figures (Board of Trade Journal, February 16th, 1933) are a complete answer to this superficial view of industry. Those figures show that between 1924 and 1930 the total number of persons employed in factory trades, building and contracting, and mines and quarries, did decline, but not by the vast numbers assumed by the Technocrats and others. The decline was from 6,411,000 to 6,013,600, a total decline of only 397,400, or six per cent: an average of less than one per cent, a year.

The same Board of Trade inquiry shows that in the six years the total volume of manufactured goods decreased by two per cent., while the number of workers in manufacturing industries alone declined by about five-and-a-half per cent.

Again, the Ministry of Labour Gazette, in December, 1933, published figures showing the number of insured workers actually in employment, divided into separate groups according to industry. For the whole group of manufacturing industries the number employed in June, 1933 (in spite of the depression and consequent low output), was within one per cent. of the number at June, 1923. (The number of workers in transport, distribution, building, etc., and also the number of workers in all insured trades increased between 1923 and 1933.)

Perhaps the most convincing disproof of the theory of rapid displacement of workers can be gained by examining an industry - the boot industry - in which, according to these theorists, some of the most striking mechanical developments have occurred. Attack, organ of the green-shirt Douglasites (June, 1934), for example, gave figures purporting to show a vast increase in productivity in the manufacture of boots and shoes. Yet when we look at the number of workers employed in this industry we find that between 1923 and 1933 the decline was actually less than two per cent. (Ministry of Labour Gazette, December, 1933.)

It will take more than two per cent, in ten years to set the Douglasite Thames on fire.

Or take agriculture, the industry in which, so Mr. Hodgson believes, the productivity of wheat-field workers has increased seventy-fold. Between 1923 and 1933 the number of persons employed in agriculture decreased from 772,387 to 715,100?a decrease of seven-and-a-half per cent, in ten years, less than one per cent, a year. (Statistical Abstract, 1934, page 259.)

Before leaving this question of the development of labour, it is interesting to notice how easily the careless use of figures can mislead. At the Conference of the Boot and Shoe Operatives’ Union, on May 21st, 1934, the census of production figures were given quite accurately and legitimate conclusions drawn from them. Several newspapers and propaganda journals, however, seized upon the figures and presented them as proof of the great increase in productivity. Actually the figures pointed to an increase of productivity per worker of less than three per cent, a year, from twenty-two pairs a week in 1924 to twenty-six pairs in 1930.

Incidentally, as the Technocrats have been responsible for much of the nonsense written about productivity, it is as well to remember that their figures have been discredited. When The Economist (London, March 18th, 1933) reviewed Raymond’s “What is Technocracy?” they agreed with his conclusion that the Technocrats’ figures were “wildly inaccurate,” and their researches “worthless.”

Does Waste Increase?

Some of the “Age of Plenty” warriors have still a third line of defence. Productivity does increase very rapidly, they say, but this is offset by a colossal wastage. Mr. J. L. Hodgson claims that “wealth and amenities do not increase one-tenth as fast as they would do if the hidden leaks could be discovered and stopped.” (”Great God Waste,” page 14.)

He went on to say that the effect of these “leaks” more than doubled during a period of a few months last year.

Now before looking for the fallacy in this argument, let us be clear about two distinct ways in which it could operate: (a) in industry itself, and (b) outside industry.

The first assumption (increased waste in industry itself) would work out as follows: Great increases in output per head assumed in each industry, but instead of sacking the redundant workers, or increasing the total output of industry, the employer allows (or is deceived into allowing) the redundant workers to be carried as “passengers” Thus the increased output per head of some of the workers would be offset by the fact that the rest of the workers idled away their time doing nothing. Now that would be one way of explaining how an increase in productivity per head could be offset by a growing “wastage” inside industry, and to some slight and temporary extent it may actually happen. In general, however, nothing of the kind is permitted to occur. Employers do not allow their workers to spend the day amusing themselves.

To be quite fair to Mr. Hodgson, he at least does not offer this as an explanation of the way in which the total output of industry fails to reflect a supposed increase in output per head. He would no doubt agree with us that if a boot manufacturer found that he could turn out as many boots with only one-tenth of the men (and assuming that he could not multiply his sales by ten) he would promptly sack the other nine-tenths.

We all know that the employers and their managers and foremen, and the scientific “sweaters≵ who form so-called industrial-psychology organisations, never cease to seek out ways of economising and increasing efficiency, and reducing staff.

Mr. Hodgson says that he has had much firsthand experience of one aspect of this economising process, and he readily admits that, so far from there being an increase in waste inside industry there is a constant decrease.

In order then to support the theory that an enormous increase in output per head is offset by an enormous increase of wastage, we must seek this wastage outside industry, not inside.

Mr. Hodgson tries to do this. He mentions many obvious instances of “wastage” (known to , Socialists for generations), such as unemployment, destruction of goods, war, advertising, etc., and out of this he constructs his theory of “leaks” which result in wealth increasing only one-tenth as fast as it otherwise would do.

Unfortunately, Mr. Hodgson does not show in full how he arrives at his estimate of the total amount of “wastage,” and when he does give details he exhibits a carelessness which does not encourage us to accept the rest of his estimate with any confidence.

On page 20, for example, he says that unemployment is three millions, plus another million temporarily stopped; being unaware apparently that the first figure already includes those temporarily stopped.

However, that is by the way. The main point is that even if Mr. Hodgson’s estimates of the volume of wastage were accurate they are not what is required to prove his case. His theory of a constant nullification of rapidly increasing productivity in industry, demands not merely evidence of large waste outside industry, but of rapidly increasing waste. He does not supply this and does not even attempt to do so in spite of being challenged several times on the point.

He has not done so for the very good reason that he cannot. No such enormous increase in wastage occurs. Both that and the alleged enormous increase in industrial productivity are myths.

It is probable that during a period of capitalist expansion following a crisis, “wastage” both inside and outside industry decreases as a whole, owing to the decrease of unemployment which is one of the largest components of the latter kind of “waste.”

We may sum up our analysis by saying that productivity per head of the workers in any established industry, and the total output of industry as a whole, are increased by inventions, machinery and new processes, but only at a comparatively slow rate.

In conclusion, it may be noticed that these “high-productivity,” “age of plenty,” “production without labour” theories, are typical by-products of each capitalist depression, born of crisis out of ignorance; just as the contrary nonsense of the Malthusians has its heyday during each period of capitalist expansion, when we are asked to gaze on the horrid prospect of famine through population increasing faster than our means of subsistence.

CUBA WANTS BETTER RELATIONS WITH US

Josefina Vildal

By Iramsy Peraza Forte 

Cuba has reaffirmed its willingness to continue working to improve relations with the United States and build ties of peaceful co-existence and mutual benefit, during the fifth Bilateral Commission meeting, held in Havana. 

Speaking to the press, Josefina Vidal, director general for the United States at Cuba’s Ministry of Foreign Relations and head of the island’s delegation to the Commission, stated that the country is willing to identify new opportunities and work to build a different kind of relationship with the U.S. - a civilized one based on respect, without making any kind of concession or renouncing principles to which the island is committed. 

According to Vidal, during the meeting the Cuban delegation explained that the reestablishment of diplomatic relations, opening of embassies, and development of cooperation ties in distinct areas benefit the two countries and reflect the interests of both parties. 

“We also spoke about how developing relations in the economic-trade sphere could benefit the two countries, an issue in which we have only taken initial steps, given that we still face a very restrictive framework, from the point of view of the regulations which prevail in the United States,” she added.

Economic-trade relations can only be expanded if the blockade is lifted, which would create important opportunities to develop these ties, stated Vidal.

She went on to note that Cuba and its government hope that the new U.S. administration will not only take into account the results of the Bilateral Commission over the past 15 months, but also those achieved since rapprochement began following the December 17, 2014 announcements, a process supported by the majority of Cuban and U.S. citizens, including most Cubans living in the U.S., and the vast majority of countries around the world. 

Vidal also confirmed that an ambitious work agenda - which will require a concerted effort by both parties in order to achieve the desired results and resolve certain pending issues – was drawn up during the meeting, this time presided by Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Mari Carmen Aponte.

We intend to conclude discussions on the majority of key issues we have been negotiating with the government of Barack Obama, by January, noted Vidal.

In this sense she highlighted that work is underway to finalize negotiations and sign 12 new cooperation agreements in spheres such as seismology; meteorology; protected land areas; sea pollution caused by oil spills; the application and enforcement of the law; search and rescue operations; and delimitation of the Dona Oriental in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Vidal noted that the next high level visits, holding of work groups - set to take place over the coming weeks and focusing on issues featuring in the Economic Bilateral Dialogue which began in September, such as regulatory matters, energy, trade and investment, and intellectual property - and technical encounters on aviation, and between Cuba’s border troops and the U.S. Coastguard, were all established during the meeting. 

She also stressed the Cuban delegation’s insistence that, despite positive measures taken by the U.S. government, these continue to be of a limited scope, while the persistence of the blockade has significantly impacted the country’s trade and economy. “The lifting of the blockade is vital if Cuba and the United States are to have normal relations,” she stated. 

The Cuban diplomat reported that the island’s delegation repeated its call for the territory illegally occupied by the U.S. Naval base in Guantánamo to be returned, and an end to existing interventionist policies which harm Cuban sovereignty, in order to advance on the path toward the normalization of relations. 

She went on to state that the delegations undertook a positive assessment of the results of the fourth Bilateral Commission, held in Washington on September 3, highlighting the high level visits made by both parties; the adoption of a new agreement in the field of health (Memorandum of Understanding for Collaboration in the Area of Cancer Control); resumption of regular flights to Havana from the U.S.; the holding of technical encounters on air space and aviation security, health, environmental protection, and hydrography; as well as others linked to the application and enforcement of the law, and talks on issues of bilateral and multilateral interest, such as human rights, and the non-proliferation of weapons and disarmament. 

Vidal noted that both parties recognized the usefulness of the Commission, created in August 2015, during U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s visit to Cuba, which has resulted in the signing of 12 cooperation agreements on issues of mutual interest and 24 high level visits. 

Finally, the Cuban diplomat highlighted that the island is continuing to see a sustained increase in arrivals of U.S. citizens, with just over 208,000 having visited Cuba by the end of October 2016, representing an increase of 68% as compared to the same period last year.

Meanwhile, 248,000 Cubans residing in the U.S. traveled to the island between January and October of 2016, an increase of 4%, she noted. 

Vidal also reported that over 1,200 cultural, scientific, academic, and sporting exchanges have taken place from January through October, this year, representing an increase of 12% as compared to 2015

Philippines’ Duterte Seeks Peace?

Rodrigo Duterte

By Marjorie Cohn

Filipino President Duterte oversaw a brutal anti-drug campaign but is now seeking peace with leftist revolutionaries and rejecting U.S. pressure for more counterinsurgency warfare, writes Marjorie Cohn.

In April 2016, Rodrigo Duterte won the Philippine presidential election by a landslide, with more than 6 million votes. He openly declared that he was the nation’s first Left president, calling himself a socialist but not a communist. So far, his regime has been controversial, to put it mildly.

The U.S. press has focused on Duterte’s vicious war on drugs that  claimed upwards of 2,000 lives and led to the incarceration of tens of thousands of people. His decision to allow former Filipino dictator Ferdinand Marcos’s burial in the National Cemetery of the Heroes also has drawn the ire of those who recall Marcos’s brutal two-decade regime that killed more than 3,000, tortured tens of thousands, and stole $10 billion from the Philippines.

But, significantly, Duterte is engaging with revolutionary forces in the peace process that aims to end 47 years of armed struggle against the repressive Filipino government. And Duterte has taken actions that, for the first time, challenge the longstanding military and economic power of the United States in the Philippines.

Peace Process With Opposition

Since 1969, a civil war has been raging in the Philippines. The roots of the armed conflict can be traced to the colonial and neocolonial domination of the Philippines by the Spanish, then U.S. imperialism, feudal exploitation by big landlords and capitalist interests, as well as widespread bureaucratic corruption. After Duterte’s election, he cited peace as a top priority of his administration, vowing to engage in peace negotiations with the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP).

According to JustPeacePH, an international platform that supports the Philippine peace process and takes its name from its Internet site, “justpeace.ph,” “The daily, systematic and systemic injustice experienced by the people drive them to desire and seek fundamental changes in society through various means. But because the forces against fundamental social change use all means including the instruments and violence of the state to defend the status quo, many Filipinos over many generations have embraced armed struggle to overthrow the ruling system.”

The NDFP “is the alliance of progressive forces seeking to bring about fundamental change in the existing social system in the Philippines through armed revolution,” JustPeacePH states in its Primer on Just and Lasting Peace in the Philippines. The NDFP alliance includes trade unions, peasants, youth, women, national minorities, teachers, health workers, religious clergy, the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), and the New People’s Army.

Duterte’s Peace Initiative

Two rounds of peace negotiations have already occurred since Duterte took office, with a third scheduled for January 2017 in Oslo, Norway.

In May, Duterte declared he would release all political prisoners, which number more than 400, through a presidential declaration of amnesty, provided both houses of congress approve. Nineteen NDFP consultants, who have been involved in the revolutionary movement for years, have already been released.

Duterte offered four cabinet positions to the CPP, but they declined, stating there must first be a comprehensive peace agreement. The CPP, however, recommended a veteran peasant leader who was appointed Secretary of Agrarian Reform and a veteran academic activist leader who was named secretary of social welfare and development.

“These are major appointments,” Luis Jalandoni, NDFP’s Senior Adviser on the Peace Negotiating Panel, told me at a recent conference of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers in Lisbon, Portugal.

NDFP has a people’s army and organs of political power with mass organizations in 71 out of the 81 provinces in the country, Jalandoni said. He noted that landlessness and poverty afflict the 100 million people in the Philippines.

“The NDFP insists on addressing the roots of the armed conflict in order to achieve a just and lasting peace,” Jalandoni said.

The demands in the peace talks are: Release of all political prisoners; Land reform for the peasantry (70% of the population); National industrialization to develop the economy using available human and natural resources; Protect the environment and ancestral lands of the indigenous peoples; and Philippine national sovereignty and abrogation of all unequal treaties with the United States.

Challenging U.S. Power

U.S. domination and interference in the Philippines date back to 1898, when the United States annexed the Philippines. The U.S. continued to exercise colonial rule over the country until 1946, when the Philippines gained its independence although the United States retained many military installations there and the Filipino economy maintained its dependence on the U.S.

With U.S. assistance, Marcos ruled the Philippines with an iron fist from 1965 through 1986, under martial law from 1972 to 1981. In 2002, the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo government developed Oplan Bayanihan, a counterinsurgency program modeled on U.S. strategies. After 9/11, the Bush administration gave Arroyo $100 million to fund that campaign in the Philippines.

Oplan Bayanihan led to large numbers of extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, torture and cruel treatment. Many civilians, including children, have been killed. Philippine military and paramilitary death squads murdered hundreds of members of progressive organizations. Communities and leaders opposed to large-scale and invasive mining have been targeted. Even ordinary people with no political affiliation have not escaped the government’s reign of terror.

From 2001 to 2010, the U.S. government provided more than $507 in military assistance to the Philippine government, facilitating tremendous repression.

Between 2010 and 2015, the Philippine police, military and paramilitary forces perpetrated extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, torture, illegal arrests and forced evacuation, many to enable extraction by mining companies.

The 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, which President Barack Obama negotiated with Duterte’s predecessor, gave U.S. troops the right to prolonged deployment in the Philippines. The agreement is widely seen in the Philippines as a threat to the country’s sovereignty.

In September 2016, Duterte declared, “I am not a fan of the Americans … Filipinos should be first before everybody else.” He added, “In our relations to the world, the Philippines will pursue an independent foreign policy. I repeat: The Philippines will pursue an independent foreign policy.”

The United States has not apologized for all the atrocities it committed against the Filipino people, Duterte said. Responding to U.S. criticism of the Philippines for its human rights violations, he stated, “Why are you Americans killing the black people there, shooting them down when they are already on the ground.”

Duterte promised to end joint military maneuvers with U.S. forces and expel the hundreds of U.S. troops currently stationed in the Philippines. He also expressed his intention to end bilateral agreements concluded by his predecessor with the United States and reverse permission for the United States’ use of five Philippine military bases.

“I will break up with America,” Duterte said. “I would rather go to Russia and to China.” He vowed to rescind joint patrols with U.S. and Filipino forces against Chinese expansion in the disputed South China Sea. Indeed, Duterte recently traveled to China and secured valuable fishing rights for Filipinos in the South China Sea.

Hope for Peace Prospects

In an unprecedented development, both the government and the opposition declared unilateral ceasefires in August. But there are still problems with the government’s ceasefire, says Jalandoni, as Duterte doesn’t have full control of the military. The military and paramilitary forces, which are protected by the military, have engaged in several violations that imperil the ceasefire, he said.

“There is high optimism that the peace talks will prosper under the presidency of Duterte,” according to JustPeacePH. “Unlike past presidents who harbor strong anti-communist bias, Duterte seems capable of rethinking the government’s peace strategy since he claims to be a socialist.”

Opposition forces are not uncritical of the excesses in Duterte’s war on drugs. The CPP declared the campaign is becoming anti-people and anti-democratic. Due process must be respected, human rights must be upheld; the drug users and small drug dealers, who come from poverty, require rehabilitation and care, the CPP maintains.

“Understandably, Duterte’s war on drugs and other crimes is given more coverage by the global media,” JustPeacePH wrote in its primer. “But Duterte’s aim to establish a lasting peace in the provinces deserves even more attention as this strikes at the root causes of the problem of illegal drugs and related crimes.”

Jalandoni said, “Duterte is not a saint but he stands for an independent foreign policy. His stand against the United States is respected and has received a lot of support.”

The NDFP, Jalandoni noted, says that “if there are threats against Duterte by U.S. imperialism, the Left will be a reliable ally to him,” adding, “He is the first president to stand up to the United States.”

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. She is a member of the International Legal Assistance Team that advises the National Democratic Front of the Philippines on human rights and humanitarian law in their peace negotiations. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues. Visit her website at http://marjoriecohn.com/ and follow her on Twitter @marjoriecohn.

The original source of this article is Consortium News

Cairo & Riyadh standoff – political displacement and the new axis of resistance

Abdel Fatah al-Sisi (R) and King Salman of Saudi Arabia

By Catherine Shakdam 

Just when you thought the MENA region could not churn out any more crises... This time two giants are locking horns over conflicting geopolitical ambitions, or rather, Saudi Arabia might have overstepped one boundary too many against Egypt.

With so many eyes locked in on Aleppo, much of Cairo and Riyadh’s belligerent political foreplay has gone largely unnoticed, labelled by most as unimportant in comparison to the Syrian furore. 

Without taking anything away from the breath-taking advances the Syrian Army has accomplished against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in Aleppo – a victory we know will change the course of the war forever, and firmly assert Syria as a grand pillar of resistance against the insanity of covert western imperialism, Egypt’s growing ire towards the kingdom could lead to a tectonic political shift of such magnitude that it could spell the end of all Persian Gulf monarchies. And just like that, the ghost of President Gamal Abdel Nasser is coming back to haunt Riyadh's golden palaces.

Call it poetic justice if you like, but there is a certain irony to Saudi Arabia’s mounting arrogance, since every move it has played towards expanding its gravitas in the region has in fact diminished its relevance... and bled its coffers dry.

Yes, undeniably, the kingdom is still wealthy, but like any other nation, its core power lies in its ability to coerce others to its will. And, if Riyadh has played its chequebook like a violin, the war in Yemen and mounting dissent within the ranks of its political and military coalition have taken much wind out of Saudi Arabia’s political sails.

As it turns out, the Saudi lobby might have overestimated its traction.

It all began in April 2016, when Egypt was still keen to assuage Riyadh’s concerns over its political choices in exchange for a healthy injection of cash into its stressed economy. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s infatuation with King Salman would be short lived though, being far more motivated by money than ideology.

Saudi Arabia’s core power is tied to its wealth, not its ability to inspire nations.

But back to Egypt.

In exchange for a series of lucrative contracts and promised diplomatic support, Egypt agreed to transfer some of its territorial integrity to the kingdom by ceding control over two of its islands: Tiran and Sanafir. Located at the southern entry to the Gulf of Aqaba, where both Israel and Jordan maintain important ports, the islands are of great geopolitical importance, so much so in fact that Tel Aviv has long coveted them for itself.

Egyptians were not exactly pleased. In fact, news of the deal ignited an impassioned debate on the legality of the move, since Egyptian territorial integrity is the cornerstone of the Egyptian Constitution.

Taking to social media to express outrage, Hamdeen Sabahi, once a presidential hopeful (2014), denounced the planned handover, saying it went against the Egyptian Constitution which prohibits ceding territory. As he called for a complete withdrawal of the agreement, Sabahi implied Riyadh was taking advantage of Egypt’s economic vulnerability to play empire-building.

Egypt was angry – so angry that Sisi had to concede a parliamentary review. Saudi Arabia’s deal was dead in the water before it could take its first breath.

This one incident has now metamorphosed into a full-blown spat, as each party has raised its fists in defiance, keen to remind the other just how mighty they can be if pushed too far.

And so the dance began!

The first real blow came when Egypt voted this October in favor of Russia’s draft proposal on Syria to the United Nations Security Council, thus directly positioning itself against Saudi Arabia and its ambition to see Syrian President Bashar Assad fall from power. In an analysis for al-Monitor, Khalid Hassan wrote: “The draft was unacceptable to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which seeks to depose the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and which viewed Egypt’s vote for the resolution as a deviation from the Arab position.”

Riyadh responded in kind this November when it froze all oil imports to Egypt. Reuters reported: “Saudi Arabia has informed Egypt that shipments of oil products expected under a $23 billion aid deal have been halted indefinitely, suggesting a deepening rift between the Arab world's richest country and its most populous.”

Note that Riyadh’s snub came as Egyptian Oil Minister Tarek El Molla was rumored to have scheduled a visit to Iran, as part of an economic and energy broadening effort.

Whether Egyptian officials will break bread with their Iranian counterparts in the near future or not is irrelevant. What matters are long-term political alignments, and if anything, the past few months have proven that Cairo and Riyadh sit on very different political tables altogether. As for Iran, experience has proven that for every misstep the Kingdom has taken, Tehran’s traction has amplified tenfold. When one needs only to sit still to grow in strength, the impatient tend to miscalculate.

Although a reconciliation with Egypt is still possible, Saudi Arabia’s latest stunt in the Horn of Africa is likely to further aggravate grievances, and awaken Egypt’s national anger.

Earlier this December, news broke that Saudi Arabia would open a military base in Djibouti. The Egyptians were not amused.

The New Arab quoted an official Egyptian source as saying: “Cairo is totally against the deal because it considers Djibouti to be under the Egyptian sphere of influence and because its location is important for national security... This move goes against the generally accepted customs between Arab countries as the area has a direct influence on the passage of ships towards the Suez Canal. If Saudi Arabia wants to ensure that Iran does not take control of the area, that is understandable – however, this must take place with Egyptian oversight and permission.”

But why is the Horn of Africa so crucial to Egypt’s national security? One word: water.

A dispute over access to water resources in the region would ignite an existential struggle which would explode the MENA and feed dangerous fires given Africa’s recent descent into radicalism. Nigeria comes to mind.

I will say this: the kingdom’s belligerence will only further strengthen those resistance movements which have emerged across the MENA, each in reaction to both imperialism and Wahhabism. 

How long before those different movements merged into one to tumble al-Saud’s house, and like dominoes those monarchies fall...