Weaponising the Anti-Semitism Slur.

Do you find this offensive?  Do you consider it anti-semitic?  Perhaps before you decide it would be helpful to know the origins of this map and text.  

It was posted by Norman Finkelstein on his blog on August 4, 2014. Dr. Finkelstein is an American author and activist, with a PhD in Political Science from Princeton University. He is Jewish.  Both his parents survived both the Warsaw Ghetto and internment in concentration camps - his father in Auschwitz, his mother in Majdanek. He is certainly not someone to whom one would normally apply the term "anti-semite".  

But it was this post that caused the resignation from the British Labour Party of Naz Shah, an MP of Pakistani origin, and stoked the allegations of left-wing anti-semitism.  Ms. Shah's 'crime' was to share Finkelstein's post on Facebook in August, 2014, adding the comment that it might "save them some pocket money".  The cries of anti-Semitism reverberated through the press and political establishment, with Conservative leader and Prime Minister David Cameron saying it was “extraordinary,” that she continued to hold the Labour whip, and accusing the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, of failing to get to grips with anti-semitisim in his party.  Corbyn and Shah crumbled under the assault, and Ms. Shah was suspended from the Labour Party.   

To me, rather than being anti-semitic, the post seems more to be a sardonic commentary on the Washington's  attitude towards Israel - about the way the US donates $3 billion annually for Israel's defence, and how its unyielding support for the Israeli government exacerbates conflict in the region affecting the price of oil and preventing any chance of peace and justice for the Palestinian people.   

Few people can withstand the public shaming that accompanies allegations of anti-semitism.   One who can, and has done before, is is the former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, who in defence of Naz Shah, in an impromptu interview, made the technically incorrect statement that "when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel.  He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews."  Of course Israel did not exist in 1932, so the statement is incorrect.  And certainly Hitler was no Zionist.  But nonetheless there is some truth in Livingstone's claim since there was an agreement (the Havaara agreement) signed in 1933 between the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany to help facilitate the emigration of German Jews to Palestine.  Presumably this was the policy that Livingstone was referring to.  

But again the press, the Conservative Party, the Blairite wing of the Labour party and many Israel supporters and representatives of Jewish groups, jumped all over this, accusing Livingstone of anti-semitism.  Again pressure was put on Jeremy Corbyn and again he meekly folded and suspended Livingstone from the Labour Party. 

Naz Sha's Facebook post appeared in 2014, so one has to ask the question of why these dubious allegations of anti-semitism in Labour's ranks have arisen at this time?  It surely could not have been a coincidence that local elections were due to be held across Britain a week or two after the affair exploded (in fact they were held yesterday, May 5th.).  And furthermore the key race for the mayor of London was between a Muslim of Pakistani origin (Sadiq Khan for Labour) and a British Jew (Zac Goldsmith for the Conservatives). Goldsmith has been accused of stirring up divisive ethnic tensions by claiming that Khan had shared the stage at some meetings with supporters of Islamic terrorism.  So allegations of anti-semitism in the Labour ranks might be expected to help the Conservative party.  But there is also a sizeable portion of the Labour Party, especially its MPs, who have never been comfortable with Corbyn assuming the leadership.  It has been claimed that this Blairite faction in the party, would be happy to see Labour taking a pounding in the local elections, setting the stage for a parliamentary coup against Corbyn.  This faction has been very uncomfortable with Corbyn's successful bid for the leadership last year, and ever since that time there have been murmurings about Corbyn's supposed anti-semitism.  This no doubt arises from Corbyn's stated support for the Palestinian cause.  Unlike Tony Blair and George Brown he has not fallen into line with the establishment position of one hundred percent support for Israel, no matter how egregious its behaviour.  

Is there anti-semitism on the left?  I don't know, but there is certainly anti-Zionism, which is not the same thing, although the government of Israel and its supporters would like to confound the two.  This can be seen in the struggle to hinder the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement, the global campaign to put pressure on Israel to obtain for justice for the Palestinians.  For example under pressure from wealthy Jewish donors with political influence, the Board of Regents of the University of California has issued a statement linking anti-Zionism and anti-semitism.  Hillary Clinton has said  "We need to repudiate efforts to malign and undermine Israel and the Jewish people. The boycott, divestment and sanctions movement known as BDS is the latest front in this battle."  

But to follow the line of argument put forward by those who equate anti-Zionism with anti-semitism, any criticism of Israel is off-limits and beyond the pale.  We have seen too much of this bullying and intimidation of Israel's critics.   Remember Judge Richard Goldstone, a South African jurist of international repute, who issued a UN report condemning Israel (and Hamas) for war crimes in one of its attacks on Gaza.  He was so maligned and criticized within his own Jewish community that he later recanted and issued a new version of his report, much less critical of Israel.  

Also, believe it or not, Hillary Clinton, back in the days when she was First Lady believed in justice for Palestinians. In 1998 she said that she supported a Palestinian state.  Then, the following year, she kissed Suha Arafat after the Palestinian leader’s wife accused Israel of using “poison gas” against Palestinian children.  But then she ran for Senator in the state of New York, and soon realized that political power and influence lay with the supporters of Israel and not those of the Palestinians.  She was taught a very sharp, severe lesson and ever since has been a major champion of Israel, through thick and thin.  

Another person who the pro-Israel faction tried to bring into line was Norman Finkelstein, with whom we started this discussion.  Dr. Finkelstein has had more than his share of vilification from fellow Jews, not least for his book The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, in which he claims that the Holocaust is used as an "ideological weapon" to enable the State of Israel, "one of the world's most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, [to] cast itself as a victim state" thereby providing Israel with "immunity to criticism".   

His career has been ruined by his political opponents.  He was a Professor at De Paul University from 2001 to 2007, but fell out of favour with the university after a public spat with Alan Dershowitz, over the latter's book The Case for Israel. Finkelstein was placed on administrative leave after being denied tenure.  Matthew Abraham author of Out of Bounds: Academic Freedom and the Question of Palestine, described the Finkelstein tenure case as "one of the most significant academic freedom cases in the last fifty years", claiming the case demonstrated "the substantial pressure outside parties can place on a mid-tier religious institution when the perspectives advanced by a controversial scholar threaten dominant interests."

When Dr. Finkelstein went to Israel in 2008, he was detained in Ben Gurion airport for twenty-four hours and then put on a plane back to Amsterdam, whence he had arrived.  He was subsequently banned from entering Israel for ten years.  

Israeli cabinet minister Naftali Bennett has claimed of Binyamin Netanyahu that "The prime minister is not a private person, but the leader of the Jewish state and the whole Jewish world."  Of course this is an absurd claim.  Netanyahu is a political leader - prime minister of the State of Israel.  He is not a religious or spiritual leader.  He has no claim to be leader of Jews in other countries - if so we have a serious problem of divided loyalties.  But I think it is this attitude that helps blur the line between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism.  Suppose the claim were true, in some part.  Then could Bennett or Netanyahu object if those who condemn Israel for its illegal occupation and for its inhumane treatment of the Palestinians, likewise condemn all Jews as responsible?   If Israel represents all Jews, then all Jews are responsible.  It makes no sense, and I suspect that Israel's leaders know it makes no sense.  But they are not concerned with justice or reasonable behaviour, only ways to stifle criticism of their illegal and immoral actions.   

PS.  Zadiq Khan  won the London mayoral election and Labour didn't do too badly over all, except in Scotland where the SNP swept the field. So the smear tactics don't seem to have been too effective.  In fact Zac Goldsmith is now facing criticism for the campaign he ran, and for his dog-whistle attempts to stir up Islamophobia.

Is Russia not the only country using radiological weapons to murder perceived enemies?

The murder by polonium-210, in London, of Alexander Litvinenko is widely believed to have been carried out by Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtum, likely acting under the direction of Russia's intelligence agency the FSB.  These were the conclusions, released in January, of British High Court judge, Sir Robert Owen, following a public inquiry into the murder.  

Russia and its leader Vladimir Putin were condemned for the outrage, although in truth there was no direct evidence linking Lugovoy and Kovtum to Putin, only the fact that both were agents of the KGB in Soviet times (as was Putin) and subsequently became independent "security consultants."  In addition the polonium used in the murder was traced by Professor (of theoretical physics) Norman Dombey, at the University of Sussex, to a particular reactor in Russia.  Professor Dombey also opined that "the involvement of a FSB poison laboratory was also likely" and that in his opinion "the Russian state or its agents were responsible for the poisoning."   This hardly seems sufficient evidence to unequivocally convict Putin and the Russian state.  But a public inquiry is not the same thing as a criminal trial and so I presume that Sir Robert felt free to speculate saying "the FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev (head of FSB) and also by President Putin." 

But the Litvinenko murder is not the main subject of this post.  Rather it is about the death of Hugo Chavez in 2013, that I wish to write and like Sir Robert to engage in some speculation.   Since Chavez's death the economy and social cohesion of Venezuela seem to have been spiralling downward.  Corruption is said to be rampant.  I think nobody would be much surprised if the current president, Nicolas Maduro, were to be ousted from office, one way or another.  Of course the collapse in the world price of oil has not helped the Venezuelan economy.   But beyond that it seems that Maduro just does not have the same connection to the Venezuelan masses that  Chavez enjoyed.   

I had not thought much about Chavez's death since it happened.  At the time there were some vague allegations that he had been "got at" in some way.  But it seemed to me like an unfortunate and untimely death, just like that which afflicted NDP leader Jack Layton, after he had led his party to their best ever election performance and just when he was preparing to assume the role of Leader of the Opposition in parliament.    But today I read an article The Strange Death of Hugo Chavez 
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44525.htm
which is based on an interview with Eva Golinger, a Mexican lawyer and investigative journalist and winner of the International Award for Journalism in Mexico. 

Ms. Golinger begins by outlining the known attempts on Hugo Chavez' life.  These include the well-known 2002 coup, when he was kidnapped, but released when the people of Caracas and loyal units in the army rose up against the coup.  Golinger claims that she obtained "irrefutable evidence using the US Freedom of Information Act, that the CIA and other US agencies were behind the coup and supported financially,militarily and politically, those involved."   Then there was another foiled plot in 2004, when a group of Colombian paramilitaries were captured on a farm outside of Caracas just days before a planned attack on the presidential palace.  

But what really caught my attention was the claim that there was plot to kill Chavez in New York during his visit to the United Nations General Assembly in 2006.   This was the time when Chavez referred to George W Bush as "the Devil" claiming that he could "still smell the sulphur" on the dais from where Bush had spoken 24 hours earlier.   On that visit Chavez was due to address the US public at a "local, renowned university", but in a routine check by his security personnel, "high levels of radiation were discovered in the chair where he would have sat."   The chair was removed and subsequent tests showed that the level of radiation "could have resulted in significant harm to Chavez, had it gone undetected."  The chair had been provided by an American individual involved in local logistical support, and who, according to Golinger, "was shown to be acting with US intelligence agents."     

Of course there is no real smoking gun here.  But if Russian agents had poisoned Litvinenko with radioactive material the idea that US agents might use similar tactics against Chavez, seems eminently plausible.  

Ms. Golinger goes on to speculate on whether Chavez's cancer could have been induced by a fatal injection or other means.  She discusses how the 1975 Church Commission into the CIA uncovered the existence of an "assassination weapon developed by the CIA to induce heart attacks and soft-tissue cancers."  Chavez died of an aggressive soft-tissue cancer.  

Of course, there is no hard evidence.  But we do know that the CIA made several attempts to murder Fidel Castro. According to Wikipedia the assassination attempts "included cigars poisoned with botulinum toxin; a tubercle bacilli infected scuba-diving suit along with a booby-trapped conch placed on the sea bottom; an exploding cigar, a ballpoint pen containing a hypodermic syringe preloaded with the lethal concoction Blackleaf 40; and plain, mafia-style execution endeavours, among others.  There were plans to blow up Castro during his visit to Ernest Hemingway's museum in Cuba."   These plots were revealed during the hearings of the US Senate's Church Committee in 1975, set up to investigate CIA clandestine operations. One result of the Committee's report was an Executive Order issued by then president Gerald Ford banning US sanctioned assassinations of foreign leaders. But in 2001, the  9-11 attacks happened and constraints on US clandestine activities were lifted, if not officially then at least in practice, with then Vice-President Dick Cheney, saying that they would have to "work the dark side."   It seems very plausible that with their new 'licence to kill' the CIA and other agencies might have dusted off some of their old weaponry and decided to have a go at Hugo Chavez, who had long been a thorn in their side. 

It is interesting to see how many other leaders who have incurred the displeasure of the United States have developed cancer, or died of undiagnosed ailments.  Perhaps the best known is Yasser Arafat, who died after a short illness in 2004.  The rate of cancers among Latin American leaders is astonishingly high, at least for those whose political orientation is anywhere left of centre.  Apart from Chavez (diagnosed in 2011),  victims include Argentina's Nestor Kirchner (colon cancer - died of heart attack in 2010); Paraguay's Fernando Lupo (lymphoma - still alive),  Brazil's Lula da Silva (throat cancer - still alive); Argentina's Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner (thyroid cancer - still alive); Brazil's Dilma Rousseff (lymphoma - still alive, but politically only just so) and Colombia's Juan Manuel Santos (prostate cancer - still alive and still in office).  While Fidel Castro survived many assassination attempts, he almost died from a mysterious stomach and intestinal ailment he contracted in 2006 after attending a  People’s Summit held in Cordoba, Argentina, along with Chavez and Nestor Kirchner.   Castro is the only one of the three still alive.  

Of course it could all be coincidence - people do develop cancer and other health problems as they get older.  But if the Russian state employs agents to administer radioactive poison to those of whom it disapproves, why should we believe that the US is any different?  We know that the CIA has done some very nasty and criminal things in the past.  Now with relaxed oversight, it seems to me highly likely that they, and similar agencies, would have resurrected some of those evil practices. 

Should Jack Layton's family be taking another look at his untimely death? 

Obama's Pre-Emptive Strike.

Most leaders in their last years in office worry about their 'legacy' or how the world in the future will view their tenure in power.   Many wait until they are free of day-to-day responsibilities before publishing their memoirs, hoping to set the record straight (or bend it in a favourable direction) or giving extensive interviews to journalists who will act as sort of instant biographers.  But Barack Obama has acted pre-emptively and, with more than nine months left of his term, given extensive interviews to Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, which has published them in a series.  I must confess I have not read the interviews which apparently, combined, are almost of book length. Instead I am relying on second-hand reports such as the following by Patrick Cockburn, Middle East correspondent of The Independent. 

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/17/obama-and-the-house-of-saud-a-new-skepticism/

Cockburn comments that Obama, unlike David Cameron and his Chancellor, George Osborne, learns from his mistakes.  He also seems to have learned from his political rivals, by whom I mean the NeoCons, in that he has adopted the tactic employed by George W. Bush (and many Israeli governments of the past) of striking pre-emptively.   

In many ways Obama's remarks seem like Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address of January, 1961, in which he warned America of the dangers of the growing power of the "military-industrial" complex. Obama in his turn warns of how it is not in the interests of the USA to be led into overseas wars, which are really more in the interests of others than of the US itself.  He is particularly critical of the influence of Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states, long allied to the US.  He is also critical of Britain's David Cameron and French ex-President Nicolas Sarkozy, for the way in which they beseeched the US to lead a NATO air campaign against Libyan president Mummer Qadaffi, but then walked away when the Libyan state structure was destroyed, leaving the chaos which has prevailed for the last five years.  It was this breech of diplomatic politesse, criticizing leaders of allied countries, that seemed to gain most traction in the press, but what Obama had to say was really much more important than that - it amounts to a repudiation of the foreign policy that the United States has been following, since the inauguration of George W. Bush, i.e. for most of this century.  

Goldberg states that "A widely held sentiment inside the White House is that many of the most prominent foreign-policy think tanks in Washington are doing the bidding of their Arab or pro-Israeli funders." He also mentions how Obama "broke with the Washington playbook. This was his liberation day" referring to when he overturned his own 'red-line' and refused to bomb Syria.   

The Cockburn piece dwells heavily on the malign influence of Saudi Arabia, both in spreading Wahabbi extremism throughout the Muslim world and in their "purchase of people and institutions which they see as influential".  "Academic institutions of previously high repute in Washington have shown themselves to be as shamelessly greedy for subsidies from the Gulf and elsewhere, as predatory warlords and corrupt leaders in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and beyond".

In Cockburn's piece little mention is made of the malign influence of the pro-Israel NeoCons.  I don't know if this is how it is in Goldberg's piece.  But I wouldn't be surprised - Goldberg is a dual US-Israeli citizen and served in the Israeli Defence Forces.  He was a drum-beater for the invasion of Iraq, and according to Glen Greenwald prepared and disseminated a litany of falsehoods which rivalled those of Judith Miller of The New York Times.  However unlike many of the War Party, Goldberg later recanted publishing a piece in 2008, entitled "How Did I Get Iraq Wrong?"  

Whether Goldberg should still be counted as a NeoCon is a moot point.  But the fact is that the NeoCons as a group, hold considerable influence among the Washington foreign policy community.  And I am sure that their influence on foreign policy under Obama has been very bit as strong and as malign as that of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States. In so many cases the interests and aims of the Saudis and Israel coincide e.g. in overthrowing and de-stabilizing Iraq; throttling the 'Arab Spring'; overthrowing any Arab leader who is perceived as an enemy either for being prepared to act independently (Qadaffi) or who is too close to Iran (al Assad).  Both Saudis and NeoCons have urged US governments to use military force to accomplish these goals either directly or through the support of proxy militias such as is happening in Syria.  

But it seems that Obama has had a conversion.  One could almost say that the conversion happened on the road to Damascus, since as Goldberg reports, it happened with Obama's refusal to bomb Syria, after the sarin gas attack on the edge of Damascus, attributed at once by the NeoCons and the compliant media, to al Assad, but which on further examination appears to have been a "false-flag" operation, designed to discredit the al Assad regime (see e.g. 

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line 
and 
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/23/hersh-vindicated-turkish-whistleblowers-corroborate-story-on-false-flag-sarin-attack-in-syria/)

No doubt Obama's fight with Binyamin Netanyahu and the Saudis over the nuclear deal reached with Iran, helped to clarify his thinking - both parties tried, with all means at their disposal, to act in a way which Obama saw clearly was not in the best interests of the USA.  

An intersting question is why Obama has chosen to go public with his concerns at this point.  One answer is that he wishes to burnish his legacy - sort of implying a statement along the lines of "Sorry I made some mistakes (e.g. Libya) but I was misled by people in the pay or the sway of other interests.  It won't happen again on my watch."  Of course too, he is probably deeply concerned at the way in which the US has been steered in directions inimical to its best interests. But there is a third possible explanation which I find interesting.  This is that he is firing a shot across the bow of Hillary Clinton's election campaign.  

Hillary Clinton has shown herself to be like those "predatory warlords and corrupt leaders shamelessly greedy for subsidies from the Gulf".  The Clinton Foundation received $25 million from the Saudis.  Qatar and Oman are both reported to have given between one and five million.  What do they expect in return?  Well Hillary, for one thing, as Secretary of State helped broker the sale of $29 billion of advanced fighter jets to the Saudis - jets which are now being used to pound Yemen, its impoverished neighbour.    

There is an irony in Hillary's position vis a vis the Saudis, that not too many have picked up on.    In the election campaign Hillary is presenting herself as a champion of women's rights and during an early primary campaign event, Madeleine Albright, with Hillary at her side, stated that there was a "special place in Hell reserved for women who didn't help other women".  She clearly was not thinking about the repressed women of Saudi Arabia, when she said it.    

Hillary has been no less shameless in the way she grovels to Israel. As Mondoweiss reports: She has promised to take the Israel relationship “to the next level,” has bragged that she was born within months of Israel, she has promised to fight Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) and work with Republicans to do so. She has also promised to invite Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House in the first month of office. 

So it seems that Hillary, if she wins next November would be quite happy to do the bidding of the Saudis and the Israelis, even into wars, which Obama has pointed out are often not in America's best interests. This is fascinating because Donald Trump, who seems set to be the Republican candidate, has taken a different position, and has promised that he would not get the US involved in foreign wars of choice, and would adopt a more even-handed stance in his dealings with Israel.  

Is Obama trying to warn Hillary?  Or is he perhaps trying to scupper her chances?  With the popularity of Donald Trump, there does seem to be a change in the air, with respect to US policy in the Middle East.  Obama's statements can only help in this direction.  Whether anything will come of it remains to be seen, but it seems at last that people are waking up to the fact that the US has been used by unscrupulous allies.  

Could it be that the reign of the NeoCons is coming to an end? 

US Justice in Disrepute. Judge awards S10.5 billion against IRAN over 9/11.

It is not just the American political process that is in disrepute these days.  The justice system is also suffering   We have sadly become accustomed to police officers  killing unarmed (usually black) citizens, and then typically being acquitted of any culpability.   Such killings and acquittals,  like mass shootings, hardly even make it to the front page these days. But now the judiciary is also looking extremely dodgy - well at least one judge in the US District Court. 

As I understand it the findings of the 9/11 Commission stated that 15 of the 19 hijackers involved in the outrages of September 11, 2001, were citizens of Saudi Arabia.  And that the attacks were organized and funded by al Qaeda under the leadership of Osama bin Laden, another Saudi citizen.  Now I am not saying that the Commissions report was the unvarnished truth - many, including one of the commissioners have questioned the accuracy of its conclusions.  And 28 pages, allegedly documenting Saudi complicity in financing the attacks, have been redacted, in spite of many calls for their release.  

But as far as I know, no one has seriously suggested that Iran was behind the outrages.  

Nonetheless on March 9 of this year, U.S. District Judge George Daniels in New York issued a default judgment against Iran for $7.5 billion to the estates and families of people who died at the World Trade Center and Pentagon.  In addition he awarded $3 billion to insurers who paid property damages for claims resulting from the events of 9/11.  A brief summary of the ruling can be found here

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-10/iran-told-to-pay-10-5-billion-to-sept-11-kin-insurers

The ruling results from a 2011 case referred to as Havlish et al. vs. bin Laden et al.  brought by spouses of some of the victims of 9/11.  Some more details can be found here

http://iran911case.com

Iran apparently did not contest the allegations made against it (although the suit was against al Qaeda, not Iran, unless Iran is included in the et al.).  Maybe this is one of the reasons the judge found against Iran.  But if this is the case should not Saudi Arabia have been deemed to hold some responsibility?   However to complicate things further the same judge (George Daniels) dismissed a case, brought by victims' families against Saudi Arabia in 2005, based on his opinion that Saudi Arabia (and co-defendant Saudi High Commission for the Relief of Bosnia-Herzegovina) were foreign sovereigns immune from lawsuit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. 

So it would seem that in Judge Daniels' opinion, The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a "foreign sovereign" but "The Islamic Republic of Iran" is not a "foreign sovereign"!

I know that Dickens has Mr. Bumble say in Oliver Twist "the law is a ass - a idiot",  but these rulings by Judge Daniels seem to take its idiocy to new heights.  

Although this whole sorry story can be found on the internet, it has not made much news in the mainstream media (although Bloomberg did mention it - see above). I wonder why?  

There are a few possible explanations for Judge Daniels' ruling.  One is that he is an idiot; another he is that completely venal and is in the pay of some group who want to discredit Iran (and exculpate Saudi Arabia). A third is that there are some points of law which could explain the ruling (although I can't imagine what).  And a fourth is that Judge Daniels knows something, which the public at large has not been told - that indeed the whole 9/11 Commission Report was a whitewash and that Iran's complicity was for one reason or another kept secret.  

Which of these would you go for?   For me provided we can rule out the third (recondite points of law) I would go for number two, that Judge Daniels for one reason or other, has an agenda, which involves blackening Iran.  

But as I see it he has only succeeded in blackening the reputation of US justice. 

Wrapped in a Flag and wearing a Red Baseball Cap.

I must say that I enjoyed the irony of seeing the open letter from the Republican national security community (read Neocons) claiming that Donald Trump would "make America less safe" and "diminish our standing in the world".  The signatories included people like Eliot Cohen, Richard Pipes, Max Boot and Robert Kagan who were some of the loudest drum-beaters for the invasion of Iraq and for Bush's ill-conceived "global war on terror".  Can they not see the irony (or hypocrisy) in the fact that the very policies which they promoted did exactly what they now claim Trump will do?  or that policies they suggest Trump will pursue such as "expansive use of torture" were first introduced by the Republican president whom many of them served or supported? 

And I am delighted, too, in the way in which Trump's campaign has spread alarm and fear among the big money backers of the GOP.  He has not accepted money from Las Vegas casino billionaire (and Netanyahu buddy), Sheldon Adelson, or from any of the foundations that the Koch brothers have established and so, if Trump does win, he will not in any way be beholden to them.  Have they bet on the wrong horse?  Will all of their "Dark Money" as author Jane Mayer has called it, be money down the drain?  And it is a lot of money.  According to The Guardian last year alone Super Pacs funded by oil and gas companies "invested" $100 million on candidates they thought likely to win the White House.  The Super Pac backing Ted Cruz got 57% of its money from the energy industry.  Chris Christie's got 39% and Jeb Bush's got 26%.  Even Hillary Clinton's Super Pac received 7% of its funding from fossil fuel industries.  

Besides Big Bad Money, Trump is also loathed by social conservatives.  They tend not to like his serial marriages and trophy wives.  Also he won't unequivocally speak out against gay marriage - in fact he now refuses to speak about "marriage equality" at all.

On the principle that  "my enemy's enemy is my friend" I should be a big supporter of Donald Trump.  Indeed some  of his policies I much prefer to those of his rivals.  For instance he repudiates much of the foreign policy of the Neocons, who now constitute the the "foreign policy establishment" of the Republican party.  He was against the Iraq war;  says he would be prepared to negotiate with Israel and its Palestinian victims without the precondition that the US will support whatever Israel demands; is against the "carried-interest" tax loophole which saves the very wealthy tens of millions in tax; and has even echoed Warren Buffet in saying that the ultra-rich do not pay their fair share of tax.  In comparison to Rubio and Cruz these seem like enlightened liberal policies.  Indeed, even in comparison to Hillary Clinton they seem pretty good.  

Rubio would be simply a puppet of the Neocon, Dark Money crowd, reducing taxes even more on the super-wealthy, starting more wars in the Middle East, repealing Obamacare and scuttling any hope of real action on climate change.  Cruz would abolish Obamacare and the IRS and introduce a flat tax across the board, decimate the Federal Government (except of course the Pentagon), support Israel whatever it does and become a champion of the fossil fuel industry, from which he has received so much funding. 

As David Frum put it the Republican establishment is promising fewer benefits, more immigration and more foreign wars while Donald Trump is offering more benefits, less immigration and fewer foreign wars 

It has been said of Hillary Clinton, that she sees no problem with the extreme and growing wealth and income inequality, provided that some of the super-rich are women and minorities.  In other words she is on the side (or in the pocket of) Wall St. and Big Money, but uses the issues of gender and racial identity to help her electorally.  She is also pretty popular with the Neocons when it comes to foreign policy and Israel - some (e.g. Robert Kagan, Max Boot) said that if Trump gets the nomination they will support her.  Judging on her performance as Secretary of State, she seems to fit right in with their agenda. She seemed happy to use military force in Libya and wanted to use American air power to oust al Assad in Syria.  She appointed Victoria Nuland (wife of Robert Kagan) to a senior position in European affairs and backed Nuland's aggressive campaign for regime change in Ukraine.  As with pretty much every neocon regime-change endeavour it has ended (or rather continues) badly.  

So I should be happy that Trump doing so well, shouldn't I? At least he promises to shake up some of the ensconced power groups and special interests, and to take America in a new direction.  But could he really do it?  Is he to be trusted?   He has said some reprehensible things - Latino immigrants are rapists and murderers; US forces should use torture techniques far worse than waterboarding.  He has encouraged people at his rallies to turn on protesters, especially those of colour.  He has whipped up fear and hatred of Muslims.  

Trump's character is very questionable.  Besides being a braggart and a blowhard, he seems to have little respect for the unspoken rules that keep our societies from degenerating into racial and sectarian conflict and chaos.  I suspect that if elected he would have little respect for due process in law; and little respect for treaties and international obligations, not to mention human rights.    

He seems to be a politician in the mould of some earlier "charismatic" strong men, who promised to restore their countries to greatness, but who led them, and much of the world, to disaster and depravity. Sinclair Lewis is reported to have said "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." Perhaps he got it wrong  - no cross, perhaps a flag, but certainly wearing a red baseball cap.

How did American democracy sink to this level?  Can it recover? Would it be at this low point if the US Supreme Court hadn't gifted the 2000 election to George W. Bush?  

Not being an American, I don't have to make a choice in this election. But we all have a stake in the result.  I can't foresee a good ending. But perhaps we are at a turning point.  

The Rise and Rise of Donald Trump

Many people are amazed and dismayed at the way in which Donald Trump has risen to the top of the list of Republican candidate wanabees.  His candidacy seems to be gaining an air of inevitability in spite of the efforts of the GOP establishment to find a more acceptable alternative.  

It is true that Trump is a loudmouth, racist bigot.  Many think that this is his appeal - that there is a big pool of racist bigots, especially on the right of the political spectrum, who have found in him a champion of their cause.  Perhaps there is some truth in this, but I don't think this pool is big enough to explain Trump's success.  Conservative commentator (and former independent presidential candidate) Pat Buchanan has I think identified three reasons why Trump is so popular, especially among white working class Americans.  

http://buchanan.org/blog/buchanan-trumps-rise-is-rejection-of-quarter-century-of-bush-republicanism-124847

Buchanan suggests that the Trump phenomenon is a rejection of what he calls "Bush Republicanism" i.e. the policies of the Republican party over the past quarter century (the time of the Bushes, pere and fils). Three aspects of GOP policy, during this era, have been particularly inimical to the interests of conservative-minded working Americans. They concern:

1.  Free trade.
2.  Immigration.
3.  Foreign wars.

While there are many advantages to free trade (and economic theory to justify its benefits, going all the way back to David Ricardo in the early nineteenth century) it is often overlooked that there are losers as well as winners from free-trade agreements.  I think it is pretty much indisputable that the working classes of the USA, Britain and other early industrializers have been among the biggest groups of losers.   Well-paid manufacturing jobs have all but vanished from many once prosperous manufacturing regions.  With this collapse of industrial jobs has gone the weakening of unions.  There have indeed been many winners from free trade, not least of whom are consumers, a group that overlaps considerably with industrial workers.  But cheap goods for consumption are not much use if you don't have an income from a decent job.  But on the American side the biggest winners from free-trade have been corporations and the owners of capital, who are able to outsource production to low-wage countries.

Immigration, again, is a two-edged sword.  It has undoubtedly helped many people from poor countries and it has provided a willing workforce, especially for jobs which many Americans don't want to do. Immigration  has also enriched the cultural life of the host countries - think what a Sunday in Toronto was like in the Fifties.  But at the same time, immigration has helped reduce the bargaining power of labour, because many immigrants (especially illegal ones) have been willing to work for much lower wages than native Americans.   

These two aspects of globalization have been embraced not only by the Republican Party, but also by the Democrats.  But the GOP can claim almost exclusive ownership of the third issue - foreign wars.  The US has been almost constantly at war since Bush Junior's ill-advised and illegal invasion of Iraq in 2001.  There is no end in sight.  The costs of these wars has been enormous.  Funding these wars while cutting taxes, especially for top income earners, has led to large budget deficits and an ever-increasing debt burden.  

While all three of these GOP policies have undoubtedly hurt many ordinary conservative-minded working Americans, the irony is that a large number of them have been deceived into supporting the party - a party which really does not represent their interests. The GOP has achieved this by appealing to wedge issues like abortion, religion etc. and patriotic nationalism. At the same time they have badmouthed their opponents as "liberal' elitists and internationalists. But when in power Republicans (both federally and at the state level) have done everything they can to break unions, reduce taxes on the richest, and contract out work to outfits which pay minimum wages (often to illegal immigrants) - all policies which benefit corporations and 'capital' over 'labour'. 

I am not sure that it is even possible or even desirable to reverse some of the policies on free trade and immigration. Stopping the foreign wars however would be an unalloyed good.  Trump has stood for a reversal of all three of these policy choices made by the Republican Party and I think this is probably the main reason for his popularity.  It seems that many ordinary Americans, especially of the working class, are waking up to the fact they they have been sold down the river.   They want no more of free trade - witness the opposition to the TPP - and a slowing down, if not a complete stop, to immigration, especially illegal immigration.   Trump too has voiced his opposition to perpetual Middle Eastern wars.

Trump's advantage is that he is independently wealthy and is not beholden to the big money players of the Republican Party.  So he can gladly refute the policies which have made some of these players very wealthy.  Also he feels he doesn't need backing from AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups, so he can steer his own course on the Middle East. 

So it seems to me that many Americans are waking up to the fact that, over the past couple of decades, they have been had.  Many, who incline to the right, don't want to nominate someone like Rubio or Cruz, which would lead to much more of the same (or worse especially in the case of Cruz).  I believe Hillary would be in the same mould too - probably worse with respect to foreign wars.

Trump is an unpleasant, bigoted and racist blowhard.  He is a loudmouth braggart, with no experience of government.  The thought of having him in the White House is truly frightening.  But I think one has to admit that he has touched a chord, and that he has positions which genuinely represent the interests of a large group of Americans, even if he expresses them in a brutish way.  Perhaps, through doing this, in the long run, he will turn out to have changed the course of American politics. 

The Price of Oil - Don't Bet the Farm on it Continuing to Fall!

Today the price of oil dropped below$30 a barrel.  I say "the price of oil" but of course oil comes in many different forms and has many different prices.  But what is usually quoted as "the price oil" is the price of some benchmark grade - usually West Texas light sweet (low sulphur) crude or Brent North Sea crude.  Since the prices usually move in tandem it doesn't really matter what is used as a benchmark, provided of course that it is used consistently.

We now have pundits suggesting that the price might dip to below $20. The drop in price comes with all kinds of consequences.  For us Canadians, it has meant a massive drop in the value of the Canadian dollar and a concomitant rise in everything imported, not least the price of food.  Today the loonie went as low as 68.74 US cents.  Pundits have been rushing to tell us how low it could go - this week several have been saying that it could be at 59 cents by year's end.  

This is all treated as something beyond human control, like bad weather, forest fires or earthquakes.  To some extent the low oil price is due to a glut in production - the US is now producing more than Saudi Arabia, thanks to the relatively new technology of fracking.  Also the drop in price today was attributed in part to the prospect of Iran getting back to producing for the world market.  Of course on the other side of the ledger is reduced demand, or perhaps just the fear of it, with China's phenomenal growth expected to be trimmed by a percentage point or two.

But I think there is much more to this than simply the intersection of supply and demand.  For decades since its creation in the mid-70s OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) has successfully restricted supply to maintain a price considered best for its members.  By far the most powerful member of OPEC is Saudi Arabia, and it was a Saudi decision, announced in June, 2014, to not cut production, that lead on to further drops in price.  

Why did the Saudis do this?  There have been many explanations offered.   The most widely believed seems to be that it is an attempt to drive high cost US shale producers out of the market.  Other explanations have invoked attempts to support the US in its vendetta against Russia, and to make life as difficult as possible for the Saudis' perennial rival, Shiite Iran, who, now sanctions are about to be lifted, plan to re-enter the world oil market.

I don't know enough of the technical details of the oil market, to be sure of this, but I suspect that single-handedly by cutting production, Saudi Arabia could restore the price of oil to a level much higher than it is today - perhaps not back up to $100 a barrel, but perhaps to $50 or $60 where it was when the Saudis announced their 2014 decision.   If this is so then perhaps the Cassandras and Chicken Littles who are warning of $20 a barrel or lower should reconsider.

Why do I say this?  Well for one thing the low price is hurting the Saudis as well as other producers.  They have run serious budget deficits for the last couple of years, not only due to the reduction in revenue, but also due to their wasteful, ill-advised and criminal war in Yemen.  This war seems to be something of a quagmire at present and the costs in weaponry, and mercenary soldiers, who do most the fighting for the Saudis, could grow even higher than today.   The IMF has made warnings about the non-sustainability of recent Saudi budgets, and has warned that they are seriously draining their reserves.  Recently the government brought in some restraint measures, including raising the domestic price of fuel (at a time when the world oil price has dropped precipitously!).  

In the past the Saudi Royal Family has been able to essentially buy off internal dissent by offering jobs, scholarships etc. to dissatisfied parties, especially young people.  But while they face the prospect of more discontent at home, due to their austerity measures, they are constrained in how much they can spend to buy off the opposition. Also there is reportedly serious discontent within the Royal Family, over the direction in which the country is being lead.   Prince Mohammed bin Salman, aged 30, is the Defence Minister and is reportedly behind the rash war in Yemen.  One can easily imagine that there are others in the Royal Family who feel that something has to be done to remove this hothead.  A palace coup is a serious possibility. What this would mean for their oil policy is hard to predict, but it is quite possible that it would lead to a volte-face.

Even without a coup, it is possible that the Saudis will back down on their policy.  There seems to be little sign of it working so far, and it seems to be hurting them more than their rivals in the US.

Beyond the internal machinations of the Saudi government, there is another reason why oil prices might suddenly rise.  This is the possibility of war or serious political instability in the Gulf and wider Middle East.  The Saudis seem to be doing everything that they can to goad Iran into military action - the New Year's execution of the leading Shiite cleric, the breaking off of diplomatic relations etc.  And only this week the possibility of hostilities between the US and Iran raised its head, with the incursion of two US navy vessels into Iranian waters, with the usual lies and contradictions emanating from the US side. Fortunately diplomacy quickly diffused the situation, but one can only imagine, with horror, how someone like Ted Cruz would have reacted if he had been in charge.  Remember there are many (especially NeoCon Israeli supporters) in the US power establishment, who would love an excuse to torpedo the Iran nuclear deal.   I think it is something in the order half of the world's oil supplies pass through the Straits of Hormuz.  In the event of hostilities with Iran this would be shut off immediately.  The price of oil would shoot up faster than it has descended.

Another locus of hostilities could well be Libya.  It has been  predicted (http://atimes.com/2016/01/an-extended-war-coming-to-libya/) that there are plans underway for a US/British/French/Italian invasion of Libya to oust the growing influence of IS in that country. According to the article, the Western powers are waiting for the finalization of the mooted deal between two rival governments.  A new supposedly unified government would then invite the western powers to intervene on its behalf.  Hillary Clinton and all of the Republican candidates (except Ron Paul, and surprisingly perhaps Donald Trump) would jump at the chance for more overseas US adventures.  What effect this would have on the wider Middle East, and on the price of oil is hard to predict.  It is easier to predict that it would end up achieving pretty much the opposite of what was intended.

I hate to say this, but from the point of view of the price of oil, and perhaps the world economy in the short term, the best thing that could happen is a war in the Persian Gulf.  I don't want it to occur  but unfortunately there are many who would.   

There are many reasons why the decline in the world price of oil could be reversed.  Extrapolation is easy - hence the predictions of the continued drop in price.  Predicting future political outcomes is much harder, and I believe that the current low price is, in large part, the consequence of political decisions, which can easily be reversed or thwarted.  So don't bet the farm on a continued slide in the price of oil and in the value of the loonie!