Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Castro’s legacy: how the revolutionary inspired and appalled the world

 A dog walks past a painting depicting Fidel Castro by Cuban artist Kcho in Havana, Cuba, in August 2016. Photograph: Enrique de la Osa/Reuters

 Pope Francis meets Cuba’s Fidel Castro, as Castro’s wife Dalia Soto del Valle looks on, in Havana in 2015. Photograph: Alex Castro/AP

 and  in Havana-Saturday 26 November 2016 

No street bears his name and there is not a single statue in his honour but Fidel Castro did not want or need that type of recognition. From tip to tip, he made Cuba his living, breathing creation.

Children in red neckerchiefs scampering to free schools, families rationing toilet paper in dilapidated houses, pensioners enjoying free medical treatment, newspapers filled with monotonous state propaganda: all in some way bear the stamp of one man.

Historians will debate Castro’s legacy for decades to come but his revolution’s accomplishments and failures are on open display in today’s Cuba, which – even with the reforms of recent years – still bears the stamp of half a century of “Fidelismo”.

The “maximum leader” was a workaholic micro-manager who turned the Caribbean island into an economic, political and social laboratory that has simultaneously intrigued, appalled and inspired the world.

“When Fidel took power in 1959 few would have predicted that he would be able to so completely transform Cuban society, upend US priorities in Latin America and create a following of global proportions,” said Dan Erikson, an analyst at the Inter-American Dialogue thinktank and author of The Cuba Wars.

The most apparent downside of his legacy is material scarcity. For ordinary Cubans things tend to be either in short supply, such as transport, housing and food, or prohibitively expensive, such as soap, books and clothes.

These problems have persisted since Fidel handed the presidency to his brother Raúl in 2008. Despite overtures to the United States and encouragement of micro businesses since then, the state still controls the lion’s share of the economy and pays an average monthly wage of less than £15. This has forced many to hustle extra income however they can, including prostitution and low-level corruption. The lucky ones earn hard currency through tourism jobs or receive dollars from relatives in Florida.

Cubans are canny improvisers and can live with dignity on a shoestring, but they yearn for conditions to ease. “We want to buy good stuff, nice stuff, like you do in your countries,” said Miguel, 20, gazing wistfully at Adidas runners on a store on Neptuno street.

Castro blamed the hardship on the US embargo, a longstanding, vindictive stranglehold which cost the economy billions. However, most analysts and many Cubans say botched central planning and stifling controls were even more ruinous. “They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work,” goes the old joke.

Thanks to universal and free education and healthcare, however, Cuba boasts first-world levels of literacy and life expectancy. The comandante made sure the state reached the poorest, a commitment denied to many slum-dwellers across Latin America.

Idealism sparkles in places such as Havana’s institute for the blind where Lisbet, a young doctor, works marathon shifts. “We see every single one of the patients. It’s our job and how we contribute to the revolution and humankind.”

Castro continued to hold a place in people’s hearts and minds despite largely withdrawing from public life in the last decade of his life. Increasingly infirm, he mostly tended his garden in Zone Zero (the high security district of Havana), rebutted frequent premature rumours of his death with photographs showing him holding the latest edition of the state-run newspaper Granma, and wrote the occasional column, including grumpy criticism of Cuba’s drift towards market economics and reconciliation with the United States.

But his influence was clearly on the wane. Although he met Pope Francis in 2015, he spent a lot more time with his plants than with national and global power brokers. Even before his death, he had become more of a historical than a political figure.

“Fidel was the dominant figure for decades, but Raúl has been calling the shots,” observed a European diplomat based in Havana, who predicted the death would have more symbolic than political significance. “Has his presence been a block to reforms? Possibly. There could be an impact on young Cubans, but we won’t see a huge shift of Cuban politics after Fidel’s death. More significant would be if Raúl dies because he put his leadership on the line for reform.”

Cuba had already begun the move away from Fidel’s era in a similar series of gradual steps to that taken in China after the the death of Mao Zedong or Vietnam after the demise of Ho Chi Minh.

Under the Economic Modernisation Plan of 2010, the state shed 1m jobs, and opened opportunities for small private business, such as paladares – family-run restaurants – and casas particulares, or home hotels. Farmers have been given more autonomy and price incentives to produce more food. The government haseased overseas travel restrictions, loosened pay ceilings, ended controls on car sales and tied up with overseas partners to build a new free-trade zone at the former submarine base in Mariel. 

But this is still an island shaped more by Fidel Castro than any other man. Wander up the marble steps at the centre of Revolution Square and stand where Castro used to give his marathon orations to an audience of more than a million and you can still see just how much the revolution he led reshaped the country. On one side are the giant profiles – illuminated at night – of his two lieutenants: Che Guevara on the ministry of the interior and Camilo Cienfuegos across the facade of the communications ministry.


 ‘He led a humble life’: Fidel Castro’s biographer on the legacy of a revolutionary

In the distance, you can see the tower blocks that were formerly the headquarters of major US corporations such as ITT and General Electric but were nationalised under Castro, and hotels such as the Havana Libre, which were once owned by US mobsters but later turned over to the state.

Part of Cuba’s charm for tourists – and the curse for many locals – is that it is all too easy to remember what life here was like in the early days of the revolution because the city has barely move on in the subsequent half century. Thanks to the economic embargo imposed by the United States, Castro’s Cuba became a time capsule. Despite a partial facelift ahead of Pope Francis’s visit in 2015, many streets are still lined by crumbling colonial facades and potted by holes that look like they have been there for decades.

The former mafia hotels have had little more than a lick of paint since they were frequented by mobsters like Meyer Lansky and Charles “Lucky” Luciano. And, of course, classic cars from the 1950s – Buicks, Chryslers, Oldsmobiles and Chevrolets – still cruise the Malecón.

Close to Revolution Square is the run-down La Timba neighbourhood, where a young Fidel Castro cut his teeth as a lawyer defending the local community of shanty-home dwellers against eviction by developers. Juvelio Chinea, an elderly resident, said the changes brought by the revolution in his own life had been modest, but his sons and grandsons had been able to attend university – the first generations in their family to be able to do so.

Chinea recalls hearing the comandante’s speeches from inside his home. The 21-gun salute used to crack the walls and shake the cutlery. There would be singing and shouting from the crowd, then a hush as Castro started speaking. “Some speeches were better than others,” he remembers. “I wish he could have stayed in power longer.”

Not everyone is so sure about that. At the law department in Havana University, where Castro studied from 1945, there is admiration for the country’s former leader, but many believe he held back development.

“The best thing Fidel did for Cuba was to give us free healthcare at the level of a first world nation,” said one student. “The worst thing is that economic change has been delayed. If Fidel and Raúl had acted earlier, many of today’s problems would already have been solved.”

The student dreams of starting his own private law firm but that is not yet possible, he says, “because the government prefers to keep lawyers and courts under control” so he is thinking of joining his brother, who moved recently to the United States. Nonetheless, he is proud of his country’s and his university’s history. “It’s great that this school was where an icon like Fidel studied.”

That many still feel affection for “El Jefe Máximo” despite his ruinous economic policies is because he is judged more for his nationalist triumphs than his communist failures. Castro’s main inspiration was not Karl Marx, but José Martí, the 19th-century Cuban independence hero. While the latter fought to eject Spanish colonisers, Castro ended US neo-imperialist rule by kicking out US corporations and gangsters. The former banana republic is now proudly sovereign.

Camilo Guevara, the son of Castro’s comrade-in-arms Ernesto “Che” Guevara, said these achievements were secure despite the recent overtures from Washington.

“The revolutionaries changed the status quo and established a base for this nation that is independent, sovereign, progressive and economically sustainable. That’s how we got where we are,” he said at the Che Guevara Institute, which is dedicated to maintaining the ideological legacy of his father’s generation.

The message is driven home at the Museum of the Revolution, where the trophies of the early Castro era are prominently displayed outside the building that was once the presidential palace. Here you find the Granma yacht, on which Castro and 81 fellow revolutionaries sailed from Mexico in 1956 to begin the war against the US-backed dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. Here too is the engine of the US U-2 spy plane that was shot down in 1962 during the Cuban missile crisis. Inside, the exhibits and photographs ram home how this small island, under Castro’s leadership, defied the Yankee superpower despite the threat of nuclear annihilation.

For many elderly Cubans, that was a terrifying, thrilling time to be alive and they remain grateful to Castro for guiding them through it. Frank López, a retired teacher, speaks fondly of that early era under the comandante. “It was frightening. The US jets would fly low and fast above the city, shattering the windows with their noise. We were all trained to use rifles and machine guns and would have to do drills every night. But in the end, nothing happened and we all went back to school. People should stand up to the US more often.”

But he is not dewy-eyed about Castro. Although he admires the early healthcare and education reforms, he also recalls the economic hardships and the intrusive, suspicious state security apparatus. At one point, he was placed under surveillance for six years because a friend had plotted against Castro. These days, a bigger problem is making ends meet in the face of shortages of basic foodstuffs. “We must all do other work to get by. It’s been like that for more than 20 years,” he says. “So while we say thank you to the revolution for the education and healthcare, we also ask how much longer we have to keep saying thank you.”

While Castro became a figurehead for revolutionary armed struggle throughout and beyond Latin America, the former guerrilla was far from universally popular in his home country once he turned his hand to government. Property appropriations, restrictions on religion and crackdowns on suspected enemies left many, particularly in the old middle class, hating him – a sentiment that has spanned the generations.

As a child, Antonio Rodiles said he rebelled after learning his mother’s property had been confiscated and a cousin executed as a suspected CIA agent. “They used to tell me ‘Fidel is your daddy’. I replied ‘No, he’s not’. I hated them for forcing me to do things. As I grew up I realised this kind of system is not natural,” he recalls. Today, he heads the opposition group Citizen Demand for Another Cuba and is often arrested and beaten. “Fidel has left a shadow over Cuba. His legacy is terrible. He destroyed families, individuals and the structure of society.”

Similarly, Rosa María Payá grew up watching her father fight against and suffer from a system that tolerated little dissent. Oswaldo Payá was a leading campaigner for free elections who was imprisoned first for his religious beliefs and then for his political campaigns. He died in a car accident in 2014. Rosa María believes he was forced off the road by the government agents who were following him. She said the Castros have left a legacy of tyranny that is unchanged despite the cosmetic reforms and diplomatic deals of recent years.

“The Cuban people haven’t had a choice since the 1950s,” she says. “My father spent three years in a forced labour camp because he was Catholic. Others were imprisoned with him because they were homosexuals or dressed the ‘wrong’ way. The reality is that you can’t be alternative to the line of Fidel and Raúl.”

From the 1960s onwards, the Intelligence Directorate intrusively monitored opponents, many of whom were beaten by police or spent years in jail. Despite the release of dozens of political prisoners in the wake of the 2014 Cuba-US agreement, many activists were detained or harassed ahead of visits by Barack Obama in 2016 and Pope Francis the previous year.

Yet, compared with the past, there is a little more scope for criticism, a lot more opportunity to travel, and slightly less of a sense of crisis. Cuba may still be more closely aligned to Venezuela than the United States, but it is clearly hedging its bets more than it used to do under Fidel. Today the country is different from the one that confidently erected a now-fading plaque on Avenida Salvador Allende with a quotation from Chile’s socialist leader: “To be young and not to be revolutionary is a contradiction, almost a biological one.”

Instead, on Avenida G, a bohemian hub of cafes and street corners for Havana’s teens, the talk is not of politics but iPods, fashion, films and Major League Baseball.

In a valedictory speech at the close of the 2016 Cuban Communist party congress, Castro urged his compatriots to stick to their socialist ideals despite the warming of ties with the US, but he recognised that his generation was passing.

“Soon I’ll be like all the others,” he said of his dead comrades. “The time will come for all of us, but the ideas of the Cuban communists will remain as proof on this planet that if they are worked at with fervour and dignity, they can produce the material and cultural goods that human beings need, and we need to fight without truce to obtain them.”

Despite the trembling voice and mournful tone, it was a typically combative call to arms. The last of many. It may have been several years since Castro’s thunderous, marathon orations, but Cuba will still feel strangely quiet without him.

Trump, without evidence, says illegal voting cost him U.S. popular vote

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump gestures from the front door at the main clubhouse at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, U.S., November 20, 2016.  REUTERS/Mike SegarU.S. President-elect Donald Trump gestures from the front door at the main clubhouse at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, U.S., November 20, 2016. REUTERS/Mike Segar

By Roberta Rampton and Dustin Volz | PALM BEACH, FLA./WASHINGTON- Mon Nov 28, 2016

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump said in a tweet on Sunday that he won the popular vote in the Nov. 8 election "if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally", though he provided no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

The allegation by Trump, who won the required votes in the Electoral College to secure the presidency, comes as Democratic rival Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote over Trump has surpassed 2.0 million votes and is expected to grow to more than 2.5 million as ballots in populous states such as California continue to be tallied.

Clinton's legal team said on Saturday it had agreed to participate in a recount of Wisconsin votes after the state's election board approved the effort requested by Green Party candidate Jill Stein, which Trump has called "ridiculous."

"In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally," the Republican Trump tweeted as reporters waited for him to leave his Mar-a-Lago golf resort in Florida to fly back to his residence in New York City.

The U.S. presidential race is decided by the Electoral College, based on a tally of wins from the state-by-state contests, rather than by the national vote. Trump has surpassed the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House. The Electoral College results are expected to be finalized on Dec. 19. Trump takes office on Jan. 20.

"It would have been much easier for me to win the so-called popular vote than in the Electoral College in that I would only campaign in 3 or 4 states instead of the 15 states that I visited," Trump added in follow-up tweets.

Several hours later, Trump tweeted, again without citing evidence: "Serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California - so why isn't the media reporting on this? Serious bias - big problem!" Clinton won all three states.

A spokesman for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

CRITICIZING RECOUNT EFFORT

Before the election, Trump made unsubstantiated allegations that the results of the election might be "rigged" against him but several studies have found no evidence of widespread or significant voter fraud in the United States.

Since the vote, his message has alternated between appealing for unity and railing against his opponents and the media.

In a video message released ahead of the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday on Thursday, Trump said he hoped it would be a time for Americans "to begin to heal our divisions" following a "long and bruising political campaign."

In a tweet on Saturday, Trump derided the fundraising effort by Stein to launch recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania as a "scam" that is "is now being joined by the badly defeated and demoralized Dems."

Those states had voted Democratic in recent presidential elections but all voted narrowly in favor of the Republican Trump in this month's election. The recounts are not expected to change the results of the election.

Stein, who won about 1.0 percent of the national vote, has said she wants a recount to guarantee the integrity of the U.S. voting system, a push that came after some computer scientists and election lawyers raised the possibility that hacks could have affected the results.

Democratic President Barack Obama's administration has said there is no evidence of electoral tampering, but experts have said that the only way to verify the results are accurate is to conduct a recount.

(Reporting by Roberta Rampton and Dustin Volz; Writing by Peter Cooney; Editing by Clive McKeef)

The EU Moves to Counter Russian Disinformation Campaign

The links between anti-establishment voices and the Kremlin are far from clear, but many Europeans want the EU to be more aggressive against Russian spin.
The EU Moves to Counter Russian Disinformation Campaign

BY KAVITHA SURANA-NOVEMBER 23, 2016

In France, Marine Le Pen of the National Front says Russia is doing a better job in Syria than Europe. In Britain, UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage appears on Russia’s state-funded RT television channel, blaming the EU for the crisis in Ukraine. And members of Italy’s Five Star Movement share blog articles about small-business owners suffering because of Russian sanctions.

The upstart political parties’ messaging fits neatly into a pro-Russian narrative that, in recent months, has led experts and politicians to see a “Trojan horse” link between Europe’s rising anti-establishment movements and Moscow’s disinformation campaign. It’s one they say is aimed at undermining trust in democratic institutions, weakening NATO, and shifting debates in Europe to benefit Russia.

A recent study of 45 insurgent parties by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) found a majority sympathized with the Russian government’s positions.

“What we are seeing now is a lot of backsliding on democratic values, democratic institutions, and media freedoms across the post-socialist space,” Alina Polyakova, co-author of a new Atlantic Council report on the Kremlin’s propaganda efforts in Western Europe, told Foreign Policy. “A lot of those negative changes are being brought about by populist politicians who are often aligned with Russia.”

Long an issue in Eastern and Central Europe, Western European countries are just waking up to the scope of Russian propaganda and influence as election season in Germany and France looms. It has prompted new investigations into the mechanics of Kremlin strategy and stepped-up efforts to counter fake news and promote EU democratic principles.

On Wednesday, the European Parliament passed a strongly wordedresolution responding both to Russian disinformation and Islamic State propaganda. The report outlined how Russia has intensified its propaganda efforts since annexing Crimea from Ukraine and called for more funding to support media freedom and education. It was approved amid loud dissentingvoices from populist members of the parliament who warned that lumping Russia into a report that also deals with Islamist terrorists is “hypocritical” and may goad Moscow into renewed Cold War tensions.

 A headline from Tass, Russia’s state-owned news agency, said the report showed “liberal Europe’s weakness.” Russian President Vladimir Putin also weighed in, calling the resolution an example of “political degradation” of democracy in the West, according to RT. From Moscow’s perspective, the West is engaged in its own version of information operations. Putin has often argued that Washington has sought to undermine governments in Ukraine and Georgia under the guise of democracy promotion programs.

“This report is insane. It fosters hysteria against Russia and neo-McCarthyism in Europe. It’s a caricature of Russia,” said parliamentarian Javier Couso Permuy of Spain’s far-left Izquierda Unida coalition. He called for lifting sanctions and relaxing tensions with Russia.

Despite a year where Russian hacking and troll factory-generated news served as a backdrop to the U.S. election, the links between authentic political conviction of Europe’s populist parties and Moscow’s influence are far from straightforward.

Experts are quick to say it’s mostly impossible to track the extent to which pro-Russian positions in Europe are directly shaped by the Kremlin. It is extremely difficult to trace foreign investments that sometimes go through obscure channels and offshore accounts. Additionally, many European policy stances that could benefit Moscow genuinely stem from historical geopolitical concerns and skepticism of U.S. intervention. They’re also the result of legitimate criticisms of European dysfunction and the EU project.

“Russia has made the most out of it; benefited from it, [and] to a certain extent, is using it,” said Fredrik Wesslau, the director of ECFR’s Europe program. “But it is not the cause of European populism.”
Yet plenty of suspicious signals point to a symbiotic relationship. They include the discovery of an $11 million loan to France’s National Front that was routed through the Moscow-based First Czech-Russian Bank in 2014 and trips to the Russian capital by high-ranking deputies from anti-establishment parties like Italy’s Northern League and Five Star Movement.

Many experts and European officials believe Russia is mainly exploiting the same democratic conventions that protect free speech to help amplify its view. Arguments first spotted on Sputnik,
notorious for trafficking in distorted information and even outright lies, increasingly end up on political blogs and filter into mainstream arguments.

“You can say there’s a certain zeitgeist right now,” Mitchell Orenstein, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said at an Atlantic Council eventthis month. “There are many people in Europe, as well as in the United States, who are certainly not being paid by the Kremlin and yet are taking pro-Russian stances on foreign policy.”

“The danger is not only that there are agents of influence,” Orenstein said. “The danger is winning the hearts and minds of quite a lot of people in Europe.”

Moscow’s narrative, analysts say, isn’t aimed only at loosening the consensus on EU sanctions against Russia over its armed intervention in Ukraine. The propaganda effort is also an attempt to muddy the waters around controversial domestic issues on the continent, such as immigration and LGBT rights, and to undermine the EU by portraying it as an unwieldy and incoherent governing body.

“The target audience is precisely the people who have a certain distrust toward the elite or the established opinions,” said Sijbren de Jong, a strategic analyst at the Hague Centre for Strategic Studies.

“One of their most popular tactics is to consistently, whenever they do something wrong — and they very often do — to point out that the others are just as bad,” de Jong said. “They know we tolerate dissenting voices, whereas they don’t, so they make ample use of this.”

The resolution passed on Wednesday recommended that EU institutions monitor sources of financing for anti-European propaganda. It called for beefing up task force powers to highlight disinformation tactics and for asking the European Commission to provide more funding to independent media outlets. But the report itself doesn’t have much teeth to implement these policies.

Even so, said Anna Fotyga, a Polish member of the European Parliament who oversaw the drafting of the report, said it was an achievement in itself to establish an official EU position and raise awareness among member states. “For the first time, the EU decided to speak in a very open way in areas that were well-known but lacking in description,” she told FP.

Some experts say specialized strategic communication units are the key to making sure disinformation campaigns don’t get free rein to muddy up fast-breaking news narratives. The case of the false “Lisa story” in Germany from January is often cited as a textbook example: Mainstream news media reported allegations that a German-Russian girl had been raped by migrants in Berlin before German authorities had time to verify the information and respond. When the story was debunked, subsequent accusations of a cover-up — even fueled by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov — led to large protests.

A year ago, the EU established a disinformation task force, East StratCom, that employs 11 mostly Russian speakers who scour the web for fake news and send out biweekly reviews highlighting specific distorted news stories and tactics. So far, the newsletter has 20,000 readers each week. Last week, the EU parliament voted to increase its funding.

But the impact of such initiatives remains unclear in an internet age where people cocoon themselves in information bubbles to reinforce their strongly held views. East StratCom currently doesn’t have enough resources to measure public impact and can only count the number of subscribers and Twitter impressions its work generates.

It can also be tricky to calibrate a response beyond pointing out disinformation that doesn’t overstep the bounds of free speech and democratic values. After all, EU politicians and experts say there is little point to fighting propaganda with propaganda or conspiracy theories with more conspiracy theories.
“It’s important to not fall into the trap of thinking that Russia is behind everything, and is everywhere, and is 10 feet tall,” Wesslau said. “The risk is that we overreact and take measures that undermine our open societies.”

Latvia and its large Russian-speaking population walked the edge of the dilemma this year. The country temporarily restricted Russian media three times in 2016, citing examples of hate speech and warmongering, including TV personalities who accused Ukraine of “undertaking genocide against Russians” and urging viewers against negotiating with Ukraine and instead to “destroy it militarily.” The content was still accessible online, but Una Bergmane, a researcher at Cornell University’s Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies, said the ban was more a statement of values and less an attempt to completely shut down the flow of information.

“How effective that is, we don’t know yet,” she added.

Other experts say pointing out false information emanating from state-sponsored outlets like Sputnik and RT is low-hanging fruit. They say the Kremlin’s web of influence runs much deeper and requires significant steps to increase transparency and expose individuals or groups receiving Russian money.

“StratCom usually captures these very blatant kind of lies, but you have this more subtle influence through ownership,” said Ruslan Stefanov, a director at the Bulgaria-based Center for the Study of Democracy. He recently released areport attempting to chart the relationship between money and Russian influence, and recommended European countries provide more transparency around media ownership and foreign investments.

Still, others are less concerned that populist foreign-policy stances are swaying voters. Vaclav Bartuska, the Czech Republic’s energy security ambassador-at-large, called Russian propaganda “ineffective” and said voters were more interested in the economy.

“What they are selling is simply not something people want,” he said. “I mean, they spend billions of dollars on building a TV network, RT, radios, online magazines, influence — and what do they get for it?”

On the other hand, underestimating the potential effects of Russian disinformation would be “naive,” Polyakova, the Atlantic Council co-author, said.

“The EU project right now is teetering, and what Russia is doing is stirring the pot,” she said. “This is the time to act to reinforce democratic institutions to respond to disinformation by countering it and also investing in our own principles and values.”

Ultimately, the spread of fake news and the rise of populist voices echoing Kremlin talking points are reminders for the EU to look in the mirror, said Richard Youngs of Carnegie Europe.

“It is easy and necessary to criticize Russia and advocate a robust response to its disinformation,” he said. “But we should, I think, also state at home and understand what is so dysfunctional about our own democracies that enables such obvious lies to gain traction.”

Photo credit: ANDREY SMIRNOV/AFP/Getty Images

It’s back to the drawing-board for globalisation

"Globalisation needs course correction"- Obama in Athens

 
article_image
Globalising the neoliberal way

Internationalism nourishes pluralism, eschews ultra-nationalism

by Kumar David-November 26, 2016, 7:36 pm

Ranil Wickremesinghe is right to say growth in Lanka depends on international linkages. Local investors are effete; overseas ones have to be enticed. Western capital is risk averse and investors shy due to the prolonged low key depression, aggravated by Brexit, Trump and ascendance of the far-right in France, Holland, Denmark and Austria. Therefore trade and investment cooperation with China and India assume importance. We must not let self-serving professionals or skilled labour alarmed by competition stop ECTA. Likewise we must evolve a win-win strategy with China for an investment zone in Hambantota incorporating the harbour and that wacko flights-to-nowhere airport.

Let’s begin with a recap of the 40 year story from neo-liberal times (mid-1970s). Globalisation was the poster child of imperialism; free trade, open markets, capital movement, curbing wages and workers’ rights (pseudonym ‘labour market reforms’), eliminating tax on multinationals and removing currency restrictions. For decades this was the IMF, Washington and Whitehall chorus, the refrain of learned economists, some of them Nobel Prize winners now strangely deaf and dumb, and of course our very own JR and his mouthpieces. Then what on earth went wrong? Unexpectedly millions in the West were left out and left behind; globalisation did not work in the Appalachian coal mines, Detroit, industrialised regions of France and in the north of England. The sorcerer’s apprentice, capitalist globalisation, turned on its master, Globalisation per se, and devoured it? Brexit, Trump and the rise of the European far-right manifests this wrath, but none has the foggiest notion how to stop the slide.

Flat-footed globalisation

Globalisation has gone sour; not news for the left which raged against it from day-one. (It committed to internationalism long ago; but more on that later). Neo-liberal globalisation is interleaved with capitalism hence it has been a target of unremitting assault by the Left. What is the difference between ‘actually existing globalisation’ (AEG) and the Left’s cherished world without borders, nations as anachronisms and workers of the world unite? Why has a universalist vision of previous centuries flared up as class-struggle now? Why has globalisation become a political question? Simple, AEG is a process in the service of capital and profit. It lets trans-national corporations disentangle from national constraints on wages, welfare, national labour regulations and trade union influence. It shapes not only the economy but also politics; it transforms society itself.

This was the story for decades but after the calamitous financial crisis and recession of 2008-09 and the subsequent prolonged low key depression (I call it a Wobble-U shape) the shoe moved to the other foot, nemesis came with a vengeance. Insecurity now is a phenomenon of Europe and the USA and to compound matters it is no longer just economics but also a startling political menace – racial intolerance. Obama laments "globalisation needs course correction"; Angela Merkel softens her election losing hard stand on border controls; strange words from unexpected quarters.

The political ramifications are far reaching. Take two scenarios (actually it will be a mix). If Trump is tamed by his GOP handlers and abandons his hare-brained promises there will be uproar in his feral following. If he does not, he will be declared unfit to lead the ‘free world’ – code for global capitalism. In the latter case I have a hunch leadership will be transferred into the trustworthy hands of Angela Merkel. Thereafter the ruling classes of America and Europe can breathe a sigh of relief. What was Obama up to in Germany last week – taking an Alpine holiday! Oh no; options must have been discussed and persuading Merkel to stand for a fourth term I am sure was high on the closed-door agenda. If the overbearing dominance of a Trump madhouse eases into a more pluripotent world with three power centres (US, Europe and China) it would be an opening for smaller nations. Ranil will find at hand a helpful table on which to play asking-hitting (booruwa), raise investments and promote Lanka’s exports if he plays a smart hand.

This account of the recalibration of the global pecking order is not farfetched if you read respected gurus of the establishment. I cannot devote space to quoting many so will make do with one, Martin Wolf, Chief Financial Editor of the Financial Times. I abridge and quote

"Will there be another huge financial crisis? So it is with banks. They are designed to fall. So fall they surely will. A recent book explores this reality. What makes attention justified is that its author was at the heart of the monetary establishment before and during the crisis; Mervyn King, former governor of the Bank of England".

This was written on 3 June before Brexit and perhaps can be read as exaggerated to persuade voters not to leave the European Union. Ok then, what does Wolf say now (15 November)?

"Donald Trump has won the presidency, the US has, as a result, chosen as its next president a man whose inexperience, character, temperament and knowledge make him unsuited for this office. The consequences will be many; the economic ones important. He may reverse globalisation, destabilise the financial system, weaken US public finances and threaten trust in the dollar. US-led globalisation is already fragile. Trump seems likely to push it into the coffin".

Wolf is an outspoken advance guard in his apprehensions about "free world" leadership. Trump’s version of America’s place in the world is to kill TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) and open the road for consolidation of the China-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership; the Transatlantic Partnership was "unborn tomorrow dead yesterday"; NAFTA with Mexico and Canada will survive, damaged. Imposing tariffs on China and Mexico are contrary to WTO rules; the ensuing trade wars will not restrain US companies from investing overseas, nor bring jobs and investment to the America. The misery of Trump’s following will not be assuaged. In short, his threats if translated into action will kill AEG without help from detractors of globalisation.

Wolf and his ilk cry wolf but offer no way out. The way out is to shrink the obscene wealth and income gap everywhere and to curb the vast transfer of value from global labour to elites and multinationals. The crumbs falling from the table to the yokels below in America have evaporated; so Trumpets bellow and all manner of Exiters march to the global door. However shrinking inequality or crafting a fairer world-order are not what Wolves, Trumpets or for that matter Clintons, cherish.

Last week I said Trump’s bogus-Keynesian (loose fiscal policy and irresponsible monetary antics) infrastructure building impetuosity (Mussolini populism) will come in conflict with entrenched philosophy Republicans are committed to with near religious zeal. His policies lead to inflation (at last) and an erosion of the dollar encouraging search for a new global currency order. That is if Trump is allowed to have his way, but more likely he will not; Washington will cut in and tame him. If that is how the wind blows Trump and the GOP will face the music of an outraged gullible electorate.

What I am taking pains to say is not about Trump, America or its economy. It is that globalisation as we have known it for decades (AEG) is nearing the end of its shelf-life, one way or the other. A deep recession and economic dislocation in advanced capitalist economies will be painful for others as well, but small countries, if nimble and quick witted, can benefit by taking advantage of these fissures. Do people who make these decisions ever read my crap? Not likely.

Internationalism for

the people

What is called globalisation these days and better known as internationalism in previous times is no stranger. I will close with two passages (heavily edited for length and style) from what is surely the best known of all the world’s political pamphlets.

"We are reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationalities. Working men have no country! National differences and antagonisms between people are daily vanishing due to freedom of commerce, the world market, uniformity in the mode of production and corresponding conditions of life."

"Exploitation of the world-market (has) given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the chagrin of reactionaries it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. Old established industries have been destroyed, dislodged by new ones that no longer work indigenous materials but materials drawn from the remotest zones, whose products are consumed in every quarter of the globe. In place of national seclusion and self-sufficiency we have universal interdependence of nations. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become impossible. In a word, the bourgeoisie creates a world after its own image".

So be it. The next phase for mankind’s progress is not the illusory world of Walls and barriers but a world where "we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all".

India's rural economy hit hard as informal lending breaks down

A security guard reads a newspaper inside an ATM counter as a notice is displayed on an ATM in Guwahati, India, November 27, 2016. REUTERS/Anuwar Hazarika

By Suvashree Choudhury and Rajendra Jadhav -Sun Nov 27, 2016

Life was good for Mitharam Patil, a wealthy money lender from a small village in the Indian state of Maharashtra.

Small-time financiers like Patil would typically lend cash to farmers and traders every day, providing a vital source of funding for a rural economy largely shut out of the banking sector, albeit at interest rates of about 24 percent.

A notice is displayed on an ATM in Guwahati, India, November 27, 2016. REUTERS/Anuwar Hazarika

All that came crashing down on Nov. 8, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi banned 500 and 1,000 rupee ($7.30-$14.60) banknotes, which accounted for 86 percent of currency in circulation.

The action was intended to target wealthy tax evaders and end India's "shadow economy", but it has also exposed the dependency of poor farmers and small businesses on informal credit systems in a country where half the population has no access to formal banking.

Patil was stuck with 700,000 rupees ($10,144) of worthless cash. He can also only withdraw up to 24,000 rupees from his account every week, barely enough for his own personal needs given he also works as a farmer.

That is bad news for farmers and traders who had come to depend on Patil, despite his high interest rates, given that bank branches are located far from the village, while the process to obtain loans is long and cumbersome.

It may also hurt India's economy, as the informal sector accounts for 20 percent of gross domestic product and 80 percent of employment. The country is due to report July-September GDP on Wednesday.

"Sowing of winter crops has been started and farmers badly need money. But I couldn't lend (to) them due to restrictions on withdrawal," Patil said.

BORROWERS CAN'T PAY MONEY BACK

Some farmers and small businesses say India's informal credit system has ground to a virtual halt, despite government measures to steer more funds to them, including 230 billion rupees in crop loans.
Not only are money lenders struggling to lend, they are also struggling to get paid.

Saumya Roy, CEO of Vandana Foundation, a micro finance firm, said it has encountered difficulties in collecting payments from borrowers, which will have a knock-on effect on how much they can lend to others.

"We can't go on lending and suffer losses," she said.

"How can we force people to pay back when they don't have money to buy food. How will they pay us?"
The paralysis exposes the slow progress India has made in extending banking to wider segments of the population, a key initiative under Modi.

The government has taken steps, including announcing zero balance accounts for poor people, but growth of bank branches have been low as margins are slender for most lenders.

In 2001, India had 5.3 bank branches per 100,000 people in rural areas. Today that stands at only 7.8 branches, according to Reserve Bank of India data.

Even if farmers or small businesses are willing to go through the process of obtaining a bank loan, which includes filling out forms and several visits to the branch, bank officials say they are too focused now on getting cash out to devote time to small loans.

"We can't allocate manpower to scrutinize farm loan documents," said a manager in a rural branch of State Bank of India (SBI.NS).

For some analysts, the breakdown in the informal credit sector points to a government that has failed to grasp how the cash economy impacts ordinary Indians.

"It is this lack of understanding and not appreciating the importance of the cash economy in India on the part of the government that has landed the country in such an unwarranted situation today," said Sunil Kumar Sinha, an economist and director of public finance at India Ratings.

(Additional reporting by Devidutta Tripathy; Editing by Rafael Nam and Mike Collett-White)

Bersih 5: Maria Chin should be praised, not imprisoned

By  | 

AS TENS of thousands of Malaysians took to the streets of the capital on Saturday to protest for free and fair elections, the organiser of the event sat in a windowless prison cell contemplating an uncertain future.
Bersih 5, the mass protest that took place in Kuala Lumpur, went off without a hitch.

The movement had clear and defined objectives; clean elections, a clean government, strengthening parliamentary democracy, the right to dissent, and the empowering of Sabah and Sarawak. They also had an explicit desire to ensure that the demonstrations were peaceful; a request that was adhered to by supporters on the day.

An activist from the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih 2.0), holds a bouquet of flowers during the Bersih 5 rally in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday, Nov 19, 2016. Pic: AP.

An activist from the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih 2.0), holds a bouquet of flowers during the Bersih 5 rally in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday, Nov 19, 2016. Pic: AP.

One day prior to the march, Maria Chin Abdullah, leader of the Bersih 2.0 movement and organiser of the event, was arrested under the Special Offences (Security Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) for an offence under Section 124C of the Penal Code that prohibits the attempt to commit activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy.

While no government likes to find itself faced with demonstrations questioning its integrity and policies, to imprison those conducting peaceful protests is more of an affront to democracy than the protests themselves could ever pose.

Rather than being imprisoned for threatening democracy, Chin should be praised for stoking the fire that truly drives it.

Political protest is absolutely essential to democracy and demonstrations such as these must be seen as an integral part of political action in a democratic society.

Yellow sea: Thousands of Bersih 5 protesters marching towards Dataran Merdeka from the Masjid Jamek LRT station in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, during the Nov 19, 2016, rally. Pic via @Bersih5.
Yellow sea: Thousands of Bersih 5 protesters marching towards Dataran Merdeka from the Masjid Jamek LRT station in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, during the Nov 19, 2016, rally. Pic via @Bersih5.

For many people, taking to the streets is the only real power they can wield in the current political environment of lobbyists and nepotism. This form of direct action gives voice to those with no platform or privilege and is vital in a country with such a dominant ruling party. It is not the demonstrations themselves that should be of concern, but it is the consistent action by the Najib government to de-legitimise political protest that is truly worrying. Chin’s arrest is just another example of this.
If this demonisation of protest continues, from government officials to Jakim, then we risk losing the only available avenue to hold the government to account and to press issues of importance.
Throughout history, countless significant gains have been achieved through protests similar to those we saw in Malaysia over the weekend.
More often than not, just as we see in this case, these activists were seen as unruly delinquents and a threat to democracy. Many of these influential campaigns, such as the suffragettes and the civil rights movement, were denounced by government at the time but as perspectives shift and the message takes hold, those values for which they fought then become the norm.
Once society progresses and a population has embraced those values of the protesters it is difficult to find a politician who won’t agree. No doubt when – or if – the opposition comes to power in Malaysia, Maria Chin Abdullah will be praised for her dedication and resolve. But until then, we have an administration set on marginalising campaigners and criminalising dissent.
Far from being a sign of a broken democracy, protests should be welcomed as the voice of the people and governments need to allow those voices to be heard. It is when a society has no protests at all that democracy is truly in peril. Without them, injustices remain unchallenged and people lose confidence in the system.
Rather than incarcerating those responsible under the guise of threatening democracy, we should be supporting them as champions of it.
An aerial view of the crowd at KLCC near the close of Bersih 5. Pic via @zunarkartunis.
An aerial view of the crowd at KLCC near the close of Bersih 5. Pic via @zunarkartunis.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not reflect the views of Asian Correspondent

Low social status 'can damage immune system'


Scotland's most deprived areaImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES

BBCBy James Gallagher-25 November 2016

Simply being at the bottom of the social heap directly alters the body in ways that can damage health, a study at Duke University in the US suggests.

Monkey experiments showed low status alters the immune system in a way that raises the risk of heart disease, diabetes and mental health problems.

One expert said the findings were "terrifically applicable" to people.

The findings, in Science, had nothing to do with the unhealthy behaviours that are more common in poorer groups.

The gulf in life expectancy between the richest and poorest is huge - in the US it is more than a decade for women and 15 years for men.

Part of the explanation is that people from poorer backgrounds are more likely to have a worse lifestyle - including smoking, little exercise and diets containing junk food.

But the latest study goes further to show low status - with all of those other factors stripped out - still has an impact on the body.

Pair of monkeys
Image copyrightLAUREN BRENT
Looking at 45 non-human primates allowed scientists to adjust only social status to assess its impact - something impossible to do in people.

The captive Rhesus monkeys - who were all female, unrelated and had never met before - were divided one-by-one into nine new groups of five.

The newest member nearly always ended up at the bottom of the social order and became "chronically stressed", received less grooming and more harassment from the other monkeys.

A detailed analysis of the monkeys' blood showed 1,600 differences in the activity levels of genes involved in running the immune system between those at the top and bottom.

It had the impact of making the immune system run too aggressively in those at the bottom. High levels of inflammation cause collateral damage to the body to increase the risk of other diseases.

One of the researchers, Dr Noah Snyder-Mackler, told the BBC News website: "It suggests there's something else, not just the behaviours of these individuals, that's leading to poor health.
"We know smoking, eating unhealthily and not exercising are bad for you - that puts the onus on the individual that it's their fault.

"Our message brings a positive counter to that - there are these other aspects of low status that are outside of the control of individuals that have negative effects on health."

Further experiments showed the immune system was not fixed and could be improved, or made worse, by mixing up the social rankings.

Pair of monkeys
Image copyrightLAUREN BRENT
Sir Michael Marmot, one of the world's leading experts on health inequalities and based at University College London, said the findings were "extraordinarily interesting" and underpinned much of his own research.

He told the BBC News website: "This is hard science saying there's a plausible biological mechanism that results in clear differences depending where you are in the hierarchy.

"The gateway through which the social environment impacts health is the mind. Whether it is unhealthy behaviours or direct stress, the mind is crucial and this study is lending real credence to that."

'Governments don't get it'

While Rhesus macaques do form strict societies, they are far more simplistic that human ones.

But Prof Graham Rook, from University College London, told the BBC News website: "All the evidence is showing the findings are terrifically applicable to humans."

He pointed to evidence suggesting people at the bottom end up with worse health when the top gets richer, even if they themselves do not get any poorer.

He said: "It is something governments just don't understand; they think people at the bottom have got cars, have got TVs, so compared with people in India they're enormously wealthy.

"But that really isn't the point, they feel they are at the bottom of the heap."

Hierarchies are a fixture of society. However, the researchers believe more can be done to ease the health problems coming from being bottom of the pile.

Dr Snyder-Mackler said: "Status is always relative, but if we could flatten the slope so the differences between the highest and lowest weren't as much, or find ways to focus attention on lower social environments so they are not as 'crappy' we could mediate some of those consequences.

"It's a hard problem that might never be fixed, but it might be possible to make it less worse."

Follow James on Twitter.