Re: declaration of war?
Just for the hell of it, tell us how you feel about Friedman and the Chicago Boys. I mean character assassination ain't nothing compared to real assassination, and that's what political economy truly is-- the movement from the former to the latter. dms - Original Message - From: Jurriaan Bendien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 2:02 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] declaration of war? I think you are correct. I already experienced this in the 1980s in New Zealand, it's just that the USA is much wealthier and so the processes work themselves out full with a greater time-lag. That is why we need good research, good argument, good professional organisation, and not lefty rhetoric and character assassinations.
Re: declaration of war?
Maybe not so stupid. It's called laying pipe -- preparing the American public for the deep cuts in social programs which are going to follow the election to deal with the deficit. I expect Bush and the Republicans to devote more than a little time talking about diverting social security payroll taxes to individual retirement savings accounts as the sweetener, and about reforming the already very limited medicare program to deal with a looming funding crisis resulting from the boomers reaching retirement age. Greenspan's authority can be enlisted in the exercise. Greenspan recognizes also that taxes are going to need to be hiked -- something neither party will talk about during the election -- and he wants to ensure that the dividend tax cuts and other advantages for wealthy investors aren't targeted. I'm not sure how much the Democrats are going to want fight the election on tax policy, anyway, given the way the Republicans frame that debate against them, or attack congressional spending cuts they know they'll largely support if they should win the presidency. I suspect they'll focus on the jobs issue instead, and only tangentially attack the class bias of the tax system, but that's pure speculation. Marv Gandall - Original Message - From: joanna bujes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 1:24 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] declaration of war? As opposed to the old policy of no class war? I don't know. Actually, I think it was just a stupid move. I mean, why say anything like this before the election? Joanna Eugene Coyle wrote: Wasn't Greenspan's little talk about cutting taxes for the rich and cutting Social Security pretty close to an open declaration of class war? Gene Coyle
Re: declaration of war?
Here's an interesting take: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17969 The Class Warrior.. Struggle continues, Mike B) --- Jurriaan Bendien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you are correct. I already experienced this in the 1980s in New Zealand, it's just that the USA is much wealthier and so the processes work themselves out full with a greater time-lag. That is why we need good research, good argument, good professional organisation, and not lefty rhetoric and character assassinations. J. - Original Message - From: Eugene Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 7:19 AM Subject: [PEN-L] declaration of war? Wasn't Greenspan's little talk about cutting taxes for the rich and cutting Social Security pretty close to an open declaration of class war? Gene Coyle = You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. --Mark Twain http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Re: declaration of war?
As opposed to the old policy of no class war? I don't know. Actually, I think it was just a stupid move. I mean, why say anything like this before the election? Joanna Eugene Coyle wrote: Wasn't Greenspan's little talk about cutting taxes for the rich and cutting Social Security pretty close to an open declaration of class war? Gene Coyle
declaration of war?
Wasn't Greenspan's little talk about cutting taxes for the rich and cutting Social Security pretty close to an open declaration of class war? Gene Coyle
Re: declaration of war?
I think you are correct. I already experienced this in the 1980s in New Zealand, it's just that the USA is much wealthier and so the processes work themselves out full with a greater time-lag. That is why we need good research, good argument, good professional organisation, and not lefty rhetoric and character assassinations. J. - Original Message - From: Eugene Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 7:19 AM Subject: [PEN-L] declaration of war? Wasn't Greenspan's little talk about cutting taxes for the rich and cutting Social Security pretty close to an open declaration of class war? Gene Coyle
Declaration of war by FOE against financial institutions
From stop-imf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/stop-imf The following ringing declaration challenging the social license of financial institutions to operate, globally, is drafted with a desire to attract the signature of other organisations. Can any of you pass it on? --PLEASE FORWARD-- ORGANIZATIONAL SIGN-ONS NEEDED INTERNATIONAL DECLARATION CALLING FOR BIG BANKS AND INVESTORS TO SUPPORT PEOPLE OVER PROFITS! This statement was drafted by an international group of NGOs campaigning on investment banks. It represents one of the first broad-based calls for private financial institutions (big banks, investment funds, etc.) to put people before profit; and it challenges them to take responsbility for their role in the debt crisis, in funding controverisal projects, and in backing the Bretton Woods Institutions' neo-liberal economic agenda. It will be launched at World Econnomic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on January 27, 2003. To sign on, send an email with your organization and country to [EMAIL PROTECTED] by 25 January 2003. To see concrete steps that financial institutions can take to implement this declaration, go to www.foe.org/camps/intl/declaration.html. * COLLEVECCHIO DECLARATION ON FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND SUSTAINABILITY Financial institutions (FIs) such as banks and asset managers can and must play a positive role in advancing environmental and social sustainability. This declaration calls on FIs to embrace six commitments which reflect civil society's expectations of the role and responsibilities of the financial services sector in fostering sustainability. The following civil society organizations call on FIs to embrace the following commitments, and take immediate steps to implement them as a way for FIs to retain their social license to operate. The Role and Responsibility of Financial Institutions The financial sector's role of facilitating and managing capital is important; and finance, like communications or technology, is not inherently at odds with sustainability. However, in the current context of globalization, financial institutions (FIs) play key roles in channeling financial flows, creating financial markets and influencing international policies in ways that are too often unaccountable to citizens, and harmful to the environment, human rights, and social equity. Although the most well-known cases of resource misallocation in the financial sector have been associated with the high tech and telecom bubbles, FIs have played a role in irresponsibly channeling money to unethical companies, corrupt governments, and egregious projects. In the Global South, FIs' increasing role in development finance has meant that they bear significant responsibility for international financial crises, and the crushing burden of developing country debt. However, most FIs do not accept responsibility for the environmental and social harm created by their transactions, even though they may be eager to take credit for the economic development and benefits derived from their services. And relatively few FIs, in their role as creditors, analysts, underwriters, advisers, or investors effectively use their power to deliberately channel finance into sustainable enterprises, or encourage their clients to embrace sustainability. Similarly, the vast majority of FIs do not play a proactive role in creating financial markets that value communities and the environment. As companies FIs concentrate on maximizing shareholder value, while as financiers they seek to maximize profit; this dual role means that FIs have played a pivotal role in creating financial markets that predominantly value short-term returns. These brief time horizons create intense pressure for companies to put short-term profits before longer-term sustainability goals, such as social stability and ecological health. Finally, through the work of international public policy bodies such as the Bretton Woods institutions, the power of FIs has increasingly expanded as countries have deregulated, liberalized, and privatized their economies and financial markets. Financial institutions have not only actively promoted these policies and processes, but they have benefited from them through increased profit and influence. In too many cases, FIs have unfairly benefited at the expense of communities and the environment. For example, during financial crises, many FIs charged high risk premiums to indebted countries, while at the same time benefiting from public bail-outs. Some FIs have spoken out against innovative solutions to the debt crisis, such as the sovereign-debt restructuring processes proposed by civil society groups and now being discussed in the International Monetary Fund. And FIs' voices have been absent in efforts to address tax havens, a problem that blocks progress towards equity and
Re: Hutton's declaration of war 2
At 20/05/02 18:01 -0700, Jim Devine quoted Louis Proyect On Mon, 20 May 2002 22:32:27 +0100, Chris Burford wrote: If once the United States personified the future, increasingly the EU is demonstrating how inter-dependence can be managed and nurtured. LP: This must be some kind of joke. Anti-immigrant violence is spreading across Europe while the third way politicians are doing everything they can to placate xenophobia. ... JD: Chris' comment really does seem to be a joke. But of course Chris did not write the words attributed to him, as the thread title and his preamble showed. The failure to show respect to the opposing argument and actually deal with it, but to dismiss the individual with disrepect, is symptomatic of this approach to marxism. It is destructive of dialogue even in a list as orderly as this one. Chris Burford
Re: Re: Hutton's declaration of war 2
But of course Chris did not write the words attributed to him, as the thread title and his preamble showed. The failure to show respect to the opposing argument and actually deal with it, but to dismiss the individual with disrepect, is symptomatic of this approach to marxism. Onya, Chris. Although I suspect it's symptomatic of the medium rather than lefties alone. If I had to judge the human species on nought but the strength of its mailing list intercourse, I'd give up on it forthwith. Keep on keeping on, mate! Rob.
Hutton's declaration of war 2
Of course Hutton's purpose is not emphasis that Europe too is an imperialism and no less genetically capable of committing atrocities of oppression and exploitation than its rival across the Atlantic. But in the following passage Hutton continues by arguing why Europe has the more effective approach for leading a pluralist capitalist world: The European Union, as it contemplates the admission in the near future of up to another eight countries in eastern Europe (excluding Bulgaria and Romania), is becoming the exemplar of what a peaceful multilateral system of governance can achieve. The range of cross-border initiatives that the EU has successfully negotiated demonstrates not only that multilateralism can work, but that it is a vital bulwark of democracy; markets, social justice and human rights. The European Court of Human Rights and Europe's commitment to an International Criminal Court point the way to the future. The EUs commitment to a social contract and high-quality; universal, egalitarian social outcomes is a beacon for the rest of the world. But above all, its ability to offer a forum in which Europe's nation-states can broker their differences, review one another's policies and adopt common economic, social and foreign policy positions is an utterly novel development in world terms. If once the United States personified the future, increasingly the EU is demonstrating how inter-dependence can be managed and nurtured. This is important both for Europe and for the globe. The US is hostile to all forms of international co-operation and multilateralist endeavour. It is wedded to the exercise of autonomous power guaranteed by its military superiority; and its world view is supported and entrenched by the vigorous conservative ideology that dominates its politics and economics. As a result it is not only actively dismantling the complex web of international treaties that underpin Western security and economic interests; it is obstructing any creative development of those that it cannot attack. Without a countervailing power of sufficient strength prepared to provide finance and political muscle, the development of multilateral institutions and processes by which a rampant globalisation may be governed will cease. Only the EU has the weight in the world to assume this role. page 365 (continues from previous quote which was in fact p364-5) Will Hutton, The World We're In, Little, Brown, Time Warner Books, London, www.TimeWarnerBooks.co.uk
Re: Hutton's declaration of war 2
On Mon, 20 May 2002 22:32:27 +0100, Chris Burford wrote: If once the United States personified the future, increasingly the EU is demonstrating how inter-dependence can be managed and nurtured. This must be some kind of joke. Anti-immigrant violence is spreading across Europe while the third way politicians are doing everything they can to placate xenophobia. Cuba personifies the future, not these sleazy politicians of the spineless social democracy and the Thatcherite right. = Remarks by Fidel Castro Ruz, President of the Republic of Cuba, during former U.S. President Jimmy Carter's visit to the Latin American Medical School, May 13, 2002 Distinguished former president of the United States, James Carter, Mrs. Carter and other members of his delegation: Greetings, also, to the other guests, and to the dear students of this medical school: I was not sure if I should speak or not. Among other things, I did not want to endanger all of you here (Laughter) with a speech that might go on a bit longer than it should. But there was a complete hush, and so I felt obliged (Laughter), really I did, to come up to this podium for a few minutes. I saw a program that read, Finally, the keynote speech is introduced. That is what they usually say in these public ceremonies, the open forums and so on. But I would say that in any case, if I were to say something, it would be the closing remarks, since the keynote speech was given by President Carter. Just to explain this thing about former president and president, it is a matter of courtesy. In the United States, in friendly and informal settings, anyone who has been a President, even if he no longer is, continues to be called President, and that is the friendly manner in which we are speaking to him today. I was thinking to myself, what is it really that we are doing here? Is this a medical school, or is it something else? One thinks in terms of numbers, percentages and so on. I was also calculating, for example, how many doctors we had at the time of the triumph of the Revolution, and it turns out that the number of students at this school today is greater than the number of doctors in Cuba at that time. And two or three years later only half of those doctors stayed inn our country. Only 40% of our professors of medicine stayed too. The results that I could present here today -and I do not say show because we do not show anything off, we present things- have been achieved with a tremendous effort, a 43 years effort. With the doctors who stayed in our country, we were able to create what we have today, and what we have today is 22 doctors for every doctor they left us, a little over 22. And the number of students enrolled in medical studies in our universities today is two and a half times the number of doctors who stayed in our country. Yes, we faced a situation that posed a tremendous challenge. We either remained without doctors, or we would make the effort required to have all the doctors we needed. Among our greatest hopes, when we thought about the future, when we dreamed of the future, was the hope that our country would have a good medical system. I will never forget that when I was a grammar school student in grade five or six, and I went home to the farming estate where I lived, I would sometimes find that a third of the children had died. Nobody heard anything about it; it was not published in the newspapers. And what did they die of? Acidosis. And to this you would have to add, of course, all those who regularly died of tetanus, or any of the many other diseases that regularly afflicted the people in the countryside here. We also dreamed of schools, because we observed the world around us, and realized that almost all of the young people and adults were illiterate. I remember that some of the few who could read and write made a living by writing letters for others who wanted to write to a girlfriend or a girl they wanted to court. But they did not dictate these letters, they had to ask from the letter writers to produce the content of the letter as well. They would ask them to say in the letter what they thought they would have to say to win over the girl - because in those days, it was the boys who courted the girls (Laughter and applause), there was not as much equality as today (Laughter). Those were two pillars we fought for, but they were not the two fundamental pillars. The fundamental pillar was something else: justice, equality of opportunities, true brotherhood among human beings. And what is a society without justice? What is a society of illiterates? What is a society where a small few have everything, and the rest have nothing? What freedom can be born of inequality and ignorance? What democracy? What human rights? There are very profound things that our people hold dear. We are firmly convinced that there are many words and many concepts that must be redefined, if
RE: Re: Hutton's declaration of war 2
On Mon, 20 May 2002 22:32:27 +0100, Chris Burford wrote: If once the United States personified the future, increasingly the EU is demonstrating how inter-dependence can be managed and nurtured. LP: This must be some kind of joke. Anti-immigrant violence is spreading across Europe while the third way politicians are doing everything they can to placate xenophobia. ... JD: Chris' comment really does seem to be a joke. The EU is run by a bunch of Eurocrats, who are in turn run by the bankers and their ilk. Thus, the European central bank is hooked on recession to avoid inflation at all costs and the various governments are tied into fiscal austerity. As I've said before, the EU's top-down imposition of multi-ethnic unity seems designed to spark xenophobia. I guess what Chris B. is saying is that the EU shows how capitalist elites can work together, while the US is the arrogant unilateralist. Though I do think we should avoid such European tribal wars as 1914-18 and 1940-45, we have to remember that the capitalist elites unify against the workers... JD
A Russian View of US declaration of War
Note: The Aghan representative to the UN is of course not from the Taliban but from a member of the Northern Alliance. Cheers, Ken Hanly strana.ru September 22, 2001 A commentary by Sergei Markov, Director of the Institute of Political Studies A War Has Been Declared! Who Is the Enemy? Having declared a war against terrorism, U.S President George Bush said that he and his generals rather than a court would decide whom to kill. The justice of peaceful time has been put aside. Bush will decide himself who will live and who will die. This is the point of this war. The fact that the enemy has not been clearly identified, makes the whole situation still more ideal. Though it puts the U.S generals in a difficult position, it is good for the United States from the legal and political standpoints. Anyone in any country can be declared to be America's enemy. At the same time, those who help this enemy should also be punished. This will be the chief reason for declaring this war. Now, who is the adversary that will be the target for the U.S strikes? The war has, primarily, been declared on a symbol chosen to be responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks. The fact that no one's guilt has been absolutely proven does not matter to the United States in this case. The American nation has identified itself as being in a state of war. The U.S President has proclaimed that on behalf of all Americans. Osama bin Laden has been pinpointed to be the chief enemy. Hence, the strikes should be dealt at his military camps. An additional war has been declared on the Taliban, bin Laden's allies who are hiding and helping the Saudi terrorist. Concurrently, the United States has declared a war on the entire international terrorist community and, subsequently, to bin Laden's hypothetical allies both in Afghanistan and all other terrorist headquarters around the world. A recent statement says that terrorists have used the territories of 59 states for terror strikes. The U.S judicial system allows it to deliver a strike, a nuclear one included, even in the North Caucasus. These are the legal consequences of the Bush-declared war. Although practically and politically we understand that Bush will never issue such an order now, a legal possibility of that has appeared. In fact, Bush has had plenty of occasions to use nukes against Russia, had he decided that Russia attacked the United States. For example, sensors record missiles launched in Russia whose flight paths indicate that they are targeted against the United States, and there is no chance for Bush to get in touch with Vladimir Putin. In that case, Bush may decide to deliver a nuclear strike against Russia. All bin Laden's allies have been proclaimed to be America's enemies. Consequently, a war will be waged against the entire terrorist-training web existing in dozens of countries. The international law has undergone substantial changes in the last ten years. Therefore, I think that some kind of consensus is going to be reached. Today, everybody, including Afghanistan's representative at the United Nations, will agree that the U.S attack against Afghanistan is not an act of aggression. ***
[PEN-L:6135] (Fwd) RAMBOUILLET ACCORD: DECLARATION OF WAR DISGUISED AS PEAC
--- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date sent: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:55:09 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Sid Shniad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:RAMBOUILLET ACCORD: DECLARATION OF WAR DISGUISED AS PEACE AGREEMENT International Action Center 39 West 14th St., #206 New York, NY 10011 (212) 633-6646 fax: (212) 633-2889 http://www.iacenter.org email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] THE RAMBOUILLET ACCORD: A DECLARATION OF WAR DISGUISED AS A PEACE AGREEMENT Chapter 4a, Article I -- "The economy of Kosovo shall function in accordance with free market principles." By Richard Becker, Western Regional Co-Director of the International Action Center The official line in the big business media is that the Pentagon had no choice but to rain bombs and missiles down on Yugoslavia because the Milosevic government refused to negotiate over the issue of Kosovo, a region of that country where ethnic Albanians make up the majority. The reality was very different: The Rambouillet accord, the U.S./NATO "peace plan" for Kosovo was presented to Yugoslavia as an ultimatum. It was a "take it or leave it" proposition, as Albright often emphasized back in February. There were, in fact, no negotiations at all, and no sovereign, independent state could have signed the Rambouillet agreement. Appendix B of the accord would have opened the door for the occupation of all of Yugoslavia. The accord provided for a very broad form of autonomy for Kosovo. A province of Serbia, one of two republics (along with Montenegro) which make up present-day Yugoslavia, Kosovo would have its own parliament, president, prime minister, supreme court and security forces under Rambouillet. The new Kosovo government would be able to negate laws of the federal republic's legislature (unlike U.S. states) and conduct its own foreign policy. All Yugoslav federal army and police forces would have to be withdrawn, except for a 3-mile wide stretch along the borders of the province. A new Kosovar police force would be trained to take over internal security responsibilities. Members of the U.S.-backed KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) which is supposed to disarm under the agreement, could join the police units. But, in reality, neither the Kosovo police, the KLA nor the Yugoslav federal forces would be the basic state apparatus under Rambouillet: That function would be reserved for NATO. A 28,000-strong NATO occupation army, known as the KFOR, would be authorized to "use necessary force to ensure compliance with the Accords." As has been reported in the mainstream media, the Yugoslav government indicated its willingness to accept the autonomy part of the agreement, but rejected other sections, including the occupation of Kosovo by NATO, as a violation of its national sovereignty and independence. Many key aspects of the accord have been given very little or no coverage in the corporate media. Chapter 4a, Article I -- "The economy of Kosovo, shall function in accordance with free market principles." Kosovo has vast mineral resources, including the richest mines for lead, molybdenum, mercury and other metals in all of Europe. The capital to exploit these resources, which are today mainly state-owned, would undoubtedly come from the U.S. and western European imperialists. Chapter 5, Article V -- "The CIM shall be the final authority in theater regarding interpretation of the civilian aspects of this Agreement, and the Parties agree to abide by his determinations as binding on all Parties and persons." The CIM is the Chief of the Implementation Mission, to be appointed by the European Union countries. Chapter 7, Article XV -- "The KFOR [NATO] commander is the final authority in theater regarding interpretation of this Chapter and his determinations are binding on all Parties and persons." "This Chapter" refers to all military matters. The NATO commander would almost certainly be from the U.S. Together, the CIM and the NATO commander are given total dictatorial powers, the right to overturn elections, shut down organizations and media, and overrule any decisions made by the Kosovar, Serbian or federal governments regarding Kosovo. At the end of three years of this arrangement, the "final status" of Kosovo would be resolved through an unspecified process (Chapter 8, Article I, Section 3). In reality, Yugoslav sovereignty over the region would end the day the agreement was signed. The Rambouillet accord would have turned Kosovo into a colony in every respect, a colony of the United States, the dominant power in NATO. But it also would have gone a long way toward subordinating all of Yugoslavia. APPENDIX B Appendix B, the "Status of the Multi-National Military Implementation Force," includes extraordinarily intrusive provisions for Yugoslavia
