The Dominion - Europe

Under the Radar

Tim McSorley — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:19:02 +0000

Diplomatic cables raise concerns of US influence in F-35 jet campaign

TORONTO—Classified cables released in December 2010 revealed an exhaustive American campaign to pressure Norway to buy a fleet of US-made F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets. As the Canadian government looks to spend at least $16 billion on its own fleet of the controversial aircraft, it appears a similar campaign is underway here.

The American diplomat who filed the cables—cables which detail high-level diplomatic pressure on the Norwegian government and a media campaign to sway public opinion—is now based in Canada. Several of the tactics his cables recommend have recent parallels in this country, where the government is promoting the sole-sourced purchase as a done deal but has not signed an official contract.

Kevin Johnson, former Deputy Chief of Mission at the US Embassy in Oslo, was named US Consul General to Toronto in August 2009—nine months after Norway announced it would buy a fleet of the Lockheed Martin-made stealth bombers. His name appears on several classified American cables released through Wikileaks last year.

Written over four months in late 2008, the cables advised the US state department to put pressure on Norway to ensure the sale while avoiding any appearance of doing so. A memo copied to the US embassy in Ottawa offered advice on how to replicate the campaign’s success in other countries.

In one leaked memo, titled “Lesson Learned From Norwegian Decision To Buy JSF,” United States embassy officials claimed the Norwegian government asked its American counterpart to publicly deny US officials had exerted pressure in the sale. The document also noted that the rival Saab Gripen bid offered superior benefits for Norwegian industries.

It stated Norway chose the F-35 despite the jet's high price tag—double that of the Gripen. Norway’s decision was a significant victory for the JSF program, and followed three months of lobbying subtly in public, forcefully behind closed doors.

In a cable sent September 22, 2008, the US Embassy in Oslo asked the US Secretary of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and several US embassies in Scandinavia to ensure Norway understood that diplomatic relations between the two countries would be affected by the choice.

“A Gripen decision would significantly alter the 40-year close relationship between our Air Forces and weaken one of the strongest pillars of our bilateral relationship,” stated the cable, titled “Norway Fighter Purchase: High-Level Advocacy Needed Now.”

The document’s author expressed concern that the F-35 was losing favour in the eyes of Norwegians.

“High-level Washington advocacy on this issue is needed to help reverse this trend,” the cable reads.

A public affairs officer from the American consulate in Toronto, Barbara Jafelice, declined to discuss the cables or Johnson’s relation to them, saying it was against policy to comment on anything Wikileaks-related. In an email, an unnamed public affairs officer from the consulate implied there was nothing abnormal about Johnson’s transfer, saying Foreign Service officers are typically moved to a new post approximately every three years.

The United States embassy in Ottawa declined The Dominion’s request for an interview.

The Oslo Cables

The dryly written cables from Oslo’s US embassy reveal much about how the US pressured Norway to buy the F-35.

One cable, sent October 30, 2008, lists then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, former State Department Assistant Secretary Mark Kimmitt and former United States Air Forces in Europe Commander Roger Brady as officials who pushed the sale. Their campaign produced a “coordinated...message which publicly professed the unequalled capabilities of the aircraft and the value we place on the relationship, and privately pressed for the selection of the F-35.”

The Norwegian government announced its decision to buy the planes November 20, 2008, nearly a month earlier than expected, although it has not yet signed a contract. The October memo noted the influence Norway's decision would have on the other participants in the JSF development program, countries including the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Israel and Singapore.

“Norway will be the first JSF partner to make a choice on the plane and thus will disproportionally affect other partners' choices,” it read.

The “lessons learned” cable, sent December 16, 2008, encouraged other embassies campaigning on the JSF’s behalf to exert more than diplomatic pressure. It suggested off-the-record discussions with media outlets’ editorial boards, fielding supportive newspaper editorials written by military figures and hosting public speaking events tailored to shine a favourable light on the aircraft. The cable was copied to US embassies in several governments considering the jets, including Ottawa.

“Having a socialist government like Norway’s choose the JSF is an even more powerful symbol than if a right-wing government of another country had gone first,” it added.

If the tactics used in Norway seem familiar, it’s because many of them are being used in Canada, anti-war activist Tamara Lorincz told The Dominion. A member of the Halifax Peace Coalition and part of a group organizing a national March 3 rally against the jet purchase, Lorincz pointed to a string of government speaking engagements promoting the sole-sourced deal with Lockheed Martin.

“It’s almost unheard of, to have Minister of Public Works Rona Ambrose, [Industry Minister] Tony Clement and [Defence Minister] Peter McKay criss-crossing the country to try to build support for the F-35,” said Lorincz, a former NDP candidate in the Halifax West riding.

She attended an F-35 forum hosted by Dalhousie University’s Centre for Foreign Policy Studies on November 26, led by two members of the Department of National Defence (DND) procurement division and two members of the air force. The event was part of a string of similar engagements across the country promoting what will be the largest military purchase in Canadian history.

“They...essentially gave the talking points about why Canada should buy the F-35s to a receptive audience,” she said. “We know from Norway that we can’t trust what the Canadian government is saying.”

The Department of National Defence spent more than $130,000 on the tour, one media announcement and an industry trip to a Lockheed Martin facility in Texas, according to federal documents recently released by the Liberal Party of Canada. The documents, obtained by The Globe and Mail, also revealed that Industry Canada has spent $55,000 on foreign and domestic trips to promote the jet purchase.

The jets themselves are expected to cost at least $9 billion, with at least $7 billion in maintenance costs.

In late January, US Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates visited Ottawa to publicly push for the planes at a press conference with Minister McKay.

“Obviously, having all of our partners continue to be with us in this program is very important and I'm pleased at the number of our allies who are going forward with the F-35,” said Gates. “Without getting into domestic affairs in Canada, I would just say that my hope is, that for all of our sakes, that all of our partners continue to move forward with us on this program.”

Meanwhile, the F-35 debate has been raging in Canada’s media. Stories by mainstream and alternative outlets have critiqued the sole-sourced contract, continued delays in the development process and the high cost to taxpayers, while government- and military-penned editorials have defended the planes.

On January 26, The Ottawa Citizen ran an op-ed titled “The truth about those jets,” written by retired General Paul Manson, a former Chief of the Defence Staff, and retired Lieutenant-General Angus Watt, a one-time air force commander. While attempting to debunk 10 common complaints about the F-35, its authors failed to note their connection to Lockheed Martin.

“Manson forgot to mention his post-military stint as the president of Lockheed Martin Canada,” military journalist Scott Taylor pointed out in Halifax’s The Chronicle Herald. “It should have been considered a salient point to make to readers.”

Taylor noted that Chief of the Air Staff Lieutenant-General Andre Deschamps has also come to the defence of the F-35 in the media, writing that it “is the right fighter aircraft for Canada” in the Canadian Military Journal.

Ministers McKay and Ambrose have also waded into the fray, fielding a response to “Ottawa off course on jets,” a letter co-written by Lorincz and Steven Staples of the Rideau Institute think-tank, published in The Chronicle Herald in December 2010.

“This...piece presents a misleading and inaccurate account of our government's decision to procure F-35 fighter jets,” wrote McKay and Ambrose in a letter to the editor, decrying Staples and Lorincz’s claim that the planes were sole-sourced. “There was an international competition held between 1997 and 2001—of which Canada was a part—and the winner of this competition was the F-35. Another lengthy competition is redundant and unnecessary.”

Not so, says Alan Williams, former Assistant Deputy Minister (Material) for the Department of National Defence. Williams led Canada’s military procurement division from 1999 to 2005 and says government claims that a competition was held are disingenuous.

“This competition had absolutely nothing to do with the need...to determine which jet aircraft in the marketplace can meet the Canadian military requirements at the lowest life-cycle costs,” Williams told the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on National Defence in October, explaining the competition the ministers refer to was conducted by the US in 2001 to determine which company would build the jet.

“Equating one competition with the other insults our intelligence,” he said.

According to figures Williams presented to the committee, sole-sourcing at DND has gone from 8.8 per cent of all contracts worth more than $25,000 in 2004, the year before he retired, to 42 per cent in 2009. When making deals worth billions, that increase represents a significant amount of taxpayer money, said Williams, the author of Reinventing Canadian Defence Procurement, subtitled “How to fix Canada’s dysfunctional defence procurement process.”

“The military loses [this money] from two perspectives...If you squander it, that’s money that would be open and available for other projects,” he said in an interview with The Dominion. “Equally—more importantly—if your objective is designed to buy what’s best for the military, the only way you truly know that is by running a competition.”

According to information posted on a DND website, Canada needs new fighters by 2016 in order to be ready for the retirement of the country’s F-18 fleet at the end of this decade. However, recent reports have revealed the Lockheed Martin stealth bomber won’t be out of its development phase until late 2016, making it unlikely that Canada’s order for 65 planes will be ready that year.

Williams believes that leaves the government enough time to clearly and publicly define its requirements and launch a bidding process.

“There’s nothing from stopping us tomorrow from launching a competition...The F-35 might turn out to be right, but at this stage it’s years behind schedule and its costs have gone crazy. We don’t know today what it will cost us to buy, maintain and whether it will ever be operational. But if the JSF turns out to be the right one, we can still go ahead and get it.”

When questioned about the plane’s selection, DND communications advisor Evan Koronewski directed The Dominion to the ministry’s website, which boasts of the fighter’s advanced “fifth generation” capabilities and the potential for interoperability with other NATO forces.

He was unable to answer questions on the sole-sourced contract or speak to Williams’ assertion that the plane was chosen before the military had defined its requirements. Although promising to seek that information, he did not meet several agreed-upon deadlines and at press time had not provided the information.

In October, the Rideau Institute’s Staples penned a report on the jet purchase called “Pilot Error: Why the F-35 stealth fighter is wrong for Canada.” Released by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, it encouraged legislators to examine the role a Canadian military plane would play, suggesting a single-engine stealth bomber wasn’t appropriate for missions such as patrolling the Arctic.

“We don’t need the bombing role,” he told The Dominion. “The F-35 is basically a big bomb truck. That’s why it’s stealth. The single engine is a problem as well. One could fail when you’re a long way from home.”

Lorincz would prefer the money went to altogether different projects, such as health care, education and the environment.

“[The government is] not acting in the best interests of Canadians,” she said. “They are working in concert with one of the largest weapons manufacturers on the planet to get the Canadian government to agree to buy something we absolutely don’t need.”

Saira Peesker is a Toronto-based journalist who covers politics, social justice issues and the arts.

F-35 fighter jet

A G8 Facelift and the War on Error

Moira Peters — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 05:30:55 +0000

Briefly, the G8 summit in Gleneagles, 2005

Large summits are nothing new. The 36th G8 summit will set up shop in Huntsville June 25-26. Toronto, a past host, will this time welcome the 4th G20 summit June 26-27. The following is the fifth in a six-part series of briefs looking back on past G7/G8 summits and protest. Check back each Sunday for a blast from the past when we recap a different summit's official agenda and civilian and activist responses.

****

In the words of Waldo Bello, Senior Analyst with Focus on the Global South, the Gleneagles summit was British Prime Minister Tony Blair's attempt to give the G8 a “facelift” in a battle for the “souls of global society.” Dubbed the "Year for Africa,” the 2005 Summit's focus was aid for Africa and achieving the Millenium Development Goals.

Some progress was made: G8 leaders established the “Commission for Africa” and addressed issues of corruption, HIV/AIDS, improved aid provision, education, trade justice, debt cancellation and security.

“Though the G8 has made substantial progress in debt cancellation," wrote Saran Yun of the G8 Research Group at the University of Toronto, "its contributions to effective aid, education, anti-corruption measures, and the fight against infectious diseases have been minimal. In terms of trade reform, the G8’s performance has been dismal at best.” Despite the emphasis on developing countries at Gleneagles, at the following G8 meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia, African development had all but disappeared from the G8 agenda.

A report by watchdog NGO CorpWatch highlights the strong presence of corporations at the Glengeagles summit. “Blair, [Gordon] Brown and Bono say they want to use the Gleneagles summit to tackle the issues of climate change and poverty in Africa. We argue in this report that the corporate agenda advanced by the G8 ultimately contradicts the achievement of any genuine and lasting ecological and social justice. Precisely because of the corporate agenda, any pronouncements from the G8 are likely to be nothing but ‘greenwash,’” states the report.

The "7/7" London bombings occurred during this summit, not believed to be a coincidence.

Thousands converged on Gleneagles to protest the summit. Security forces attempted to create a “sterile zone” free of protests: high metal fencing and concrete blast barriers were erected around the town and an “air exclusion zone” was imposed. ID “access passes” were distributed to residents to easily identify outside protesters at roadblocks and checkpoints.

The Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army (CIRCA), a network of clown affinity groups, attended the Gleneagles protests. According to CIRCA member General Unrest, CIRCA uses a combination of street theatre and play-tactics to “undermine and ridicule the intimidation and provocation of security forces at demonstrations.” By blowing kisses at police officers, or encircling a group of police who had cornered Black Bloc protesters, CIRCA helped diffuse tense situations and expose the ridiculous security measures at the summit.

CIRCA’s goals were “to wage a War on Error, since we believe that our laughter, our freedom, and our love of life is confronted by fundamentalists who preach the gospel of Error," said General Unrest in an interview. "From July 6-8, 2005, the most dangerous Errorists of the world’s eight richest countries (G8) were meeting in Gleneagles, Scotland, to plan further Errorism on a global scale.”

Amanda Wilson is a researcher and writer based in Ottawa.

This story was published in The Dominion's special issue on the G8 and G20 summits in Ontario. We will continue to publish independent, investigative news about the G8 and G20 throughout the month of June.

For up-to-the-minute G8/G20 news from the streets of Toronto, visit the Toronto Media Co-op.

Briefly, the G7 summit in Toronto, 1988

Briefly, the G7 summit in Halifax, 1995

Briefly, the G8 summit in Genoa, 2001

Briefly, the G8 summit in Kananaskis, 2002

CIRCA

Canada Confronts Europe on Bank Levies

Martin Lukacs — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 05:45:42 +0000

Flaherty leads the charge against Robin Hood Tax

TORONTO—A confrontation is brewing at the upcoming G20 summit in Toronto, pitting Canada against European countries who are promoting a global “Robin Hood” bank tax that could raise hundreds of billions of dollars for social programs, food security or debt-payment.

A number of European nations, led by Britain, are calling for the adoption of taxes that would discourage speculative trading. Canada, however, is opposed to the taxes, and the US, while still uncommitted, is leaning towards Canada’s position. Opposition from one country would undermine the consensus required for the adoption of the multinational bank tax.

In early February, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown suggested that a deal on a potential tax levy could be reached at the Toronto G20 Summit. A few days later the Canadian government publicly opposed any such agreement.

“We’re not going to impose capital taxes on our financial institutions,” Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty told journalists. “We’re against raising taxes and I hope to be able to convince my colleagues that these are unwise moves.” The Conservative government has also argued that as the only G8 country whose banks did not require bailouts it should not have to enter into a bank taxation plan.

The Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions for the Aid of Citizens (ATTAC) has criticized the Conservative government for rejecting financial regulation, accusing it of being beholden to financial interests.

“The Conservative government is opposed in principle to any new form of tax,” said Claude Vaillancourt, co-president of ATTAC-Quebec. “The Conservatives are blinded by the non-interventionist principles of neo-liberal economics, to which they adhere with ideological fervency.”

Britain has been at the forefront of the push for various tax and levy schemes to curtail bank risk. Prior to the economic crisis, London was a preeminent banking centre and over the past 20 years has been steadfastly opposed to most regulation of financial services.

The crisis changed all that. After the insolvency of several British banks and a $1.38 trillion bank bailout, and with an election looming, Prime Minister Brown is suddenly talking tough about banks “giving back to society,” telling the media he is “interested in how support is building up for international action.”

Britain’s proposals include a tax on bank transactions and a levy-style tax on assets. The transaction tax, often called the "Robin Hood tax" or the "Tobin tax" (after the US economist James Tobin, who first proposed it in 1972), is the more ambitious. It would focus on the trillions of transactions that take place in financial markets every day, including speculative ones such such as derivatives, which were a key part of the financial crash.

Precipitating the crash, these assets, including bundles of sub-prime mortgages, became overvalued due to speculation. When their values fell rapidly in 2008 the collapse began.

The transaction tax would put a very small tax (from 0.05 per cent to one per cent) on each of these transactions. Critics of unregulated banking argue that had such a tax been in place a few years ago investment banks would have thought twice about performing these transactions, thus lessening the likelihood of the crash.

“A low transactions tax...has little or no impact upon useful, longer term transactions, but limits ‘noise trading’ and very short-term ‘in and out’ speculation,” said Canadian Labour Congress economist Andrew Jackson. “Progressive economists who have advocated a financial transaction tax...believe that it would reduce speculation and volatility, without interfering with normal and useful activities including stock and currency trading and even hedging for legitimate purposes.”

A 2009 study by the Austrian government showed that a 0.05 per cent tax on UK financial trades could raise about £100 billion per year, paying for the expansion of social programs, paying down debt and providing insurance funds against future bailouts.

Grassroots organizations like ATTAC-Quebec take a stronger position, suggesting that any new funds from a tax should not go to banks, which might only encourage them to take more risks, potentially leading to new crises.

“The tax should simply be a fee for assisting citizens across the world,” said Vaillancourt. “This tax could, for example, give all citizens basic services—quality health care or free education.”

Despite its current opposition Canada was one of the first G20 countries to consider adopting the Tobin tax. In 1999 the Liberal government passed a resolution to “enact a Tobin tax in concert with the international community.” However, the Reform Party (later the Conservative Party) opposed the resolution and it did not gain enough international support to be enacted.

The other proposal promoted by European countries is a tax or levy on the assets of banks. It would not bring in sums on the scale of a Tobin tax, though some financial analysts believe it would restrain banks and raise some bailout money. As it stands now the levy has gained support from Britain’s key European counterparts, France and Germany, both of whom are strongly promoting it. From the perspective of the banks this is a more acceptable proposal than the Tobin tax as it would be either a one-off or infrequent fee based on a bank’s worth rather than a tax on its every transaction.

A great deal of Canada’s authority on these bank tax issues within the G20 is based on the perception that the country’s traditional banking sector was able to withstand the financial crisis. The historical record is murkier. While it is true that Canada did not have to bail out its banks there is much more to the story than mainstream media accolades of bank prudence and wise Conservative government policy.

In the late 1990s, and again in the early part of the new millennium, the five Canadian banks aimed to merge into three institutions to obtain the capital base to compete internationally with banks such as Citigroup, UBS and Royal Bank of Scotland. They hoped to enter the “major leagues” of investment banking and non-traditional speculative banking: the very markets that were at the heart of the crash.

Critics argue these merger attempts were not prevented because of a prudent fear of systemic risk, or the Liberal government’s foresight. News of the banks’ ambitions and public outcry about layoffs, branch closures and increased service charges forced the Canadian government to block the mergers. Canadian financial elites and the business class harshly criticized the government. Yet it may have been fortunate for them, and the current government, that the Canadian public was not swayed. Otherwise, Canadian banks might have been bailed out as well in 2008.

The International Monetary Fund has also weighed in, with Managing Director Dominic Strauss-Kahn saying countries opposing bank levies only because they escaped the current crisis unscathed are being “shortsighted.”

The US position leading up to the June G20 meetings is likely to be a major determinant of the success or failure of the G20 bank tax talks. The US bank bailouts have made it difficult for the US government, unlike Canada, to point to their strong financial sector as a reason to oppose bank taxes. Nevertheless, the US has also come out strongly against the Tobin tax and has reacted ambiguously to the idea of an international bank levy.

On the other hand, the Obama administration has made public statements over the last few months about an internal bank levy proposal. This may lead the US to be more open to an international levy given that it would shield them from capital flight if all nations bought in.

Because consensus is required for G20 policy decisions the growing Atlantic divide leaves any tax or levy plans up in the air. Meanwhile, the positions of the other 15 G20 countries are still being developed and do not seem to be getting much attention from the major players.

Though tax-watching might seem like a dull sport it is worth observing the developments this month. The European powers backing these taxes have been shaken by the crisis and pressured by their electorate. Regardless of motivations the taxes could have real-world effects that should not be minimized. The taxes are not radical but at least they point in the right direction: towards the banks.

Darren Puscas is a researcher on a project on women and unionization at McMaster University, and is the editor of the blog www.g20breakdown.com.

For up-to-the-minute G8/G20 news from the streets of Toronto, visit the Toronto Media Co-op.

Dollar bills stick together

Our Brother's Blood

Moira Peters — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 05:56:05 +0000

Briefly, the G8 summit in Genoa, 2001

Large summits are nothing new. The 36th G8 summit will set up shop in Huntsville June 25-26. Toronto, a past host, will this time welcome the 4th G20 summit June 26-27. The following is the third in a six-part series of briefs looking back on past G7/G8 summits and protest. Check back each Sunday for a blast from the past when we recap a different summit's official agenda and civilian and activist responses.

****

The Genoa summit has become infamous for the shooting death of protester Carlo Guliani. His was not the only blood shed at the hands of Genoa police during the 2001 G8 meetings. The summit's focus was global poverty reduction, but its content was overshadowed by waves of repression and resistance between police and protesters.

Over three days, more than 300,000 people protested the G8 in Genoa. At times, protesters seemed to have the upper hand; forcing police to retreat, even chasing them down the street. At other moments, brutality and violence by the carabinieri, Italy's police force, set the tone of the summit, as shown in video footage of groups of police beating a protester caught alone on the street.

In a show of force rarely seen in North America, Italian industrial labour unions put their skills to work building protest infrastructure to shield them from police attack. With large sturdy shields, they marched in old military formations through the streets of Genoa. And in response to requests by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to not dry their laundry outdoors, people hung clotheslines full of their underwear out their windows as protesters marched through the streets.

On Friday, July 20, Carlo Guliani, a 23-year-old Italian protester, had dropped a fire extinguisher and was holding his hands up in the air when he was shot twice by police and then run over by a police vehicle. The crowds in the streets swelled as news of his brutal killing spread, with marchers chanting, "Assasino!" An anarchist flag was draped over his coffin at his funeral.

The next night, 340 police officers raided the School of Diaz, thought to be a safe place for protesters, mostly students, to sleep. Scores of police forced their way into the building and began beating those inside. Video footage from after the attacks shows blood smeared across the floor and splattered against the walls. It was reported that protesters were urinated on and forced to sing fascist hymns. One protester described it as "complete carnage. There was blood everywhere...we were tortured, and I don't use that term lightly." In all, 61 people were badly injured and 93 were arrested, using what the Genoa Justice Campaign, an organization seeking investigations into police brutality at the Genoa Summit, labels “counterfeited evidence.” Charges against all 93 were dropped, and in later testimony the Deputy Police Chief of Genoa admitted to having planted Molotov cocktails and staging the stabbing of a police officer.

Approximately 300 protesters were arrested and over 230 were injured in Genoa. In the weeks following the summit, dozens of police officers and state officials were charged with physically and mentally abusing protesters, planting evidence and wrongful arrest. Since then, 26 police officers, prison staff and state officials have been found guilty of abuse and negligence, but no senior level police officials have been held accountable.

Genoa will be remembered as a monstrous display of state repression of dissent. It will also be remembered for the incredible defiance and strength shown by protesters in their perseverance in challenging the police and the state. After Genoa, it seemed something was shifting: resistance to the G8 and the international structures it supported was gaining strength. And then September 11th happened, and suddenly, everything was different.

Amanda Wilson is a researcher and writer based in Ottawa.

For up-to-the-minute G8/G20 news from the streets of Toronto, visit the Toronto Media Co-op.

Briefly, the G7 summit in Toronto, 1988

Briefly, the G7 summit in Halifax, 1995

G8 showdown in Genoa

Greece Bailout: Klein's Shock Doctrine in Action

Geordie — Mon, 03 May 2010 00:11:43 +0000

Today the IMF and Europe agreed to a €130 billion bailout package to Greece.

Greece has been under intense pressure recently. The economic crisis plunged Greece, like many other nations, into tough economic times.

As Greece has maintained consistently high levels of debt over many years, the downturns in their shipping and tourism economies have meant that they have required more and more debt in order to keep paying their bills.

However there has been a catch.

American debt-rating agencies (companies which essentially set out how much it will cost to take out a loan) recently said Greece might not pay back its debts.

Greek Prime-Minster George Papandreou has even stated that Greece is being 'attacked' on purpose.

Speaking in the Guardian he said, "This is an attack on the eurozone by certain other interests, political or financial, and often countries are being used as the weak link, if you like, of the eurozone. We are being targeted, particularly with an ulterior motive or agenda, and of course there is speculation in the world markets."

So few people are lending Greece money. This has made it impossible for Greece to get the loans it needs to keep running the country and pay back the loans it has already taken out.

And the 'shock' of the Greece financial situation is being used to destroy Greece's welfare state in what is being reported as "the most drastic overhaul of a European economy ever attempted."

The Tar Sands Oilympics

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:10:57 +0000

The London Tar Sands Network and London Rising Tide hold the inaugural Tar Sands Oilympics in Trafalgar Square, London.
Corporate contenders RBS, Shell and newcomer BP compete for the chance to wreak environmental havoc in their scramble for Canada's tar sands.
In the process they will lay waste to vast areas of boreal forest, poison First Nations communities and push the planet towards catastrophic climate change. The race for the most polluting fossil fuel resource on the planet is on. Forget the Winter Olympics in Canada, the real competition for the future of the planet is here.

They Tore Down the Kremlin-- and I Wasn't There

macdonald — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:32:32 +0000

The lyrics to the song contained in this track are available here:
http://www.lyricsdownload.com/alarm-the-new-south-wales-lyrics.html

They Tore Down The Kremlin-- and I wasn't there.
September 20, 2009.

Macdonald John Enoch Stainsby.

I guess I should first explain why I am writing this article. It would not be at all inaccurate to say I'm trying to channel incredibly powerful emotions that have surfaced as a result of a recent short visit to Maerdy, south Wales in the Rhondda Valley. My family roots trace back to the town known as “Little Moscow” from the 1920's on. I have long known of our ties to this community but not the depth of those connections or what impact on me these ties would have.

I began my own personal journey in life that took me to revolutionary conclusions by necessity beginning when I was in high school but not becoming the path that I would take with my life until my early 20's, roughly 13 years ago. My reasons for moving towards the revolutionary transformation of society had almost nothing to do with our family history but were based on my own rational conclusions based on the state of the world. To this day when someone asks me why I'm a self-described revolutionary I still want to reply: “Look around you. Why aren't you?”

Life in the Calais Jungle

Moira Peters — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 04:06:30 +0000

A week in the migrant camps on the France/UK border

CALAIS, FRANCE—A tranquil scene greets visitors as they approach Calais, France, on the ferry from Dover, England: people play on the beach and lounge on the balconies of their waterfront condos; children fly kites by the shore. It has all the appearances of a charming place to spend a few days soaking up the sun and practicing your French. But this peaceful façade obscures the harsh reality for thousands of migrants, predominantly from the Middle East and Northern Africa, attempting to complete the final leg of their journey to what they hope will be a better life in the UK.

As the ferry docks, it is immediately clear that Calais’ port is surrounded by a maze of fences covering all access points. These fences are a physical representation of Europe’s increasingly obsessive efforts to close the doors to so-called illegal migrants. As the EU institutes increasingly severe and unforgiving immigration policies, Calais has become a bottleneck for migrants attempting to cross the English Channel, and a site of resistance for those wishing to challenge the repressive and racist actions of governments.

Tensions began to rise in Calais following the 2002 closure of the Red Cross Reception Centre in nearby Sangette. French and UK authorities had pushed hard for the closure, hoping that removing the centre would decrease the number of migrants seeking to cross the border. It appears the move has simply made the journey more difficult for those desperate enough to try. In the past five years the UK has stopped nearly 90,000 individuals from entering Britain, two-thirds of whom came via the Calais crossing. Current estimates are that anywhere from 700 to 2,000 people are camped in Calais at any given time, hoping to cross the border. They live in an area known as ‘the Jungle’ on the outskirts of the city: a collection of makeshift tents and cardboard homes where migrants live a cramped and precarious existence.

Police repression against migrants and political and legal pressure against any organizations assisting migrants has increased in recent years, in an attempt to starve the migrants out of France and Europe as a whole. In France it is illegal to assist undocumented migrants, which makes it very difficult for organizations to provide support or to build solidarity networks.

In response to the emergency situation in Calais, a week-long camp was organized from June 23 to 29, to demonstrate solidarity with migrants and protest their treatment by European governments. The camp was a mix of activists from across Europe, predominantly from the UK and France, who came together under the broad banner of ‘No Borders.’ The movement is a network of autonomous groups calling for freedom of movement for all, and which sees borders as maintaining a structure of inequality and repression, based on categories of legal/illegal and citizen/non-citizen.

The level of organization was impressive: beyond a physical presence, they planned a series of workshops, concerts, radio broadcasts and even a camp newspaper. When a plumber arrived on the Sunday morning to set up showers, it was clear these were not just a bunch of crazy radicals set on crashing the border, as some mainstream media reports had suggested. The camp was created by a group of intelligent and dedicated individuals who were seeking to create a meaningful space for dialogue, and to question the notion of borders, citizenship, and state repression.

While the camp was purposely built away from the Jungle to prevent police retaliation against migrants, a group of approximately 20 Iranians had taken up residence right behind the camp. This group of men varied in age, including a redheaded boy of 16. Using the camp generator to charge his cell phone he looked like he should be playing soccer with his friends, not risking his life to elude detection crossing the border in order to evade capture and detention. Sleeping most of the day, these men spent their nights trying to sneak aboard trucks that would take them across the Channel.

A sign made by several of the Iranians depicted their journey across the channel and expresses their desire to be treated with dignity and respect. It highlighted the three checkpoints they must pass through undetected before they even reach the Channel. In 2004, France and England signed an agreement on "juxtaposed controls," which allows UK immigration authorities to establish their own checkpoints in certain French locations, including Calais. Those who are caught are given a warning, held in detention centres for a short period time, and then released to try their luck another day. Those caught on the UK side of the border face harsher detention facilities and deportation. According to the UK Border Agency, they deported a total of 63,140 migrants last year.

Organizers of the camp seemed to have negotiated a compromise between addressing security concerns to protect the camp and creating a welcoming and open environment. Decisions were made by consensus over meals, with translators relaying information back and forth between Anglophones and Francophones. This was done against the background of constant surveillance, as a van-load of police circled the camp every five to ten minutes. During the week-long camp, there were numerous reports of clashes between police and protesters, and camp participants posted stories online of being held and searched at the border. The camp created an alternative space in defiance to the hostility and repression created by the constant police presence. There were moments of solidarity, where people from opposite backgrounds sat side-by-side, sharing food and song, giving a glimpse of what a world of “no borders” might be.

The fact that Western, white citizens were able to travel to Calais to participate in the No Borders camp for such a short time illustrates the privileges many hold. Protesters travelling to and from the camp faced police harassment and detainment, but it is the thousands of migrants who remain who bear the brunt of the state’s increasingly violent and extreme attempts to build walls between people and exploit their labour and lives.

The UK and French governments continue to build their fortress. An agreement reached between the two countries on July 7, 2009, will invest an additional £15 million in increased security controls and technology to, according to the UK Minister of Border and Immigration, "further strengthen the ring of steel that protects Britain." The questions is, who will protect migrants—those seeking asylum, reunification with their families, freedom from violence, repression and economic disaster—from being squeezed and suffocated by this ring of steel?

For more information on the No Borders Movement or situation in Calais please visit:

http://www.noborders.org.uk
http://www.contre-faits.org
http://www.associationsalam.org/

Amanda Wilson spent two days at the No Borders Camp in Calais, France, in advance of the weeklong mobilization to protest the treatment of migrants by the French and UK governments.

Calais Arrest

Port of Calais

Moose Calves with their Mother

Maya Rolbin-Ghanie — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:00:45 +0000

baby animals: things that make you go "aww..."

The largest mammal in the deer family, the North American Moose (Alces alces americanus) has long lived throughout most of Canada and the northeastern United States.

The word moose comes from the Algonquin Eastern Abenaki name moz, which loosely means "twig eater."

Moose cows remain pregnant for eight months, after which time they generally give birth to just one calf, although twins and triplets have been known to occur. Although moose are usually loners, a very a strong bond is formed between a mother and her calves, who learn to walk and follow her around almost immediately after being born. Young moose tend to stay close to their mother until just before she next gives birth.

Newborn moose begin by drinking their mother's milk and quickly work up to eating plants. The moose is a strict herbivore; most of its diet is made up of woody plant material like the tips of twigs, fresh leaves and shoots, which it is able to pull sideways through its mouth, often stripping off up to half-a-metre of plant life with its rough, dense tongue and lips.

Moose have few natural enemies, but wolf packs sometimes pose a threat to mothers alone with their young. A moose will become paralyzed with pain if its extremely sensitive nose is bitten by wolves or other attackers.

Moose bulls are highly distinguishable by their wide, outstretched palmate antlers. After mating season, the male will shed its antlers to conserve energy over the winter, and a new pair will grow when spring comes. A male calf is born with two tiny bumps on its head from which his first pair of antlers will grow.

Baby moose with their mother

Hoglet

Maya Rolbin-Ghanie — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 06:42:06 +0000

This Western European Hoglet, also known as the common hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus), has ancestors living anywhere from the British Isles and western Europe to the Mediterranean islands and New Zealand. This earthy creature likes deciduous forests, woodlands, farmland, sand dunes, scrub, and grassy heaths for its home, occasionally ending up in suburban areas. Usually it will build a nest out of grass and leaves under a bush or amid tree roots. Prickly by nature, this nocturnal young animal will roll into a ball to protect itself against threats with its spines. While it can't see very well, this spiky little wanderer has a sense of hearing and smell that are sharp as can be. It clanks around all night, rummaging or sniffing out worms, insects, snails, and, sometimes, small snakes.

Baby Hedgehog

EU & Canada Free Trade Deal: Huh?

Geordie — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 21:55:38 +0000

Was reading the less-than-stellar analysis of Globe Opinion writer Jeffrey Simpson the other day when I noticed this little gem:

France and Canada are on the same wavelength on issue after issue, including Afghanistan and trade (Canada and the European Union are entering serious talks about a free-trade agreement). They both opposed the invasion of Iraq.

Canada and EU free trade deal? I read a lot of news so I was wondering why I hadn't seen more of this before.

A quick google search found a couple of news pieces here, here and here about the issue, but this could potentially be major.

I'm no fan of free trade and think NAFTA should be abolished, but do believe in the benefits of fair trade as long as never-ending growth isn't part of the deal.

Canada's trade has been almost entirely dependent on the US since colonization. Would a free trade agreement with the EU mean less dependence? Would Canadian standards plummet on certain issues? What would the impacts on social justice, the tar sands, mining and other issues be?

The New Eldorado - trailer

Van Ferrier — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:33:58 +0000

Rosia Montana Gold Corporation, a Canadian-Romanian company plans to open a goldmine in Romania, which will be the largest in Europe. To make way for the mega-project, people are being forcibly relocated. There will also be an 800-hectare cyanide waste reservoir with a 180-meter-high dam.

Credit Crisis Claims Iceland

Geordie — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 05:08:23 +0000

Iceland is nearing economic collapse as its second largest bank has been nationalized by the government.

The most free-market of the Nordic countries, it seems as if Iceland has been too heavily involved in the credit markets for the last 15 years. The Guardian reports:

Inflation and interest rates are raging upwards. The krona, Iceland's currency, is in freefall and is rated just above those of Zimbabwe and Turkmenistan. One of the country's three independent banks has been nationalised, another is asking customers for money, and the discredited government and officials from the central bank have been huddled behind closed doors for three days with still no sign of a plan. International banks won't send any more money and supplies of foreign currency are running out.

In a telling turn of events, Iceland has had to get a loan from cash-rich Russia to help stave off collapse. The Prime Minister of Iceland has reportedly stated,

"We have been calling for aid from neighboring countries and have been turned down. In times of crisis, one has to look for new friends."

Justice in Genova

dru — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:24:18 +0000

Police who beat and tortured international activists sentenced

On July 21, 2001, activists attending the G8 demonstrations in Genova, Italy, were attacked in a schoolhouse where they slept, mercilessly beaten by police, and subsequently tortured for days at the hands of guards and doctors.

Two Canadians who were among those beaten say they will never forget those awful nights and days. For them, part of the healing process is acknowledging the brutality at home and continuing to take a stand against it.

"We were travelling in southern and eastern Europe and had met Greek anarchists, Kurdish revolutionaries, Italian activists and squatters," recalls Kara Sievewright, an activist and artist based in Vancouver. "Earlier in our trip we had gone to a large demonstration in Napoli against the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developments (OECD) Global Forum."

She had been traveling with David Cunningham, an organizer with Vancouver's Anti-Poverty Committee and a writer for Direct Action magazine. "We went to Genova to join what was billed as the largest street battle in the history of the anti-globalisation movement," he says. Between 100,000 and 200,000 converged on the city and were met by a heavy-handed response from the Carabiniere, Italy's military police force. Black Bloc members increasingly engaged in direct confrontation with police, and on July 19, 23-year-old Carlos Giuliani, an unarmed Italian protestor, was shot to death by the Carabiniere.

Sievewright and Cunningham were staying at Diaz School, along with activists from Italy, Britain, Poland and Ireland. "It was advertised publicly as the headquarters for the Pink Bloc who openly organised on passive grounds," Cunningham says. "The cops didn't understand the sectarian difference and attacked the Pink as if they were Black Bloc."

Shortly after midnight on July 21, police swarmed into the building, rousing the startled occupants with shouts and blows.

"I remember the people screaming 'polizia, polizia,' and the sound of the riot police banging down the door. I remember looking out the window of the third floor and seeing a wave of shiny blue helmets swelling into the gates and through the doors of the school," says Sievewright. "I remember the shock on the faces of the first medics who were allowed into the building, and I remember the absolute terror and fear of the people who'd been beaten."

"I remember a lot of pacifists who could not believe that it was happening to them," Cunningham adds.

The schoolhouse was dubbed the "Slaughterhouse" by Indymedia reporters and radical press. Pictures circulated of walls and floors smeared with blood, of young men and women being carried unconscious through the front doors. Three activists, including British journalist Mark Covell, were left in comas, and one sustained permanent brain damage. Ninety-three people were arrested, many taken to a temporary detention camp established at Bolzaneto, six miles from Genova.

"I was beaten pretty badly, mostly on my back," Cunningham says. "I had zigzagging bruises on my back in the shape of the batons handles. My head was split open."

Shockingly, some of the worst treatment he received was at the hands of doctors. "I was in some kind of military hospital for two days."

"There, the 'doctors' worked with the police to get information from us. We were not allowed to sleep, as the pigs would smash batons off bed posts."

Afterwards, he was transferred to a men's prison for several days. "In prison we were made to sing fascist songs. Because I would not, I was kicked repeatedly, and put in an isolation cell away from the others. Guards would rush my cell and tell me that they would 'rape my girlfriend' and 'kill me in my sleep.'"

Meanwhile, similar emotional and physical anguish was being visited on the women who were detained, Sievewright says. "I was taken to a hospital for one night because they thought I had a head injury but I was lucky to get away with only major bruising on my legs and arms. The police came to the hospital in the morning, arrested me and took me to the Bolzaneto detention centre. I was there for about 30 hours in a small cell with about 30 other women from the school. Most of them had been there all night and had been forced to stand while sustaining head injuries, broken arms, fingers, noses, teeth, bruising and bleeding. They had been forced to sing fascist songs and threatened with rape. All night we heard screaming and banging. We were told that we were to be raped and tortured."

After days of threats and humiliation, Sievewright and Cunningham were released. "Upon our release from the detention center, a group of Marxist Leninists took us underground for a few days, as we were supposed to be out of the country immediately," Cunningham says. "I believe that there was support from the anarchists in general and the Black Cross in specific."

In the years following the attack, Sievewright and Cunningham traveled back to Italy to testify in a legal case that was organized by a local group under the banner Processi G8. As they struggle to come to terms with what they experienced, their resilience is as evident in their gallows humour as it is in their ongoing commitment to organizing for social justice.

"Though the impact of my experiences in Genova have lessened over the last seven years, I definitely had some symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, and on occasion it still haunts me. And Genova didn't do much for my love of police officers," Sievewright says dryly. "Witnessing and experiencing political violence in Genova was a big motivator in getting more actively involved in political organizing in Canada."

The experience has shaped Cunningham's activism as well. "Political violence as a threat from the state here in Vancouver is less terrifying, as I believe I have survived the worst that I might be subjected to, given my relative privilege as a white activist in occupied Canada," he says. "Here I've only had [police] throw me through a glass window and later break a rib that pierced my lung!"

On July 15, after a three-year trial, verdicts were handed down by the Italian court. Fifteen officials were given sentences ranging from five months to five years. Thirty others were cleared of charges. Defendants will each receive 10,000 Euros and upwards in damages. The decision is considered an embarrassment to Silvio Berlusconi's right wing government, in power both then and now. In 2005, 29 officers were indicted for grievous bodily harm, planting evidence and wrongful arrest for the raid on the on the Diaz School. By 2003, all of the activists arrested that night had been cleared of all charges including resisting arrest.

The commander of the Bolzaneto camp, Biagio Gugliotta, received a five-year sentence. The chief doctor, Giacomo Toccafondi, was given a 14-month sentence, accused of failing to intervene when detainees were sprayed with asphyxiating gas.

"I know that most of the people involved in the case were disappointed in the verdict – only a fraction of the accused were convicted and most of them were given little jail time – but to be honest I was surprised that the police, the officials and the doctors were convicted, sentenced or given any jail time at all," Sievewright admits. "I know that a couple of years or months in prison, that they will likely not even serve, is little compared to the trauma and abuse that they afflicted on the hundreds of people in the detention centre; and it is small compared to the 25 people out of the 300,000, convicted of rioting and property damage who were given a collective total of 110 years of jail.

"But generally throughout the world people in positions of power are rarely brought to justice through the legal system. In Canada there have been numerous cases of people dying in the hands of the police ― Frank Paul, Robert Dziekanski, and most recently the 18-year-old in Montreal [Fredy Alberto Villanueva, killed August 10], to name a few – and in these cases, as in other cases, it is unlikely that the police will even be made to stand trial."

"I feel no closure," Cunningham says simply. "Fascism is on the rise in Europe and is making a resurgence here. Unless a militant force can organize to challenge them in the street, Carlos' death and the brutalities at the Diaz School and detention centres will be remembered in vain, with the current legal cases producing only symbolic legal victories void of any real justice."

G8 Files

Diaz School

Bush praised, Rio Tinto tossed in Norway

Geordie — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 05:57:07 +0000

It was a busy 24 hours for a Norwegian Socialist Finance Minister.

Kristin Halvorsen, the head of the Socialist Left Party in Norway and Finance Minister in the coalition government banned government investment in mining giant Rio Tinto and said George W. Bush "showed good social-democratic tendencies".

Halvorsen was referring to the US governments decision to bail out mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Norwegian government, which operates a massive surplus-fund, invested heavily in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and suffered major losses recently as a result.

On the same day, Halvorsen also reported that the same surplus fund would no longer be investing in Rio Tinto due to environmental concerns. "Wal-Mart, British arms manufacturer BAE Systems and US defense firm Lockheed Martin have also been blacklisted" in the past, according to the BBC.

The surplus-fund is Europe's biggest investor and holds nearly 1% of Europe's listed shares.