The hypocrisy of humanitarianism

A few days ago, the UN released a long-awaited report on human rights abuses in North Korea. It comes as little surprise to hear that the government of the Hermit Kingdom is abusing its own citizens, but the actual details of that abuse remain sobering. Collective punishment continues (though the report found it isn’t as widespread as initially believed), with entire families imprisoned for the crimes of a single member; freedom of speech is non-existent; hunger is rife, partially due to the poor state of the North Korean economy, but also because of the government reserving food for the most ‘useful’ citizens and the army; freedom of movement is severely constrained, with access to the relatively luxurious capital of Pyongyang only available to those who show loyalty to the party; and, of course, there are the labour camps – unimaginably grim places in which ‘enemies’ of the regime are worked to death, starved, beaten, tortured, and forced to kill their own children. The UN have even compared the crimes of the regime to those of the Nazis.

At the moment, and perhaps for the next week or two, there will be outrage in the western newspapers and the governments of Europe and North America will make statements condemning Kim Jong-un and his fellow leaders. The North Korean leaders are committing some of the gravest crimes against humanity ever seen, and the USA and others must be seen to stand up against them. But what will be done to actually change the situation for ordinary North Koreans? Despite continual claims by the west to humanitarian goals and a desire to spread democracy, nothing will be done to aid this slowly dying country.

Humanitarian intervention has, of course, happened before – some countries have been deemed to be behaving so badly towards their population that the west has no choice but to get involved and set things straight. Curiously, these countries always tend to be the ones with the most oil – Iraq, Libya, possibly Syria in the future – or the ones which crossed a line and attacked a superpower – such as Afghanistan. This is, of course, just a coincidence – there’s no way that decisions on humanitarian intervention would be based on the profit and benefits that could accrue to the west, because that wouldn’t be a very humanitarian way of looking at things, would it?

Truthfully, North Korea’s leaders know they can continue on their current path without facing the consequences of military attack or a withdrawal of food aid. Korea has no oil, and few major natural resources in general, so the west has no pressing need to bring it onside. It also has the backing of a superpower, China, and is at least tolerated by another member of the UN Security Council, Russia. Ultimately, intervening in North Korea would bring no benefits and a whole lot of hassle to the west, so I’m sure we’ll find that the lives of North Koreans are not as important as the lives of the Iraqis and Afghans we ‘liberated’ from their dictatorships.

Once again, this seems like an example of the hypocrisy of western governments – preaching humanitarian aims while really only considering the geopolitical economics of profit and loss for themselves. Those governments need to eventually decide what it is they really stand for – either the lives of the unprofitable North Koreans are as important as those of the oil-rich Iraqis, or they’re not. It’s time for the west to be honest about its values, and admit that they sometimes have to put ethics aside in the name of politics.

ana shell media, ana shell media press, behaving badly towards population, collective punishment continues, crimes against humanity, dictatorships, enemies of regime, entire families imprisoned, force to kill children, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, geopolitical economics, government of the Hermit Kingdom, governments of Europe, human rights, human rights abuses in North Korea, humanitarian aims, humanitarian goals,humanitarian intervention, hypocrisy of humanitarianism, hypocrisy of western governments, Kim Jong-un, labour camps, long-awaited report, military attack, natural resources, North America, North Korean economy, North Korean leaders, oil-rich Iraqis, Pyongyang, rife hunger, show loyalty to party, spread democracy, UN Security Council, western newspapers, withdrawal of food aid, work to death

Welcome to the Everywhere War

This week the US government publicly admitted that it is building a case against an American citizen that it claims is a member of Al-Qaeda who is planning terrorist attacks against America. Ordinarily, this wouldn’t be shocking news – the various branches of justice in the US build cases against people for illegal activities all the time, and terrorism is certainly an illegal activity. However, this case is remarkable because the end result of the folder of evidence being put together will not be a trial before a judge and jury in a court of law. Instead, if the justice department puts together a convincing enough case, the CIA will be authorized to immediately kill the man with a drone strike from the skies above whichever country he is currently hiding in.

No trial is needed, it seems; and the man will not be given the chance to defend himself, as is usually the right of every American citizen who is accused of a crime. Instead, a combination of bureaucrats and politicians, with President Obama ultimately at its head, will become judge, jury, and executioner of this man, and quite possibly of many of the people around him at the time the CIA strikes, who will no doubt find their own lives being taken as ‘collateral damage’.

This isn’t the first time such an attack will have happened, of course, although it does seem to set a precedent for the US government openly admitting that it is considering assassinating one of its own people. A US citizen and Muslim cleric named Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a drone strike in Yemen in 2011, with similar justifications from the government. Equally, if we put aside the issue of American citizenship, countless others have been murdered by US drone strikes over the past few years on the basis of confidential information that we are not allowed to see – but the justice department, the military, and the US government all assure us that anyone killed was definitely an ‘enemy combatant’.

We are now in the middle of what geographer Derek Gregory calls ‘the everywhere war’ – an unannounced worldwide conflict in which every nation is a potential battlefield and every person a potential target. Gregory points to the militarization of the US-Mexico border and the use of computer viruses against Iranian nuclear reactors as examples of the worldwide spread of this war. Sticking with the Middle East, the US has essentially extended its war against Afghanistan into Pakistan, where it constantly conducts air and even ground raids in its attempt to find members of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. That war has extended again across the gulf to Yemen, where regular drone strikes have stirred up such resentment that the country is constantly on the brink of revolutionary collapse. Such a collapse would, of course, give the US even more reason to continue with the strikes to defeat a new ‘radical’ government. The normal rules of war do not seem to apply – the US feels it can attack whoever it wants whenever it wants with complete impunity, all in the name of ‘national security’.

Some of the blame for this ‘everywhere war’ must lay with Al-Qaeda and Islamic militants themselves, of course, who have attacked indiscriminately. But the US needs to be held to higher standards than the people it calls terrorists. It needs to approach things in a manner that respects the law, precisely to show that it is different from Al-Qaeda. And randomly exterminating people without trial simply because they happen to be in the poor, underdeveloped nations that these extremists are targeting, is not going to demonstrate to the world that the US is morally superior. The US government is becoming bolder about its belief that it can target anyone it wants with this week’s announcement – but it needs to reverse that policy, and quickly.

American citizen who is accused of a crime, ana shell media, ana shell media press, Anwar al-Awlaki, branches of justice, building a case, collateral damage, Derek Gregory, enemy combatant, illegal activity,Iranian nuclear reactors, member of Al-Qaeda, militarization of US-Mexico border, national security, on the basis of confidential information, planning terrorist attacks, potential battlefield, potential target, President Obama, publicly admit, remarkable case, respect the law, revolutionary collapse, shocking news, terrorist attacks against America, the everywhere war, underdeveloped nations, US drone strikes, US government, use of computer viruses, worldwide conflict

Is Europe breaking down?

The EU has been rocked in the past few days by the news coming out of a country that doesn’t even belong to the 28-country bloc – Switzerland. The highly complex Swiss political system allows for regular national referenda to be held on issues of popular concern, if enough signatures can be gathered to put a measure on the ballot. The right-wing Swiss People’s Party managed to promote a referendum on the issue of restricting immigration – not just from Africa and Asia as we might expect, but even from other European countries. No-one expected it to pass, and polls in the last week suggested it would fail. But on the day of the vote the measure passed with 50.3% in favour and 49.7% against.

The implications are already worrying people across the continent, although the Swiss government has three years in which to draw up legislation to implement the vote – and will presumably be looking to do so in the least restrictive way possible, as much of Switzerland’s wealth comes through freedom of people and capital. Although Switzerland is outside the EU, it currently reaps all the major benefits of membership, including tariff-free trade and free movement. This vote puts all of that in jeopardy, and EU members like France have already suggested that it will mean re-examining the European relationship with Switzerland. All in all, it seems like an insane decision by the Swiss voters, and one which will damage them just as much as it will harm the rest of the continent.

That’s not to say Switzerland doesn’t have a certain amount of form on backwards referenda decisions. In 2009, the country voted to ban the construction of minarets on mosques, in a campaign that was marked by controversial race-baiting posters designed by the Swiss People’s Party. However, this latest vote feel more significant in terms of the resurgence of right-wing feeling in Switzerland and across Europe, as it suggests that ill-feeling towards foreigners is expanding from the usual targets of Africans and Arabs towards fellow Europeans. In the midst of an economic recession that shows no signs of ending anytime soon, Europeans have begun to turn on one another – the Greeks blame the Germans for their problems, the British blame the Romanians, the Ukrainians blame the Russians, and, it seems, the Swiss blame everybody but themselves. In this atmosphere, the Swiss People’s Party currently receive over 25% of the vote in Switzerland, and the equally anti-European United Kingdom Independence Party are set to come second in the forthcoming EU elections, ahead of the Conservative party that currently leads the government in the UK. The rest of Europe has not escaped the rise of this right-wing sentiment, and I’ll discuss some other examples in future blogs.

Ultimately, this intra-European tension helps nobody, and the idea of Switzerland, one of the richest countries in the world and vital part of the global economy, closing its borders seems ridiculous to everyone except the Swiss voters themselves. However, it does highlight the increasing tension which needs to be worked out within Europe – perhaps the wealthiest and most fortunate area on the planet, but which still contains so many people who feel left behind and excluded from the modern economy. This is clear in the breakdown of the Swiss vote, with rich, cosmopolitan areas like Geneva and Zurich voting strongly against the motion, but the rural areas that still rely on agriculture voting strongly in favour. In the modern European economy, some are winning while others continue to lose and to feel that their place in the world is slowly being eroded. The Swiss vote shows how vital it is to turn that situation around and ensure everyone is included and made to feel listened to – whether city-dweller, farmer, citizen, immigrant, or otherwise.

agriculture voting, ana shell media, ana shell media press, anti-European United Kingdom Independence Party, benefits of membership, British blame Romanians,Conservative party, construction of minarets on mosques, cosmopolitan areas, economic recession, EU elections, Europe breaking down, European relationship with Switzerland, free movement, freedom of people, global economy, Greeks blame Germans, implement the vote, intra-European tension, lead the government, modern economy, modern European economy, one of the richest countries in the world, promote a referendum, race-baiting posters, regular national referenda, restricting immigration, right-wing Swiss People's Party, Swiss government, Swiss political system, Swiss voters, Switzerland's wealth,tariff-free trade, Ukrainians blame Russians

A Sweet Advert, but a Bitter Taste

American television loves sporting events. It loves them because they're popular, but it also loves them because they provide numerous opportunities for commercial breaks, which at this point are pretty much the primary art form in North America. During the recent Superbowl and the Sochi Winter Olympics opening ceremony, Coca-Cola used these commercial breaks to air an advert which would appeal to the emotions of the millions of viewers and get them to buy more of the weird sugary brown water that they sell. The spot featured a number of children singing 'America the Beautiful' in a range of languages, highlighting the diversity of the USA and the ability for people from all backgrounds to come together and celebrate the history and achievements of the country. It's an incredibly cheesy advert, which rather obviously plays on the 'cute kids' angle, but I guess it does its job.

However, some of the viewers of this harmless commercial have been outraged. A number of people on Twitter and Facebook, among other places, have been arguing that English is the national language of the US, and songs like 'America the Beautiful' should only ever be sung in English. This ignores several important things – such as the fact that the US does not have an 'official language', and that the original European settlers spoke Dutch, French, German, Swedish, and Spanish for hundreds of years before English became the de facto national language. But it does highlight the growing tensions between white, English-speaking Americans, and those from other backgrounds – particularly Latinos.

The US has long been a nation of immigrants, and has so many Spanish speakers that it will soon be the majority language. There are Chinatowns in every major city, where Mandarin and Cantonese are regularly heard. There are even pockets of French speakers in states like Maine near the Canadian border. In theory, language shouldn't be a big issue in the US – the diversity of tongues should simply be an everyday fact that people have adjusted to. But it isn't. It remains a highly emotive issue that is able to whip part of the country into a nationalistic, borderline-racist frenzy. This shows how well conservatives in the US have done in moving the debate away from economics and towards culture.

Look at the so-called 'Tea Party' for instance – the ultra-conservative movement that sprang up in the wake of Obama's 2008 election. Many of the people complaining about the Coca-Cola advert have no doubt voted for or otherwise supported Tea Party candidates in the past. The movement is most popular in the poorest states, but it is bankrolled by some of the richest people in the country. The result is a movement which ignores the low wages, corporate subsidies, and exporting of jobs to Mexico and China which keep its members poor, and instead blames 'foreigners', Latinos, Muslims, the disabled, and the unemployed for their problems. The response to the Coca-Cola advert is the latest example – the idea that the big problem facing America is its languages, rather than its economic policies and institutionalized inequality, would be laughable if so many people didn't believe it.

This focus on cultural issues rather than economic ones is a masterstroke by the rich elites that run these social movements – they have got the poor white English-speakers of the US to focus their hatred on other marginalized groups, rather than realizing their similarities and combining their power to focus on the rich and the corporations who are encouraging inequality and poverty in order to line their own pockets. And as long as this continues, we will keep seeing ridiculous controversies like the one over this commercial.

[ sporting events, coca-cola, sochi winter olympics, america the beautiful, twitter, facebook, tea party, economic policies, social movements ]

Low-cost electricity and capital outflows

How much can be earned off of the global energy problems facing developing markets? It’s possible to earn a lot, and regularly.

“We’re providing countries with the unique opportunity to participate in integrating their companies into this new business,” says one Ana Shell Fund employee. “We are inviting developing markets to learn how generating electricity using syngas produced via the gasification of renewable resources like agricultural waste and city garbage can lower the cost of a kW/h to around $.02 USD. Sometimes less.”

Countries in South-East Asia are at a high risk of a “sudden stop” of foreign capital flows, and therefore need to obtain access to low-cost electricity as soon as possible. In the opinion of Morgan Stanley London office analysts Manoj Pradhan and Patrick Drozdzik, India, Indonesia, Mexico and Thailand may experience an exodus of capital investment because investors tend to shy away from developing markets.

Ana Shell Fund’s comments on reforming the energy industry have been made against the backdrop of Indian, Turkish and South African central banks raising their key interest rates in order to protect their currencies, the International Business Times writes. According to their economists, a “sudden stop” is defined as the termination or even outflow of capital from a country. It also includes restricting said country’s access to international financial markets for a determined period, which would weaken their national economies.

In order to implement affordable power generation projects in developing markets, the Ana Shell Fund has formed a work team. The fruit of their collaboration is an Eco-SV turbine with an efficiency factor (EF) of over 55%, and best of all – it’s cheap to manufacture! This turbine would enable electricity to be produced at the low cost of two cents per kW/h. The purpose for this project is to reduce developing countries’ dependencies upon capital inflows and loans, helping them balance current account deficits, establish monetary freedom, and lessen China’s influence over foreign economies. Under existing economic conditions, the countries at the highest risk must determine how they will finance their budgets and energy deficits, and whether they will explore new financial avenues. It is worth pointing out that Thailand, Turkey, and Ukraine have recently suffered from political upheaval. Who will step up and take responsibility for our future?

Capital outflows are at an all-time high. According to data gathered by the Societe Generale, the total cash inflow into developing markets’ stock funds reached a peak level of $220 billion USD in February of last year. Since then, over $60 billion USD have been allocated to foreign assets. According to analysts’ forecasts, in the nearest future, the migration rate will more than double. The same fate is expected for the EM-obligations fund. Among other things, the gradual tapering of the US Federal Reserve System’s quantitative easing program may become cause for concern. That is why it is so important to create a cheap power industry, Ana Shell Fund analysts claim.

We are inviting all developing markets to participate in this Consortium.

affordable power generation projects, agricultural waste, ana shell fund, ana shell media, ana shell media press, balance current account deficits, capital outflows, cheap power industry, city garbage,dependencies upon capital inflows, developing markets, Eco-SV turbine, efficiency factor, EM-obligations fund, energy deficits, establish monetary freedom, existing economic conditions, exodus of capital investment, explore new financial avenues, finance budgets, foreign capital flows, foreign economies, gasification of renewable resources, generating electricity,global energy problems, interest rates, International Business Times, international financial markets, lessen China's influence, low-cost electricity, Manoj Pradhan, migration rate, Morgan Stanley London office, national economies, participate in Consortium, Patrick Drozdzik, political upheaval, quantitative easing program, reach peak level, reforming the energy industry, Société Générale, South-East Asia, stock funds, total cash inflow, US Federal Reserve

A taxing time for the rich

A relatively minor bit of party political manoeuvring in the UK over the weekend shows us quite a bit about the political battles going on over economies worldwide at the moment. The story is simple – the shadow chancellor (i.e. the man who will be in charge of the economy if the centrist Labour party wins the next election) has promised to bring in a 50% tax rate on people earning over £150,000 a year (that's around $250,000 for comparison). Essentially that's the story – politician makes promise he might or might not keep in the future, if he even wins an election in the first place. But the response has been telling.

Business leaders have reacted in outrage to the proposal, saying it shows that Labour are 'anti-business' and don't understand economics. They say it will stop rich people from creating new businesses and providing jobs. They say the rich will simply leave the country and go to places with more 'friendly' tax regimes, like Switzerland (which does sound appealing, though more due to the scenery than the fiscal policy). In fact, it seems like business leaders across the country have two things in common with each other: they're all against this policy, and, coincidentally, they all happen to make more than £150,000 a year.

But what interests me the most is the way in which the issue is purposefully obscured and misunderstood by the press and the public, with the help of those quotes of outrage from business leaders. It seems to be generally assumed in the UK that a 50% tax rate means you give exactly 50% of your income to the government – so £75,000 of your hard-earned money is wrenched away from you each year and used by the government for whatever it feel like. This, of course, is not actually how tax works.

Marginal tax rates mean that only the money you earn above £150,000 will be taxed at 50%, with the rest of your money being taxed at the same, lower rates as everyone else. It is ridiculously fair, and seems to be perhaps the only way to ensure that everyone pays a reasonable amount according to their ability to do so. But it's disguised by commentators in the press and on the online forums to make it seem unfair on the rich. This is a dirty trick that appeals to the British sense of 'fair play' – the average British person wants the rich to pay their share of taxes, but they don't want to feel like anyone is being forced to pay too much. So, of course, it's in the interests of the rich – and their helpers in politics and the press – to try and convince the public that they are indeed going to be made to pay too much, even when they're being taxed in exactly the same way as everyone else in the country.

The end point of this circus-like debate is always the same – the amount of tax paid by the rich continues to go down as an overall percentage, while the amount paid by the poor goes up. We very rarely hear about tax rates for the poor dropping, but we do hear about sales taxes like the British VAT going up – which affects the poor more, by taking away a greater percentage of their overall income. Meanwhile, how often do we read about rich people calling for (and usually getting) tax cuts, contracting lawyers to help them avoid paying tax, or simply funnelling their money offshore to tax havens like Jersey and Luxembourg? In truth, the rich are not being taxed too much, as they would have us believe – they're not being made to pay enough, and they have far too many loopholes to get out of paying anything. And that's the story that should be all over the British newspapers this week.

[ business leaders, tax regime, marginal tax rates, shadow chancellow, fair play, money offshore ]

Blair’s back – and he’s still lying about war

Just when we thought (or at least hoped) it was safe to consign him to the dustbin of history, Tony Blair has come back to remind us that he’s still alive, still involved in politics, and still being completely ignorant of the role he played in one of the greatest crimes of this century so far. The former British Prime Minister and one of the chief architects of the disastrous Iraq war wrote an editorial piece for The Observernewspaper over the weekend, in which he insisted that religious extremism will be the main cause of war in the twenty-first century, stating that “the battles of this century are less likely to be the product of extreme political ideology, like those of the 20th century – but they could easily be fought around the questions of cultural or religious difference”.

This is a very useful thing for Blair to say, as it fits neatly into the old, and now completely disproved, theory that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was somehow implicated in a global Islamic terrorist network. This was not true in the slightest, but it helps Blair to lump the conflicts of the past fifteen years into a ‘religious terrorist’ framework, rather than examining their real causes. It also chimes with a general ‘clash of civilization’ narrative which has been around since Samuel Huntington espoused it in the early 1990s. In this view, the wars of the future will be between groups of ‘civilizations’ that Huntington largely defines in religious or ethnic terms.

Ultimately, both Blair and Huntington’s models are trite, and simplistically split the world up into brightly coloured blocks, a little like the old computer game Civilization. The real world is much more complicated, and the roots of war go far beyond religion alone. The Iraq war was clearly not fought over religion (although Iraq is now full of religious extremists, it was actually a heavily secular place during Hussein’s rule) or even over ethnicity. It was fought because of geopolitical concerns on the part of the rich countries of the west, who believe they have the right to secure oil resources for themselves from anywhere else on the planet – and if a country like Iraq isn’t going to play along, and remains belligerent for long enough, then it becomes a target. The sheen of religious terrorism that western leaders tried to emphasize was nothing more than an attempt to justify their actions.

Most other recent wars have been for similarly calculating political aims. The intervention in Libya and the proposed interventions in Syria have nothing to do with any concern we might have for the civilian populations of those countries. The average person on the street in the US or UK may think it’s terrible if Gaddafi or Assad are attacking civilians, but that isn’t why the west intervenes. It intervenes because it thinks the Libyan or Syrian opposition will do a better job of funnelling money and cheap resources to the west. We can see as much from all the years that Hussein was allowed to gas his own countrymen without being invaded, because he was otherwise being cooperative. As soon as he turned the oil off, his relationship with the west changed and he suddenly became a ‘bad guy’.

War is not caused by religion. Some amount of conflict is caused by religion, but full-blown wars between two or more nation states are caused by the desire of elites to get more – more money, more resources, more land, and more power. War is the means by which the rich take more and more for themselves and leave the poor with less and less – and despite what Blair thinks about his misadventure in the Middle East, the Iraq war was no better. It was simple a way for rich, western elites to take things which didn’t belong to them – less to do with religion, and more to do with pure greed.

ana shell media, ana shell media press, Assad, attacking civilians, cheap resources, chief architect, civilian populations, clash of civilization, computer game Civilization, cultural difference, disastrous Iraq war, dustbin of history, ethnic terms, extreme political ideology, former British Prime Minister, full-blown wars, funnelling money, Gaddafi, geopolitical concerns, global Islamic terrorist network, intervention in Libya, interventions in Syria, involved in politics, justify actions, Libyans opposition, lying about war, main cause of war, Middle East, nation states, oil resources, political aims, political ideology, Prime Minister, religious difference, religious extremism, religious extremists, religious terms, religious terrorism, religious terrorist framework, roots of war, Saddam Hussein, Samuel Huntington, secure oil resources, Syrian opposition, The Observer newspaper, Tony Blair, Tony Blair is back, turned off oil, west intervenes, western elites, western leaders