Alternatives International

Who Drives the Story: The Panama Papers and Narrative Control

Dylan Boyko — 2016-06-02T17:01:00Z

The Panama Papers may prove to be the single most important leak in a new era of data-driven activism. Delivered by an unnamed source to German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, and investigated with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), nearly 2.6 terabytes of data detailing the shadiest aspects of international and corporate finance fell into the public eye from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca.

How the information was delivered to the people, however, belied a certain essential question in an unfolding era of journalistic activism. Who chose the stories the public would consume, with such a wealth of narratives and accusation to examine and unfurl? Who was driving the investigation?

Firm co-founder Ramon Fonseca, in a Panamanian news story, compared his business to a “car factory” where one could hardly blame the manufacturer “if the car was used in a robbery.” Such a massive data dump quickly forms into a story of negligent, willful or not, institutional power.

Investigations into the financial misdeeds detailed in the data have already claimed some important casualties, detailed Tess Owens of Vice News. The Icelandic Prime Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson resigned following national media coverage regarding his actions to shelter personal wealth off-shore during Iceland's financial collapse. José Manuel Soria, Spain's minister of industry, energy, and tourism, lost his position over his vast and secret personal wealth. Even Britain's David Cameron was unable to avoid scrutiny, for money he made of his father's sheltered investments and cash holdings.

What isn't immediately measurable, in terms of public outcry or lost political positions, is the endemic corruption of democratic and corporate society. As Owens details, certain startling patterns emerge from the Panama Papers. New Zealand, with its strict privacy laws in the face of anything but egregious crimes, was and is a favorite destination for the wealthy of Latin American nations to squirrel away ill-gotten funds and avoid full taxation. Corroborating an Oxfam Report titled “Broken at the Top,” documents within the Panama Papers confirm that the top 50 American corporations roughly 1.4 trillion dollars in hidden assets. With such obvious structural problems, one had to wonder about the absence of hierarchical critiques of the institutions of taxation. Who exactly was driving the investigation?

The initial targets of ICIJ articles and mainstream press during the initial release of the Panama Papers offer some clues. Through an Al-Jazeera Listening Post, the detailed targets of immediate coverage (namely politicians and not institutions) make sense from a practical storytelling perspective. Known entities like national leaders will obviously drum up the most public interest. The question still requires answering, especially in the wake of certain ‘interesting' choices of domestic coverage.

The Al-Jazeera piece rightly singles out The Guardian's coverage of the Kremlin and Putin's purported offshore holdings, when information regarding David Cameron was also so readily available. Decisions that avoid more widespread criticism of social systems for the easy pickings of specific political missives send a message operating on two distinct wavelengths. There are individuals deserving of punishment and reprimand, but they have to be the right individuals in the right types of political and national stratospheres.

Both the ICIJ and Süddeutsche Zeitung offer rationales for the stories told, or the limitations to certain narratives, but the underlying problem remains. Wolfgang Krach, Süddeutsche Zeitung editor, claims – again in the Al-Jazeera piece – the twofold restriction of shrinking newsrooms and German privacy laws prevent any further investigation into the democratic largesse behind such lax tax laws or the revealing of certain corporate perpetrators.

Gerard Ryle, head of the ICIJ, deflects using a different tact, claiming, “we [the ICIJ] are not Wikileaks” in the hopes of “reclaiming journalism.” Ryle's comments are reminiscent of a strange elitism where the objective of journalism becomes muddied. The people deserve knowledge, and the source — however disconcerting to a particular moral or journalistic code — should not receive undue derision. Information should drive the conversation, yet with Ryle and Krach's reasoning, and the lack of corporate coverage, the public is left with a rather large missing piece of the Panama puzzle.

The entirety of the documents released to the ICIJ is now available to the public. While initially criticized for withholding the information, a true public inquiry can now be conducted with both journalist and online activist alike taking up investigations into projects outside the normative purview of the media.

The move away from a corporatized approach will probably shed new (and possibly appalling) light on the sordid practice of legalized money laundering, but the question of making a difference remains hazy.

A Vice article from December, 2014 had already detailed the shady quality of Mossack-Fonseca, with little blowback in the mainstream press. What can a few more rabble-rousers do? The drive, apparently, is a ride – operated by corporate interests controlling the duration of our media-driven timeline. The accompanying nausea at nothing changing, unfortunately, has a little staying power.

The Legacy of LuxLeaks: Whistleblowers, Privacy and European Law

Samia Constantin — 2016-06-02T16:58:30Z

Antoine Deltour, a former PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) employee, attracted international attention on illegal tax agreements between Luxembourg authorities and multinational corporations by leaking 28,000 pages worth of information on tax agreements between governments and businesses.

The leak, dubbed Luxleaks, shed light on systematic and illegal practices undertaken by various multinational corporations, as states such as the Netherlands and Ireland. Deltour was praised by multiple European deputies, and named the European citizen of the year.

In October 2010, Deltour was working late and found tax rulings in the employee database. The rulings described secret fiscal agreements between governments and multinational corporations. Deltour realized the content of the documents and copied them.

During the summer of 2011, Deltour was contacted by a journalist Edouard Perrin. He sent Perrin the documents. In May 2012, “Cash Investigation”, a French TV program, covered the story, entitled “Tax Havens: the small secrets of big businesses”, which focused on the documents provided by Deltour. Following this media coverage, PwC pressed charges anonymously.

By November 2014, journalists under the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists published long investigations based on Deltour's documents. The revelations made by these documents allowed the European Commission to undertake various investigations on the fiscal practices highlighted by the LuxLeaks.

“I'm neither a righter of wrongs, nor a martyr”

Deltour claims not to be a political activist, or to have any malicious intentions to undermine PwC. He does not consider himself a vigilant, or martyr.

“I did not want to stigmatize a country or my employer”, asserts Deltour. Deltour does not consider himself being a whistleblower, but part of a greater movement that tackles neoliberal fiscal practices by providing information about offshore finance centers and financial justice.

“Acquittal or shame”

However, Deltour may face hard consequences, as he is branded as an anti-capitalist by Roger Hayard, the Luxembourg police commissioner, and may be charged for theft, and the violation of state secrecy laws. His trial began on May 26. Deltour risks jail time and a fine of 1.25 million euros. After the eight-day trial, Deltour managed to prove he acted in view of the public interest. His judgement will be announced on May 29.

Multiple citizen groups, or non-governmental organizations describe the absurdity of this situation. The LuxLeaks allowed Luxembourg's authorities to expose 350 multinational corporations and the illegal tax practices, and allowed them to save billions of dollars by escaping tax levy.

Following the leak of documents, Deltour was applauded by European deputies, and invited to the European Parliament to discuss the importance of whistleblowers and how states have a duty to protect whistleblowers.

As a result of the Panama Papers, LuxLeaks, and SwissLeaks, The European Commision decided to adopt a new Directive on the Protection of Trade Secrets, to guarantee business secrecy. The Directive is meant to protect companies from “economic and industrial espionage.” As per the Directive, businesses are guaranteed the right to press charges in case of theft or the leak of confidential information. The European People's Party have urged the adoption of the directive after one out of four european businesses had confidential information leaked in 2013. This Directive is said to be subordinate to freedom of information and the duty of whistleblowers to expose “an error, an inappropriate behaviour or an illegal activity” in order to “protect the public interest.”

Journalists, investigators, and whistleblowers are worried about the impact this directive will have on their duty to inform citizens. The Directive's primary goal is to protect the flow of information between businesses and governments, but might pose a danger for whistleblowers as they seek to expose illegal agreements by stealing corporate information. European deputies have urged the adoption of two exceptions under this directive. The first exception guarantees the respect for the liberty and plurality of the media. The second exception requires whistleblowers to prove they leaked information to “protect the public interest.”

The European Federation of Journalists urges the European Commission to reconsider the Directive by arguing that it limits journalists' “ability to investigate and report about businesses” whilst putting them at risk to be convicted for a crime. “The newly adopted Directive still raises doubt as to whether journalists and in particular their sources, in particular whistleblowers are appropriately protected,” asserts Reporters Without Borders.

The Directive creates a high level of uncertainty when it comes to the repercussion they might face. It is not clear how the distinction can or will be made between an illegal leak of information, and a whistleblower who desires to protect the general public interest. Journalists and whistleblowers are left to face the arbitrary judgement of states, corporations, and criminal law.

Whistleblowers need to have a formal and legal protection which requires the Directive to clearly state that they cannot be convicted. Their protection depends today on watchdog organizations such as the European Federation of Journalists, or Reporters Without Borders, to monitor how and when European states misuse the Directive, so as to safeguard journalists' and whistleblowers' rights.

The Violence of Intolerance: Bangladeshi LGBT Activist Murdered

Katrina Gibbs — 2016-06-02T16:54:31Z

The latest in a series of chilling murders in Bangladesh has been the death of Xulhaz Mannan on April 25 in Dhaka. The murder of Xulhaz Mannan and his friend and fellow activist Tonoy Mahbub marks the ninth brutal murder of activists and progressive writers in Bangladesh in 2016 alone. The series of violent attacks signals growing intolerance, and has led many to fear the rise of fundamentalism.

Mannan was one of the founders of Roopbaan, the only magazine in Bangladesh geared towards LGBT communities. He also worked for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Mannan was murdered by a gang of half a dozen men who gained access to his apartment by posing as couriers. Reports say that Mannan and Mahbub were both hacked to death, while two others were left seriously injured by the attack.

Mannan had received death threats due to his activism in both Roopbaan and the Rainbow Rally. Roopbaan, which was launched with the intention of promoting greater acceptance of LGBT communities in Bangladesh, is responsible for organizing the Rainbow Rally.

The Rainbow Rally has occurred annually in Dhaka on April 14, the beginning of the Bengali new year, since 2014, but it was cancelled this year on police instruction after violent opposition threatened to beat up participants.

Though the event was cancelled, four people were arrested on the morning of April 14 and were accused of attempting to stage the rally despite police orders. Mannan spent the day working for their release.

Ansar al-Islam, the Bangladeshi division of al Qaeda, has claimed responsibility for the killings of the LGBT activists. ISIS has claimed responsibility of the murder of Rezaul Karim Saddique, an English teacher at Rajshahi University who promoted cultural enrichment in the musical arts. Saddique was murdered just two days before Mannan.

The deaths of Mannan and Mahbub mark the first time that LGBT activists have been targeted by Islamic militants in Bangladesh. A reporter from The Wall Street Journal noted that these recent killings may signal that “the assailants may be expanding their range of targets. Previously, the grisly attacks have focused on atheists and bloggers critical of Islam.”

So far no one has been held accountable for the killings. The Bangladeshi government has remained silent in the wake of these tragic deaths. This continues a trend of inaction on the part of the Bangladeshi government, as the government not only refuses to condemn the brutal murders of activists and writers, but also refuses to protect those in danger.

USAID released a statement on April 25 stating, “we condemn this cruel and inhumane act of violence and add our voices among those calling to bring his cowardly attackers to justice.”

According to a fellow member of Roopbaan, people in the LGBT community do not feel protected by the Bangladeshi government, police, or law.

The government has proven apathetic about protecting those vulnerable to targeted attacks. Homosexual relations are criminalized under the Bangladesh Penal Code, and many LGBT activists have been forced into exile.

In a recent survey, the Dhaka Tribune reported that 751 self-identified homosexuals live in constant fear for their security. Stigma aside, homosexuality is a criminal offense in Bangladesh, punishable by life imprisonment. The survey also reported that 25.8 per cent of respondents faced discrimination and were unable to find legal support.

One of Mannan's fellow activists in Dhaka remarked, “the LGBT community of Bangladesh has just lost their very dedicated guardians”. In a country where the marginalized members of society feel targeted by their society and unprotected by the government, the loss of two prominent voices actively seeking to protect them is devastating.

A fellow Roopbaan activist has expressed their hope that increased pressure from the international community on the Bangladeshi government. There is a need in Bangladesh to continue to find space for dissent, however, it is increasingly difficult to find pockets of resistance in the face of such brutal violence.

Lubicon Lake Nation Demands Action, Justice For Ongoing Discrimination And Exploitation

Sophia Reuss — 2016-06-02T16:52:22Z

On Wednesday May 18, Lubicon Lake Nation Chief Bernard Ominayak met with Alberta's Indigenous Relations Minister, Richard Feehan, following the Nation's recent human rights complaints.

In a Skype interview with rabble, Cynthia Tomlinson, recently elected Councillor of the Lubicon Lake Nation, said that the meeting with Feehan involved discussion of Lubicon's ongoing land rights disputes.

Earlier this month, the Nation also resubmitted a human rights complaint to the 89th Session of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD).

"We've been hearing talks of the Liberal government saying that they're going to have the UN have a bigger influence in Canada, and we're hoping that's really the case and not just an empty statement," Tomlinson said.

Lubicon's ongoing fight for their land

The Lubicon Lake Nation never signed a treaty with the Canadian government. "We still hold a title to our land, because we never signed a treaty," Tomlinson told rabble. But when oil and other natural resources were discovered on Lubicon land in the early 1950s, the Albertan government built an all-weather road into Lubicon territory, without Lubicon consent.

Lubicon members filed a caveat, notifying the government that a land claim was contested. Alberta passed legislation to retroactively dismiss the case.

Oil extraction and resource development on Lubicon land exploded in the late 1970s and early 1980s upon completion of the all-weather road. The Lubicon have not received a penny of oil and gas royalties.

Throughout the 1980s, the Lubicon organized various actions, most notably a boycott of the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary. As a result of the boycott, over 30 museums refused to lend artifacts to the the Olympics' Shell Oil-sponsored "Indian Art" exhibit.

In 1988, the Lubicon withdrew their ongoing lawsuits and set up blockades around their land. Days later, Alberta Premier Don Getty sent the RCMP to tear down the blockades. Shortly afterwards, Chief Ominayak and Getty signed the Grimshaw Accords, which set out the 243-square kilometre reserve for the Lubicon. The Lubicon still needed to negotiate a similar deal with the federal government.

Negotiations with the federal government broke down in 1989 when the Minister of Indian Affairs organized a rival band that incorporated Indigenous peoples from communities outside of the Lubicon in Alberta. The government negotiated a land deal with the newly created band, the Woodland Cree, which undermined the Lubicon's land claims.

Since 1990, the Lubicon have fought for recognition of their land claim in courts. In June 2013, the Lubicon filed a $700 million lawsuit against Alberta and Canada. According to the Lubicon Lake Nation's most recent press release, neither the province nor Canada has filed a statement of defence.

UN human rights complaints

The UN, to this day, charges Canada with human rights violations with regard to the Lubicon Lake Nation.

In 1990, the UN issued charges against Canada in violation of Article 27, stating that "recent developments threaten the way of life and culture" of the Lubicon.

"The first complaint was made in 1990, and the UN urged Canada to deal with us in a way that was honest and respectful," Tomlinson told rabble.

At their meeting with Feehan, Ominayak and Tomlinson discussed the recent UN Human Rights complaint that was re-submitted earlier this month.

"We're hoping that [our complaint] is enough for [the government] to say 'okay we should deal with this right'. We want someone to come to the community and deal with the paperwork. We're hoping that the end result is a bit different than in 1990, meaning that we'll actually get this resolved."

As for the outcomes of their meeting with Feehan, "I'm not really sure what he's going to do, but the ball is in his court now," Tomlinson asserted.

Article taken from rabble.ca

Fort Mcmurray Forest Fire Displaces Temporary Foreign Workers

Zoë Wilkins — 2016-06-02T16:49:59Z

80,000 people were evacuated from Fort McMurray during and following the forest fire that ravaged the city last month. Among these 80,000 were hundreds of temporary foreign workers, who have been left in a precarious position given their lack of social services support system in Canada, but also because many of them were tied to single employers who no longer have work to offer. In this case, the work permit has the name of the employer on it and is only valid so long as the person continues to be employed by the listed employer. Moreover, temporary foreign workers and migrant workers with permanent resident status often send remittances home to families.

Initially many evacuees were sent to the evacuation centres and told to register at the Red Cross. The evacuation centres did not discriminate on the basis of status, so migrant workers were lumped in with permanent residents and citizens, Marco Luciano, the spokesperson for Migrant Workers Alliance (MWA), explained to Alternatives International in an email. He went on to say that they were able to find over 300 temporary foreign workers at the centres within the first five days, many of whom, he said, had immigration status issues.

Employment Insurance insufficient

Marisa Méndez of the Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR) explained to Alternatives International in an email the CCR has recommended to the federal government that affected migrant workers should have their work permits opened so that they are no longer tied to one employer. This would allow workers to find work in the case that their employer had let them go, or that they could not find work due to the fire.
While Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has released special measures as of May 27 to try and address the issues faced by temporary foreign workers, these measures do not fully tackle the issue.

The special measures by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada stipulate that an extension fee for work permits will be waived until August 3 of this year, that any documents destroyed will be replaced free of charge and that temporary foreign workers tied to employer specific permits whose employers have been affected by the fire will be able to apply for new jobs with new employers once their names have been given to Labour Market Impact Assessment. Only after this process can workers apply for a permit to work for the new employer. Workers will be unable to work until a new permit is approved.

The special measures for employment insurance (EI), to provide workers with security in the interim, are minimal. The Coalition for Migrant Workers Right Canada (CMWRC) outlines that under current laws in Fort McMurray workers need 630 work hours in the previous 52 weeks to qualify for EI. Workers qualifying for EI would receive a base of 55% of their weekly salary. However, many workers have not accumulated the required hours, as many foreign workers arrived in Alberta just before the fire erupted.

For the workers supporting families, 55% of their income will not be enough to provide.

As a result of the ineffectiveness of these special measures, Luciano (MWA), in reference to the response of the federal and provincial governments, stated: “these are all band-aid solutions. The temporary foreign worker victims of the Fort McMurray tragedy put a magnifying glass on the broken system of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. Thus, we continue to campaign for permanent residency upon arrival”.

CMWC also calls for the removal of restriction hours required for EI so that all evacuees of Fort McMurray can have immediate income.

TFWP review in parliament

CMWC reported on the parliamentary review sessions of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) which started on May 11th. The review compromises six three-hour sessions in front of a parliamentary subcommittee, however migrant workers have been largely excluded from the process. Only four migrant workers have spoken to the subcommittee, and one caregiver was turned away on May 18.

In response, the CMWRC is calling for a comprehensive multi-ministry consultation with migrant workers at a time and place they can attend following these review sessions. The exclusion of the migrant workers from the parliamentary review points to bigger problems within Canada's parliamentary system wherein decisions seem to continue to be made without consulting those directly impacted.

The CCR told Alternatives International that one of their member organisations in Edmonton, Catholic Social Services, has collaborated with Migrant Alberta (a grassroots Filipino migrants rights group) to organize a meeting of displaced migrant workers to ascertain their issues in order to advocate with the government for further emergency measures.

Resisting Modi: In Conversation with Noor Zaheer

Katrina Gibbs — 2016-06-02T16:47:39Z

In the midst of the Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) elections in India, activist Noor Zaheer gave a talk at Alternatives on May 12 entitled ‘Nationalism and Intolerance in India Today'. Zaheer is a feminist, journalist, author, and militant activist who has long struggled for women's equality, workers' rights, and for a secular and socialist India.

During her talk, Zaheer expressed concerns about the rise of “fascist nationalism” promoted by the Sangh Parivar. The Sangh Parivar is the umbrella term used for the family of Hindu nationalist organizations in India, which includes the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and other parties.

Zaheer noted that post-Independence India had moved toward strengthening democratic institutions. This trend has stagnated in the past 65 years. After Narendra Modi was elected as Prime Minister in 2014, Indian politics grew increasingly intolerant.

After Modi's election, any criticism of the Modi government is interpreted as an attack on the nation. Violence carried out by Hindutva fringe groups has increased since Modi's rise to power, and not only have there been attacks on Muslims, but there have also been violent attacks against proponents of secularism.

2002 Gujarat riots

Most notable for Zaheer in the rise of fascist nationalism in India were the Gujarat riots of 2002. What was so big about 2002 and moving on from it?

In 2002, from February 27 through June, mass-scale killings of Muslims were carried out in Gujarat under the guise of Hindu-Muslim riots. Members of the BJP, under the leadership of Chief Minister Narendra Modi, were involved in promoting violent attacks on Muslims throughout this period in 2002. More than 2,000 Muslims were murdered in the riots.

According to scholar Paul Brass, all available evidence indicates that the Sangh Parivar planned, prepared, and promoted the brutal violence that was carried out against Muslims in 2002. By mid-April that year, there were nearly 150,000 Muslims in relief camps.

What has been most striking for Zaheer is that “there has been no sign of regret.” Rather, members of the BJP, Modi included, boast prideful attitudes about the attacks and the mass bloodshed of Muslims.

Shifting popular opinion, grassroots resistance

The BJP actively promotes the belief that India is essentially a Hindu Rashtra, a Hindu nation, and mocks the secular nature of the Indian constitution, leaving religious minorities incredibly vulnerable.

Amidst the intolerance and violence of the Modi government, however, Zaheer expressed a hopeful attitude for the future of Indian politics, as she has observed a decline in support for Modi. Zaheer recounted that even devout Hindus have expressed a desire to practice their religion freely. She recounts the popular sentiment: “I am a good Hindu, I love my religion, but I do not want anyone to tell me how to practice it”.

Resistance to the intolerance of the Modi government has not only come in the form of a shift in popular opinion, but also in the form of protests. Zaheer expressed her support for the student hunger strike at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU).

According to Zaheer, the student hunger strike has been more than just a student movement. The JNU students have been supported by their educators, and this support has expanded beyond the university gates.

On May Day, Zaheer witnessed how the contract workers of JNU—involved in their own struggle—ended their demonstration by joining in solidarity with the students on hunger strike at Freedom Square. Zaheer recounted that the workers stated, “the students have always stood by us, it is time now that we stand by them”.

In Kerala, Hindu, Muslim, and Christian women also united together in order to gain political representation, after both their trade union and their company failed to address grievances of sexual harassment in the workplace and poor working conditions. Employees of Kaylan Silks in Kerala banded together in order to gain the right to sit and to be given toilet breaks during their 10-12 hour long shifts.

In another powerful movement in Kerala, 6, 000 women from lower-caste backgrounds united under the name “Pempilai Orumai” or “Women's Unity” and took to the streets to protest the poor working conditions they experience. After a nine-day protest, the women won their rights to bring their 20% bonus back.

These movements demonstrate the capacity for women to mobilize without the support of trade unions and how religious difference cannot stop people from unifying behind a common cause.

Towards the 2019 elections

This resistance and unity demonstrated by these movements have occurred despite the repression of the Modi government and its attempts to divide Indian society along religious lines. For the upcoming elections, it is important to question the BJP's 31% majority and struggle to challenge it.

So far, the elections in Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal have revealed staggering support for the BJP, except in Assam where the BJP won a total of 86 seats. Despite boasting a majority, the stronghold of the BJP seems to be in the midst of losing its grip.

However, Zaheer expressed her simultaneous hope and concern if the BJP continues to lose seats. She noted that in the wake of loses in Bihar and Delhi, there have been surges of violence. Will there be more organized violence to attack minorities in the aftermath of the BJP's probable losses in the upcoming elections? As Zaheer stated, “This is not a government that when it loses an election will go away quietly”.

According to Zaheer, the response must be a united challenge to fascism. Little unions must be formed wherever there is support, in order to work towards defeat the Modi in the 2019 general elections. There must be more grassroots movements like those of the students, workers, and women, in order to lead organized parties on the Left into a position that not only represents the people without repression, but defeats the fascist nationalism of the Sangh Parivar. The battle that India faces is not between temples and mosques, but it is the fight between democracy and fascism.

Israel and Saudi Arabia: Strange Bedfellows in the New Middle East

Medea Benjamin — 2016-06-02T16:44:17Z

Israel and Saudi Arabia are burying the hatchet. For at least 10 reasons, that's not such a good idea.

On the surface, it would seem that Saudi Arabia and Israel would be the worst of enemies — and indeed, they've never had diplomatic relations.

After all, the Saudis have championed the cause of the Palestinians, who are oppressed by the Israelis. Israelis say they're besieged by Muslim extremists, and many of these extremists are motivated by the intolerant, Wahhabi ideology born and bred in Saudi Arabia.

But beneath the surface, these two old adversaries actually have a lot in common. In fact, in the contemporary Middle East, they've become the strangest of bedfellows.

Rumors about the budding relationship have been circulating for the past few years. In 2015, former Saudi and Israeli officials confirmed that they'd held a series of high-level meetings to discuss shared concerns, such as the growing influence of Iran in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon, as well as Iran's nuclear enrichment program. Shimon Shapira, an Israeli representative who participated in secret meetings with the Saudis, put it this way: “We discovered we have the same problems and same challenges and some of the same answers.”

On May 5, former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Faisal and retired Israeli Major General Yaakov Amidror spoke together at a Washington event hosted by The Washington Institute for Near East Policy — the policy wing of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC. The event, broadcast live online, showed that Saudi Arabia and Israel have finally come out of the closet –– together.

Here are some traits Saudi Arabia and Israel have in common.

1. Oppression

Both oppress the non-dominant groups living in their borders. Israel oppresses Palestinians, building settlements on their land and surrounding their villages with apartheid walls and heavily armed soldiers. Saudi Arabia has set up a political and judicial system that oppresses everyone who's not Sunni (like Shiites and non-Muslims), as well as women and millions of migrant workers.

Both nations respond to political dissidents in similar ways, using excessive force, arbitrary and indefinite detention, intimidation, and torture.

2. Aggression

Israel and Saudi Arabia have each invaded neighboring lands, killing thousands of civilians. Israel has been recurrently invading and bombing Gaza since 2008. In 2014 alone the Israeli military killed 2,104 people — most of them civilians — and destroyed 17,200 homes and left 475,000 living in emergency conditions.

The Saudis have meanwhile interfered in the internal affairs of neighboring Yemen. In March 2015, they launched a vicious bombing campaign directed at Shiite rebels in the country. So far they've killed over 6,000 mostly civilian Yemenis. They've bombed markets, schools, hospitals, residences, and wedding parties, displacing over 2.5 million people.

Additionally, both use weapons that have been internationally banned: Israel used white phosphorus in Gaza, while the Saudis have used cluster bombs in Yemen.

3. Religious Discrimination

Religion plays a key role in the politics of both nations.

Israel is considered the homeland for the Jewish people, and the Basic Laws of Israel that serve in place of a constitution define the country as a Jewish state. Jews get preferential treatment, such as the right to immigrate to Israel from anywhere and automatically become citizens, while Muslims face daily discrimination and are treated as second-class citizens.

In Saudi Arabia, Mecca is the holiest city for Muslims, and the Saudi kingdom considers itself the global center of Islam. Only Muslims can become Saudi citizens, and non-Muslims are treated like second-class citizens.

4. Violent Exports

Both countries export “products” that promote violence. Israel is a major exporter of weapons, and Israeli forces often train police in other countries — including the United States — in repressive techniques. The Saudis export the extremist Sunni ideology called Wahhabism all over the Middle East and North Africa. Wahhabism is the ideological basis of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.

5. Hatred of Iran

More than anything else, it's a shared hatred of Iran that's bringing these adversaries together. Both view Iran as an existential threat and fear Tehran's growing influence in the region. They both opposed the Iran nuclear deal that was such a great win for diplomacy over war, and they share a determination to stop the United States from getting any closer to Iran.

6. Support for Egypt's Coup

Both nations supported the military coup in Egypt, led by General Adbul Fattah el Sisi, which overthrew a democratically elected government and led to a brutal wave of repression that put 40,000 dissidents in prison. The Saudis have stepped in with billions of dollars to fill the Sisi regime's coffers, and Egypt has collaborated with Israel in Israel's continued siege of Gaza.

7. Intervention in Syria

Both Israel and Saudi Arabia are more concerned with overthrowing the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad (who's aligned with Iran) than defeating the Islamic State. To that end, they've been supporting extremist groups in Syria like the Nusra Front, which is an al-Qaeda affiliate.

The Saudis have sent weapons and money to Nusra. For its part, Israel has been treating wounded Nusra fighters in Israeli hospitals and then sending them back to battle the Syrian army. Israel also killed Lebanese and Iranian advisers who were assisting Assad's government in fighting against Al Nusra.

8. Young Political Prisoners

Both nations lock up thousands of political prisoners, including minors. In February 2016, Israel had 6,204 Palestinians in prison, 438 of them minors. Many of the minors are imprisoned for throwing stones at Israeli soldiers. The Saudis have beheaded minors, and presently have three prisoners facing execution who were arrested as juveniles for nonviolent protests.

9. Robust Washington Lobbies

They both spend many millions of dollars to influence U.S. policy.

The Israeli government enjoys the backing of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which is often considered the most influential foreign policy lobby group in the United States.

The Saudis have just started their own version called SAPRAC, or the Saudi American Public Relations Affairs Committee. For years they've been buying influence by contracting influential public relations and law firms like the Podesta Group and donating to the Clinton Foundation, the Carter Foundation, and dozens of think tanks and Ivy League universities.

10. Alliances with the United States

Finally, both countries are long-time allies of the United States. Subsequent U.S. administrations have supported Israel since its founding in 1948; they've also supported an array of Saudi kings since the founding of that nation in 1932.

The U.S. has helped guarantee the security of both nations. U.S. taxpayers give over $3 billion a year to support the Israeli military, the U.S. military guards the Persian Gulf for the Saudi royalty, and Saudi Arabia is the No. 1 purchaser of U.S. weapons.

Some say it's good for Israel and Saudi Arabia to bury the hatchet and find common ground. But peace in the Middle East won't be furthered by the causes they're collaborating on.

Instead, Israel has to make peace with the Palestinians, and Saudi Arabia has to come to terms with Iran. Otherwise, Saudi-Israeli collusion will only be a fatal embrace that causes more heartbreak for the region.

Medea Benjamin is the co-founder of the peace group CODEPINK and the human rights organization Global Exchange. She is the author of a forthcoming book about Saudi Arabia entitled The Unjust Kingdom and is the author of Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control.

Source: http://fpif.org/israel-saudi-arabia-strange-bedfellows-new-middle-east/

Imperialism's Junior Partners

Patrick Bond — 2016-06-02T16:43:58Z

On May 12, Brazil's democratic government, led by the Workers' Party (PT), was the victim of a coup. What will the other BRICS countries (Russia, India, China, and South Africa) do? Will they stand by as the reactionaries who took power in Brasilia pivot closer to Western powers, glad to warm Dilma Rousseff's seat at the BRICS summit in Goa, India in five months' time? Or take a stronger line, following the lead of Latin American progressive countries (Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua and El Salvador)?

Here in South Africa, few expect Jacob Zuma's African National Congress (ANC) government to react constructively on the international stage. Making waves isn't likely at a time when Standard & Poors and Fitch are on a South Africa visit, deciding whether to downgrade the country's credit rating to “junk” status, as happened in Brazil late last year.

This is a shame because the last two weeks have offered excellent opportunities for diplomatic rebellion: revelations have emerged implicating the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in assisting the apartheid state's 1962 arrest and twenty-seven-year imprisonment of Nelson Mandela. This isn't exactly surprising; the State Department did keep Mandela on its terrorist watch list until 2008.

Following these revelations ANC spokesperson Zizi Kodwa charged that the CIA “never stopped operating here. It is still happening now – the CIA is still collaborating with those who want regime change.”

BRICS and Empire

South Africa's chief foreign policy spokesperson Clayson Monyela responded to Kodwa's accusation with assurances that South Africa's relations with the United States “are strong, they're warm, and cordial.” But Kodwa's cry of imperialism, in light of the Brazilian coup, has struck a nerve. Indeed, the argument that Rousseff's ouster demonstrates that the purportedly anti-imperialist BRICS are under sustained attack by U.S. empire is being repeated in a number of corners. Commentators like Eric Draitser, Pepe Escobar, Paul Craig Roberts and Hugo Turner, along with officials from Venezuela and Cuba, all make this claim.

A founder of Brazil's heroic Movement of Landless Workers (MST), João Pedro Stedile, was asked by Il Manifesto about why “a group of deputies from right-wing organizations went to Washington before the last elections.” He replied, “Temer will arrange his government in order to allow the U.S. to control our economy through their companies... Brazil is part of the BRICS, and another goal is that it can reject the South-South alliance.”

Another version of this anti-imperialist framing was heard at the South African Black Consciousness movement's Black First Land First launch conference on May 13:

“Brazil and South Africa are seen by the Western imperialist forces as the weak link in the BRICS chain. The strategy of imperialism is to get rid of presidents who support the BRICS process. Imperialism works with internal opposition parties to effect regime change.”

The eloquent South African commentator Siphamandla Zondi, who directs the Institute for Global Dialogue (one of South Africa's main foreign policy institutes), also shares this view. Zondi defends the BRICS project and disputes the argument put forth by myself and others that the BRICS actually serve a “sub-imperialist” role in the global economy – that they are fully complicit in reproducing inequality both within their own countries and between others in the Global South. In a challenge posted on Facebook he called for observers to recognize that “imperialism has, in the modern age, taken on racism, crude capitalism and patriarchy as its forms.”

No to the Coup, No to Imperialism

Rousseff is of course the victim of a coup. I hope the Brazilian people will rise up against the illegitimate interim government. But whether the coup was a product of imperialism, as Zondi and many others argue, requires a bit more circumspection.

As WikiLeaks cables revealed, Temer was a mole for the U.S. State Department a decade ago, playing what Washington considered to be an incompetent, ideology-free role as a political “opportunist.”

Indeed, we witnessed a similar problem here in South Africa, with the country's then lead spy, Moe Shaik, offering the same sort of tell-all function – before becoming a key liaison to the BRICS New Development Bank.

But as concrete evidence of a U.S.-led coup in Brazil this fact seems insufficient. Moreover, Rousseff herself denied the role of imperialism a week after the impeachment, during a Russia Today interview: “I don't believe external interference is a primary or a secondary reason for what's happening now in Brazil. It's not. The grave situation we see now has developed without any such interference.”

She repeated this when pressed by the interviewer, so it was crystal clear that she blames the old oligarchs for her downfall. This point was reinforced by subsequent revelations about the coup plotters' local motivations, to avoid their own prosecution for corruption.

Moreover, the interweaving of racism, patriarchy, and global capitalism is also not as straightforward as it once was. When Obama's allies hit the Honduran government in 2009, for example, it was a black man and a woman (Hillary Clinton) in Washington who gave international credence to the local capitalist elite's coup against a progressive democrat.

Similar concerns about Obama's role on the African continent have also been expressed – appropriate considering the Africa Command's agenda. But the role of the BRICS countries shouldn't be downplayed in these geopolitical power plays.

The United States is made more dangerous by the sub-imperialist geopolitical functions that Deputy Sheriff Zuma regularly accepts, such as endorsing NATO's bombing of Libya which led to regime change in 2011, supporting Israel even during its periodic mass murder of Gaza civilians, happily hosting U.S.-South African military exercises, and even bragging openly that the South Africa army will serve as Obama's “boots on the ground.”

This isn't to say that crude imperialism has faded away. Looking just at the 2009–2012 years when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, Washington's Blog writer Eric Zuesse summarizes repeated U.S. incursions in Honduras, Haiti, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine (and one might add Paraguay too).

Yet, despite this impressive list of imperialist interventions, U.S. “regime change maneuvers in the rest of the black world,” as Zondi phrases it, are not that common. They are not needed at the moment, especially in Africa, where the local leadership is already supine when it comes to Washington's agenda.

Neoliberal Multilateralism

Simply put, “racism, crude capitalism and patriarchy” associated with twentieth-century U.S. imperialism have been largely replaced by Obama's neoliberal multilateralism – a style of governance that the BRICS have bought into, not opposed. This isn't something to celebrate. Multilateral neoliberalism leaves the BRICS countries far less able to pursue any positive South-South interventions.

Indeed, Rousseff's ouster demonstrates this clearly and the incoming Temer regime is likely to pursue a desperate course to re-establish its global position. The westward drift announced last week by Temer's foreign minister, José Serra, plus Brasilia's renewed neoliberal agenda on the home front, suggest this will be the case.

But while it's obvious that Serra is going to become much more active as a sub-imperial ally of the United States than was Rousseff, Rousseff also did little of substance on the foreign policy front aside from occasional anti-Yankee rhetoric (such as when she learned from Edward Snowden that Obama had bugged her phone and email).

As the thoughtful (and generally pro-BRICS) commentator Oliver Stuenkel recently lamented:

“Rousseff failed to articulate anything resembling a foreign policy doctrine, and Brazil's foreign policy since 2011 was shaped, above all, by the President's mind-boggling indifference to all things international and foreign policy makers' incapacity to convince Rousseff that foreign policy could be used to promote the government's domestic goals – as both [former Brazilian presidents] Lula and Fernando Henrique Cardoso so skilfully showed.”

Serra, on the other hand, has promised that:

“Priority will be given to the relationship with new partners in Asia, particularly China, this great economic phenomenon of the twenty-first century, and India. We will be equally committed to modernizing the bilateral exchange with Africa, the big neighbour on the other side of the Atlantic...

“We will also take advantage of the opportunities offered by inter-regional fora with other developing countries, such as the BRICS, to accelerate commercial exchanges, investments and sharing of experiences.”

Sub-Imperialism

Many who see Brazil as the victim of imperialism also hold the corresponding view that Brazil, along with the other BRICS countries, plays a progressive role on the global stage. Zondi articulated this viewpoint concisely in a recent piece for the Cape Times:

“The [BRICS] platform has become the most powerful platform for the pursuit of global reform ... Brazil has been a crucial voice in global debates about the reform of global governance, including the IMF and World Bank, and about fair and just outcomes for the developing world in world trade negotiations ...

“Brazil has spoken out on the agenda of decent work, food sovereignty, a greater Western contribution to the global response on climate change, ecological justice and the end to ecological imperialism. Brazil has also been an advocate of the responsibility to protect.

“We may miss this now. Brazil is an important part of the effort today to shift global power from the former colonial powers and their diaspora in North America to all regions of the world. It is a key partner in South-South co-operation.”

Many South Africans are impressed with the BRICS, but the reality of Brazil's global maneuvering is much less rosy. In the most important multilateral settings, BRICS elites have worked against the interests of the world's majority and against the environment.

Consider Brazil's actions in the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Since 2010 it has been working to reconfigure voting power (“voice”) in the institution. It has successfully increased its vote by 23 per cent (with China also up 37 per cent, India up 11 per cent and Russia up 8 per cent). Yet the U.S. still won't give up its veto power – it is the only country with more than 15 per cent required – and the BRICS' total vote is now just 14.7 per cent.

Worse, the restructuring deal that made this rise possible was detrimental to African countries: Nigeria just lost 41 per cent of its voting power, along with Libya (39 per cent), Morocco (27 per cent), Gabon (26 per cent), Algeria (26 per cent), Namibia (26 per cent) and even South Africa (21 per cent). From this perspective “BRICs versus Africa” seems a more apt way to describe Brazil's role in “reform of global governance” at the IMF.

Brazil's maneuvers at other global governance institutions – including the World Trade Organization (WTO) which is currently headed up by Brazilian Roberto Azevêdo – are equally damaging.

According to the ordinarily pro-BRICS NGO Third World Network (TWN), Brazil conspired with the United States and the European Union at the WTO to “[ensure] that India did not get the language it proposed” to maintain vital food subsidies, which in coming years will lead tens of millions of Indian peasants to suffer. As TWN's Chakravarthi Raghavan put it, “on the eve of Nairobi, Brazil unilaterally abandoned the G20 alliance to join the U.S. and EU, in trying to act against China and India,” not to mention against the world's poor.

Of course, Brazil's behavior is not unique. China and Russia persistently block efforts by Brazil, India, and South Africa to permanently join the Security Council. The point is simply that intra-BRICS solidarity, let alone broader South-South solidarity, is hard to find in reality.

The issue of Brazil's role in battling the global environmental crisis also deserves greater scrutiny. In 2009 Lula supported – alongside the United States, India, China, and South Africa – the Copenhagen Accord, which voided the Kyoto Protocol's binding emissions-cut premise, contained utterly unambitious emissions targets, and also wrecked the UN process that year.

Moreover, Rousseff was a booster of the pro-corporate “Green Economy” gambit at the Rio Earth Summit in 2012 that was (semi-successfully) rejected by most of the Global South. She is also a proud signatory to the 2015 Paris UN climate deal, a deal which assures catastrophic global warming and also now legally prevents climate victims in the Global South from suing the Global North for its climate debt.

Brazil has also combined forces with the EU – against Bolivia – to “open the same carbon trading loopholes that undermined the last global climate deal,” according to Oscar Reyes of the Institute for Policy Studies. He notes that “the Paris Agreement explicitly allows countries to count emissions reductions made in other countries as part of their own domestic targets, referring to these by the euphemism ‘internationally transferred mitigation outcomes'.”

Finally, the claim that “Brazil has also been an advocate of the responsibility to protect” simply doesn't hold water. Consider Haiti and the “right to protect” role countries like Brazil are tasked with carrying out. As Brazil expert Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research explains,

“The UN occupation of Haiti is really a U.S. occupation – it is no more a multilateral force than George W Bush's “coalition of the willing” that invaded Iraq.

“And it is hardly more legitimate, either: it was sent there in 2004 after a U.S.-led effort toppled Haiti's democratically elected government. Far from providing security for Haitians in the aftermath of the coup, [the UN mission in Haiti] stood by while thousands of Haitians who had supported the elected government were killed, and officials of the constitutional government jailed.

Despite Brazil's UN-designated “right to protect” responsibilities it has done nothing to expose or oppose these crimes of occupation which include the rape and sexual abuse of Haitian children by UN soldiers. The Haiti experience, according to Weisbrot (a PT sympathizer), “eviscerates Brazil's potential for moral leadership in the world.”

Meanwhile back in Johannesburg, lefty-sounding rhetoric from the ANC's Luthuli House is nothing more than politicians blowing dust into the air.

When ANC leaders call the courageous South African public protector Thuli Madonsela a “CIA agent,” or declare that the Mandela Washington Fellowship program of the U.S. Embassy is training kids for “regime change,” they show off anti-imperialist feathers. But in reality, Washington has no beef with Pretoria. The ANC has always excelled at talking left while walking right.

U.S. empire is real and oppressive, but it shouldn't prevent a clear and critical appraisal of the BRICS countries' true role in the world. Especially if we want to forge alliances to change the world, not merely shift around the Titanic's first-class deck chairs. •

Patrick Bond is professor of political economy at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg and an honorary professor at University of KwaZulu-Natal. He is co-editor of BRICS: An Anti-Capitalist Critique. An earlier version appeared at Jacobin.