The Wrong Choices of Civilization

Carl Denef

Acknowledgments

This book is dedicated to Maryline who always encouraged me, discussed many aspects of my work and gave me many references. Vincent Denef and Stephen Weeks are acknowledged for critical evaluation of the manuscript.

Author: Carl Denef Cover design: Carl Denef (using software of Brave New Books) ISBN: 9789402151640 Second edition © Carl Denef

Content

Introduction 7 Chapter 1: Climate change sets boundaries to exploitation 11 Chapter 2: A World dominated by capitalism 17 Chapter 3: Social injury from alienation 47 Chapter 4: Social injury from rising inequality 49 Chapter 5: Social injury from violence 65 Chapter 6: Capitalism and war 77 Chapter 7: Demise of capitalism 123 Chapter 8: Towards a social system centred on voluntary human cooperativity, ecosystems and the environment: green anarchism 149 Epilogue 163

Even a non-believer should be impressed by the words of Pope Francis in a speech at the World Meeting of Popular Movements in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, in July 2015.

“.. the future of humanity does not lie solely in the hands of great leaders, the great powers and the elites. It is fundamentally in the hands of peoples and in their ability to organize. It is in their hands, which can guide with humility and conviction this process of change. … Let us together say from the heart: no family without lodging, no rural worker without land, no laborer without rights, no people without sovereignty, no individual without dignity, no child without childhood, no young person without a future, no elderly person without a venerable old age.”

Introduction

“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift” – Albert Einstein

The narrative of this book commences in the year I was born, 3 days before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in December 1941, which led the United States into World War II. After that attack the face of the World completely changed. Scientific and technological achievements exploded and brought an enormous capital of knowledge, technology and services and promised unlimited human potential. However, the initial success was quickly overshadowed by the constraints set by climate change and an unfit economic system. The global average temperature started to rise, CO2 in the atmosphere increased with 40%, industrial products polluted air and water, the World population tripled and natural resources are becoming unsustainable. Capitalism, the dominating global economic system, proved to be unfit for the development of a healthy human society. As a consequence of the industrial revolution, which allowed mass production, the Western World not only consumed far too much but also wasted a lot, leading to imminent scarcity of natural resources. The capitalist mode of production and profit accumulation and the engrained Biblical belief that man has to populate the Earth and reign over Nature created a sense of limitlessness, arrogance and ethical numbness. The consequence was an ever-increasing energy production by burning fossil fuels that the Earth had assembled over millions of years. Most seriously, the capitalist system made that the happy few, the owners of money, are taking an ever-increasing part of the gains and are becoming the global masters.

Capitalism is a system of exploitation, serving in the first place private wealth of the capitalist elite. This elite is not concerned with science and technology but needs it to produce their wealth. Although it was possible to reduce poverty in developing countries, capitalism induced a rise in socio-economic inequality and injustice in developed countries. Despite the enormous material wealth that it can generate, it was unable to

7 construct a society in which everyone can have a decent and equitable life in equilibrium with ecosystems. Although humanity can go to the moon and soon to Mars and can master many diseases, it created diseases that have their origin in industrialization and stopped contributing to the feeling of happiness since the mid-1980s.

Workers make the products, but the capitalist owns them on the premise that he owns the means of production. The capitalist sells the products of labour on the market with a profit that is extracted from the workers' labour performed in excess of the labour necessary to provide for the subsistence of the labourer. Since labour is traditionally felt as belonging to the self, the expropriation of labour products by the capitalist and the 'capitalist division of labour' in the production process, alienated workers not only from the products of their labour but also from their self. Moving labour to factories broke the tradition of labour in the familiar surroundings of home and community. The increased fragmentation of time by an ever-increasing generation of opportunities and the growing fractionation of occupations and services obscured the value perception of own contributions and created the impression of lacking the necessary time to complete one’s contribution. These changes dislodged the natural need of self-realization, independence and social embeddedness, kept people dumb and made many of them feel being entrained with a whirl of artificial exteriorities. The dogma that only unlimited growth of private capital can guarantee the capitalist system to survive, enslaves both the capitalist and the consumer to the economic system. In this way man is subordinated to the demands of the economy, while economy should function for welfare of man.

Ever-increasing competition increasingly impairs mental health. Despite the huge capitalist productivity more than 800 million people do not have enough to eat and a billion people live on less than one dollar a day, but thanks to capitalism 500 million adults are obese. The capitalist myth of limitlessness in Western societies also nourished an attitude of supremacy over poor and weak nations, leading to exploitation of land belonging to others, ethnic discrimination and political manipulation for power, that became the seeds of terrorist violence we experience today. The everywhere presence of capitalism is so overwhelming and entrenched in everyday life, that even in more socially oriented countries a permanent fight to compensate for the intrinsic negative features of the system is

8 required. Step by step these social achievements are being corroded by the ever increasing capitalist dictates, the pro-capitalist action of government officials and the ruling rich.

The neoliberal ideology of the last 30 years led to increasing socio- economic inequality, injustice, capitalist imperialism, crony capitalism (close relationships between big business and government officials, leading to favoritism for multinationals) and plutocracy (an elite whose power is derived from their wealth). It eroded democracy and social- democratic achievements. The continuous rise in productivity today is no longer paralleled by a rise in wages. Salaries of senior management and bonuses become exceedingly disproportional, while savings of the common man give lower return. In cities more and more people get alienated from the place where they dwelled, as housing becomes unaffordable for the common man.

The great danger of this evolution is clearly shown by history. It is well documented that increasing socio-economic inequality and injustice leads to social instability and ultimately to societal collapse as a consequence of the self-complacency of the ruling elite and the impoverishment of the common man. In conjunction with climate change and the decline of ecosystems, collapse will be fastened and become irreversibly detrimental, unless we engage in radical policies of mitigation immediately. Especially the elites who became indifferent towards the obvious violation of human rights by capitalism and who invest capital in assets that perpetuate the status quo, need to be called to account.

Planet Earth has given us an urgent message: climate change, environmental degradation and social injury by capitalism go hand in hand and threaten our survival. These threats are strongly interrelated and have synergistic consequences, creating a frightening condition extremely difficult for humanity to control.

The capitalist mode of production may have been beneficial during the early developing phase of societies, but it is not suited for a developed society where social justice, mental and physical integrity and ecosystems must thrive. Permanent attention and care to safeguard our democratic achievements is getting increasingly difficult. Today, the capitalist economy is stagnating but there are signs of a renascence of human self-

9 organization in many grassroots movements all over the World. It is time to remember Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the founder of modern anarchism. If we want to survive, we need a radical ethical, economic and political change, organized by citizens, not by the state and other power institutions. Legal actions against the guilty neglect of states and individuals need to be implemented.

Today is a momentum. There is a due date set by climate change. If that due date is not met, we are heading towards a global disaster. But, as David Deutsch told: “Every problem that is interesting is also soluble. Inherently insoluble problems are inherently boring.” Our vulnerability is that we will have to solve the problem in time. That means during the life of our children. Whatever the solution will be, a worldwide strengthening of social justice and a better understanding of freedom and responsibility, are scientific and existential imperatives. The new journey could be green anarchism.

Chapter 1

Climate change sets boundaries to exploitation

"Let us not flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human conquest over nature. For each such conquest takes its revenge on us.” ― Friedrich Engels in “Dialectics of Nature”

Science is convincing, climate is changing across our Planet. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution air and sea temperature have been rising. Industry, energy production and transportation release greenhouse gases and pollutants in the atmosphere and ocean, deteriorating human, animal and plant health, and destroying ecosystems.

1. Global warming and associated changes

Global warming means a rise in the yearly average surface temperature over the globe (land + sea), detectable during a time interval of a few decades. This is now 1.22 °C above the average of the 20th century. The change looks small, but it should be realized that average global temperature was very stable since the last ice age (~10,000 years ago), with fluctuations less than 0.5 °C and, if changes occurred, they were established much more slowly than is presently the case. The year 2015 was the warmest on record (land and sea global average). A new record high was found for the period January-April 2016.

Although natural processes often changed climate during Earth’s history, they cannot explain the present changes, nor can changes in solar radiation be invoked. The primary cause is anthropogenic. Since the beginning of the Industrial Era human activity has delivered a combination of greenhouse gasses (CO2, methane, nitrogen oxides, ozone and industrial chemicals), black carbon dust and industrial chemicals by using fossil fuels for energy production. The amounts released are equivalent to more than

2000 gigatons of CO2. The accumulation of greenhouse gases is at a rate

11 much faster than the Earth can recycle. According to the laws of physics, greenhouse gases and black carbon absorb solar radiation and re-emit it as infrared radiation. The inevitable consequence is warming. Additional sources of greenhouse gases are deforestation and agriculture.

Deforestation reduces the capacity of Nature to reabsorb CO2 from the atmosphere, while agriculture increases production of methane. The actual level of CO2 (April 2016) in the atmosphere is ~ 404.83 parts per million (ppm), which is 44 % above the very stable preindustrial level of ~280 ppm.

Despite the constant warnings from scientists for 35 years that climate change will become a major threat to humans and ecosystems, annual global emissions of CO2 reached a record high of 36 gigatons in 2013.

Although emissions did not further rise in 2014 and 2015, CO2 levels in the atmosphere continued to rise.

Empirical data from today and the past (over millions of years) and data obtained from climate models have shown that 1) changes in atmospheric

CO2 levels positively correlate with changes in temperature and 2) that the doubling of atmospheric CO2 results in a global warming of 2.6–4.1°C. This is approximately three times more than would be expected from the physics of CO2 alone, because warming by the latter is enhanced by water vapour, clouds and ice sheet feedbacks (such as decreased solar energy reflection as a consequence of ice loss).

Global warming, in turn, causes more evaporation, melting of land and sea ice, sea level rise and extreme weather events. Arctic ice now melts faster than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted in 2007. More evaporation means more droughts in some areas and more rain in others.

Warming is higher over land than over sea and is relatively larger in the Northern hemisphere, particularly over the Arctic region, leading to rapid ice loss over Greenland.

2. Future climate change will be dramatic in a business as usual scenario.

Although negative impacts of climate change are already being seen today, they do not frighten people yet in large parts of the World, but people will inevitably become frightened in the coming years. Large ensembles of IPCC climate models predict that, in the worst case scenario of continuously increasing greenhouse gas emissions - as is still the case today - up to 2100, average global temperature will be ~4 °C higher in 2100 relative to 1990 (or ~5 °C relative to the preindustrial time). By 2100 the average land surface temperature is projected to be 6°C higher in the Tropics and Subtropics. That means that in those regions average temperature over land would be 26-36 °C instead of 20-30°C today. But already today, record temperature highs are broken year after year. Under a 4 °C warming scenario, sea level rise will force people to be displaced and migrate, many coastal cities will inundate although climate models have calculated that his process will be gradual over 2000 years.

Temperature extremes will be up to 11 °C higher over the Arctic than now and will occur more frequently all over the World. Cities, where 80 % of the World population will live, will experience even more warming as they heat more than the surrounding land.

By 2300 average global temperature is projected to be 8 °C higher, with an upper bound of 10 °C. The limit of sustained wet bulb temperature*, above which the human body can no longer adequately cool, is 35 °C. Since a 10 °C rise in average surface temperature may result in a wet-bulb temperature of 35 °C in many tropical and subtropical regions, where more than 40% of Earth`s population lives, a worst case scenario warming will have strong and widespread devastating impacts on human society by 2300. On top of this, sea level rise, storms, droughts, wildfires, floods, dramatic climate refugee problems and food and water shortage will exacerbate the situation. A 10 °C warming will likely also melt the Antarctic ice sheet, which would raise sea level by at least 50 m. More details can be read in the 2013 IPCC, Working Group I report

(http://www.ipcc.ch/).

3. Climate change is irreversible.

The general public is not aware that climate change is characterized by the phenomenon of inertia, commitment and irreversibility. It takes several decades before warming by a given amount of CO2 is established and equilibrated over the globe’s atmosphere and oceans, but the change is committed to appear, and, once established, to remain for at least 1000 years. The reason for this is the very slow uptake of CO2 by land and sea. Moreover, the World will become and remain warmer for that length of time, even after emissions would fall to zero. Thus, on a human time scale climate change is irreversible.

4. Climate change may become catastrophic

Catastrophic means that large parts of the World would be destabilized and eventually become uninhabitable. Sudden warming or cooling events of a similar magnitude as that projected now, occurred often during the transition of the last Ice Age to the Holocene era (~12,000 years ago). Nevertheless, Homo sapiens evolved and spread over the globe during these harsh climate changes, suggesting that rapid warming or cooling is not incompatible with human development. Therefore, the question should be raised whether we could survive in a warmer climate, since modern humans have scientific and technical capabilities for adaptation that our ancestors did not have.

However, several observations indicate that climate change under a business as usual scenario will indeed become catastrophic.

Climate models predict that the upper limit of viable temperature for humans (wet-bulb temperature of 35 °C) will be reached in regions of the Tropics and Subtropics if there is a 10 °C rise of the average global temperature. This temperature rise will be reached under a business as usual scenario, although it would probably not be reached before 2300.

Although there have been paleoclimates (climates from prehistorical times), such as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM, 55 million years ago), with similar high temperatures as those expected to be reached in the present century, fossil data indicate that mammals at those

14 epochs were small (average 1 kg), making their surface to body mass ratio larger, hereby improving their body cooling and hence enabling them to tolerate higher temperatures. Moreover, anthropogenic warming today and in the future is at a much faster pace than during the PETM epoch, making adaptation through biological evolution very unlikely. Abrupt changes in the atmosphere or ocean in the past have often led to massive extinction of living species. Thus, if unabated, global warming and ecological damage have the potential to become catastrophic by the end of this century and even make large parts of the Planet uninhabitable for humans by 2300.

Importantly, future climate change impacts may act in synergy with other anthropogenic impacts (climate refugee migrations, exhaustion of certain natural resources and biodiversity loss) and destabilize human civilization.

5. Climate change, deforestation and pollution causes loss of ecosystems and political and social instability.

Human consumption of the Earth’s resources has now reached levels exceeding the capacity of the Earth to regenerate several of these resources. These human impacts not only risk to cause shortages in food, water and materials supply in certain regions, but also to deteriorate wildlife habitat and ecosystems. Since wildlife and ecosystems are vital to human life, their loss, in combination with climate change, could become disruptive to human existence. Moreover, due to the global connectedness of economies and ecosystems, impacts in one place can rapidly spread and cause instability in many other regions around the World. This is likely to occur long before the World will have reached a wet bulb temperature of 35 °C.

References and Readings

* Wet bulb temperature is the temperature indicated by a moistened thermometer bulb exposed to the air flow. If relative humidity is 100%, wet bulb temperature equals air temperature. The lower the humidity, the higher the difference between both.

CO2 Earth: https://www.co2.earth NOAA's National Centre for Environmental Information (NCEI): https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201602 Berkeley Earth: http://berkeleyearth.org/ CO2 emissions: http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/?q=en/emissions Representative concentration pathways (RCPs): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): http://www.ipcc.ch/ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): http://unfccc.int/2860.php

Chapter 2

A World dominated by capitalism

"La propriété, c’est le vol" “Property is theft” ― Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

1. What is capitalism?

Since the emergence of agriculture and sedentary life, some 5000 years ago, humans use a system of credit and debt on a small scale to allow creation of goods and services mainly based on subsistence farming and a primitive monetary exchange system. Although this system helped cultures to develop, it often included exploitation of the poor by the rich.

In the modern World capital got a new face. Capital is invested in an enterprise with the purpose of making profit by trading the produced goods or services on a free market (an aggregate of possible buyers and sellers). It developed as a companion of the industrial revolution at the end of the 18th century, when technological advances succeeded in the rapid mass production of goods, services and financial systems. Production of goods and services is not by the capitalist investor, but by workers that are also recruited on a market, the labour market. A job is given in exchange of a wage contract. Invoking the wage contract, the entrepreneur compels the workers to perform their work according to the typical 'capitalist division of labour'. That is, labour is distributed over many workers, each of them repetitively fabricating a specific part of the whole product or service. As all parts are made in parallel, the productivity enormously improves, but workers do not experience the full reward of their labour as it was in the past. The capital provider also invokes that he/she owns the means of production and that is a second reason for which the entrepreneur claims the ownership of the manufactured product or service. There is no rational basis for this claim. As criticized by Karl Marx, the capitalist investor does not let the workers participate in ownership or the profit on capital (surplus-value). In typical capitalist countries, profit goes to the entrepreneur alone. In socialist countries, workers can sometimes get part

17 of the profit, but it is limited. Extracted profit is then accumulated in the capital and also the accumulated capital stays with the entrepreneur. Thus, the primary purpose of a capitalist firm is making money through the low wage work of many and capital accumulation in the hands of a few. Capitalism maximizes profit and private ownership of capital. The consequence is that capitalism creates artificial scarcity of goods and poverty for the worker, while promoting privilege and affluence for the capitalist.

Crucial characteristics of capitalism are competition and innovation. In a free market sellers compete with each other to provide the best deal to prospective buyers, and buyers compete to obtain good offers from suppliers. It is a matter of the best product at the lowest price and at the lowest production and transportation cost. It is also a matter of attracting buyers by advertising and providing warranties and after-sales services. To get a competitive advantage suppliers must continuously improve their products by innovation. Innovation may also be a matter of generating better products for the same price or decreasing the price by lowering the production costs. Without innovation a supplier will go out of business because buyers will choose the cheapest but best quality product or service.

In a free market, the prices of goods, services and finances are not determined through a direct relationship between producer and consumer, as was traditionally the case, but by the forces of supply and demand of millions of products and services. Market equilibrium is reached when the quantity demanded and the quantity supplied are equal. This occurs under perfect conditions of competition, but that condition is, in real life, rarely met. Moreover, a free market does not guarantee that the produced goods and services are affordable for all, nor that the product is made under ethical standards. Products are not sold and prices are not made on the basis of justice. The 'free' market is in reality not free, as its aim is accumulating wealth through imposed low wages, debt bondage, unjust land confiscation and the expropriation of common lands and resources and putting it into private hands of the rich.

In capitalism, considerations on real value or necessity for human prosperity is of no concern. That is why the state must come in and enforce regulations that protect the rights and freedom of the consumer and the

18 producer (e.g. property rights protection, price control and prevention of monopolies, cartels and speculative bubbles). However, governments often fail to do so. As profit always accumulates into private capital of successful business owners, the business class in a society tends to become richer, unless the state compensates this trend by taxes and redistribution. The latter influence significantly weakened during the neoliberal period from the 1980s. Neoliberalism is an economic system in which free trade was globalized, wage increases were suppressed and trade unions were weakened. State enterprises were privatized, marginal tax rates lowered and regulation of the financial system by the state progressively dismantled. Since the onset of neoliberalism corrections by the state was only to a limited extent in the United States and to a certain degree, different according to country, in Europe. However, the role of governments in the Western World has always been a matter of heavy tensions between the capitalist private model and the non-capitalist collectivist model.

Capitalism comes in different forms depending on the type of product made or market used and on whether the capital and means of production are owned by a single individual or family, a group (partnership, holding, corporation) or the state (state capitalism). The form of capitalism depends also on the level of regulation by the state. There is low control by the state in neoliberal capitalism (such as in the United States) and more control in welfare capitalism that reduces the gap between the rich and the poor through redistributive taxation (best developed in Scandinavian countries). In the past, firms had a simple structure and operation, usually led by a family. As businesses have become much larger and complex, corporations and partnerships developed (although family businesses still exist). A corporation is a company or group of people authorized by law to act as a single entity under conditions of limited liability; the owners are the shareholders who appoint persons for the day-to-day running of the company. Corporations have the strict authoritarian top-down power structure of ’command and control’ with strict obedience at all levels. Every form of capitalism, every condition under which it functions and wherever it functions presupposes the same elements: private property, ownership of the means of production, unlimited growth, the maximization of profit and using wealth to create wealth.

Capital can also be distributed by financial institutions (finance capitalism), operating on financial markets (banks, credit unions, trust companies, mortgage loan companies, insurance companies, pension funds, investment banks, brokerage firms). In finance capitalism the profit incentive becomes the only incentive and it is most disruptive on society, as it generates a lot of idle money that is used for speculation and not for the needs in the real economy and society.

2. Capitalism leads to crisis

Capitalism has no fixed activity profile nor a fixed territory for action. It can operate under different forms and one form can easily mutate to another. It is flexible and mobile. It can insert itself in any culture at any place, even in non-democratic regimes (e.g. China and Russia). Through competition and innovation it results in a continuous rise of productivity and wealth for the owners. However, this trend is not constant. Capitalist performance occurs in cycles. Phases of growth are followed by phases of depression, stagnation or even negative growth. This makes victims, particularly in the labour and employee class. The development of market neoliberalism and market globalization since the early 1980s boosted income and wealth, but, as will be seen later, it was not to the benefit of all. Capitalism completely lacks essential correction mechanisms to prevent crisis, and governments of most countries have often failed to impose the necessary corrections. In fact, even if the state makes corrections, and because the capitalist system is so flexible and movable, corrections only work during a limited period of time and then fade away. It led to the Great depression in the 1930s and to the 2008-2009 financial crisis, to name the two most important.

Capital must grow, thus consumption must grow as well. To run up consumption, financial institutions lend money in order to generate profit for these institutions. Excessive amounts of money were available in the World since the mid-1990s. There was an economic boom that made people over-confident. Uncontrolled lending and borrowing of money led to taking excessive financial risks, further instigated by competition. In the United States there was a housing bubble, making house prices increase steeply. In case a person could not or preferred not to pay for a house, they could easily borrow the money and, in the case they could not pay back

20 their mortgage, a second mortgage was offered to repay the first without any control on solvency of the debtor (sub-prime mortgages). In 2007 there was a fall in housing demand, prices fell and people lost trust, leading to mortgages that could not be paid back again. The credit crisis was also the consequence of the lack of control on bank practices and financial institutions and the use of complex and risky financial technologies, which were often not understood by the bankers themselves. Trillions of dollars from tax money had to be given to banks and financial institutions to avoid their bankruptcy (bail out). Many people ended up defaulting on their debt and lost their homes. In Europe the states rather than individuals were over-leveraged. On top of that, several European countries neglected to stay within the confines imposed by the European Maastricht Treaty, which limited budget deficit to 3% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and sovereign debt not higher than 60% of GDP. This led countries to reduce and thus hide their real debts or deficits, ignoring in this way international standards. Large upwards revisions of budget deficit forecasts needed to be made, increasingly making investors concerned about future debt sustainability of several countries and leading to a strong rise in interest rate for government bonds in these countries. This rise differed according to country. Several rich countries (e.g. Germany and later also the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Belgium and France) took advantage of their low interest rates compared to that of other countries (Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Cyprus), who had to pay much higher interest rates for borrowing. Fears of sovereign defaults and transnational contagion of various European countries were the consequence. Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Cyprus were unable to repay or refinance their sovereign debt or to bail out over-indebted banks. Assistance of creditors from Euro group countries, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), known as the 'Troika', was required. Leading European countries also implemented financial support measures, such as the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) that was later followed up by the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), establishing a 'firewall' against default and transnational financial contagion. In general, these measures helped countries to overcome the crisis, albeit in a non-democratic manner, since the ESM severely confines the economic sovereignty of the European Union member states and ESM Governors have powers and immunity without parliamentary influence or control. Also the Troika has no accountability with the European parliament and hence has been heavily criticized for its non-democratic and non-

21 transparent activities. One example of dubious treatment by the Euro group was seen during the 2013 Economic crisis in Cyprus, when the Troika confiscated deposits of Cyprus' two main banks. It was criticized as an attack on private property. The Troika may have saved several countries from default, but the money went mainly to the banks and financial institutions, leaving the common man in more poverty. The Troika imposed austerity measures as a condition for government and bank bail-out. These specific demands though have been heavily criticized for their role in the downturn of economic growth and for facilitating recession in the country. The crisis had longstanding negative effects on the economy and labour markets, with unemployment rates in Greece and Spain of 27% and poor economic growth over the entire European Union (1-2 %). During this period of decline over 23 million European Union workers have become unemployed. According to union leaders the working population unjustly suffered for the economic mismanagement errors of economists, investors and bankers. The latter are fully responsible for the crisis, but they were not punished for their misconduct and they survived. Apparently, they were too big to fail or did governments fail to end their relationship with capitalist big business? The crisis had a major political impact on governments, contributing to power shifts in Greece, Ireland, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Slovenia, Slovakia, Belgium, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. More about the mechanisms of the 2008 crisis can be read on https://vimeo.com/3261363

The global losses of the crisis were enormous. The value of wiped out companies in the World has been estimated at $14.5 trillion ($14,500 billion). Total United States home mortgages were $10.5 trillion. United States bail-outs were $9.7 trillion and European bail-outs $1.4 trillion (see www.globalissues.org ). As a comparison, in 2007 total World military spending was $1.3 trillion.

3. Capitalism exploits

Capitalism is based on classical liberalism and the ideas of the political economists Adam Smith, David Riccardo and others. It is said that they believed that individual pursuit of self-interest and free trade unintentionally leads to a collective benefit to society. This was a belief, not a proof. As will be seen later (Chapter 4), individual pursuit of self-interest

22 is the basis of the development of inequality in modern society. Individual pursuit of self-interest is often linked to the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith’s books The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) (in Part IV, Chapter 1) and Wealth of Nations (1776) (Book IV, Chapter 2), but Adam Smith did not use that adage in that context. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments he used it to explain the behaviour of the landowner who shares his production with his labourers: "The proud and unfeeling landlord views his extensive fields, and without a thought for the wants of his brethren, in imagination consumes himself the whole harvest ... the capacity of his stomach bears no proportion to the immensity of his desires.... he is obliged to distribute among those, who prepare, in the nicest manner, that little which he himself makes use of, among those who fit up the palace in which this little is to be consumed, among those who provide and keep in order all the different baubles and trinkets which are employed in the economy of greatness... They [the rich] are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society... ". In Wealth of Nations Adam Smith uses it with respect to domestic vs foreign industry: “By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.... By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.” The "invisible hand" has been generalized beyond what Adam Smith modestly meant. It is in fact misunderstood and used as a foundation of modern capitalism.

The question is, are we so self-interested and are free markets so optimally regulated? There is no absolute tendency in humans that purely feeds self- interest. Many people have a natural desire to also lend support the poor. We are not "naturally" self-interested. We learn to be self-interested and capitalism misuses the concept to make the system acceptable and necessary. We not only learn, but also are forced to be self-interested. That is the real basics of capitalism. Capitalism guides us to be evil by appeasing our conscience. Furthermore, because of the competitive nature of capitalism, only a minority becomes successful. The most self-interested will survive. In other words, we deceive ourselves and we are enslaved to

23 the system that is successful for a few. Thus, that free trade unintentionally leads to a collective benefit to society, is a false truth. As a matter of fact, Adam Smith was not against regulation of markets by the state, he was in favour of regulation by the state when it benefits the working man, and against it when it benefits the masters. That meaning is not at all in the language of many economists after Adam Smith, particularly the economists who promoted neoliberalism.

An additional moral foundation of capitalism was given by Max Weber (1864 – 1920), who found support of the system in the predestination concept in Calvinism. Religious believers find their motivation in working hard, be successful in business and reinvest profits in further development rather than in taking pleasures. The predestination concept in Calvinism (God decides who will receive mercy and who will not) diminishes agonizing over economic inequality seen in capitalism, while accumulation of material wealth is a sign from God's salvation. For Max Weber class differences are made according to one's proficiency in the market place: the dominating class are those who do well in the market place and make money, the poor class being the people who were not doing well because they were predestined by God to be so. This view positively influenced capitalist development, but it did not demonstrate its fairness and social fitness. It is clearly enforced by erroneous thinking of the ‘invisible hand’ and religious predestination.

Unlike the good landowner, the capitalist exploits the labourers. Exploitation means taking advantage of one person by another when an asymmetric power relationship between them exists (such as exploitation of employees by an employer). In the capitalist power structure goods and services are not made by the business owner but by the wage-labour of workers. Labour power is bought on a labour market. The employer makes a wage contract with the worker and on the basis of this contract has power over the employee. The capitalist has the right to hire and to dismiss the worker, while the price of a wage is determined by labour market mechanisms. A person seeking a job does not necessarily find a job that he/she likes most and, thus, accepting a job is coerced by necessity of subsistence. Wage labour excludes workers' self-management and, thus, freedom. The wage worker often is not only less motivated and less happy when labour is not the preferred one, but he/she is also not compensated for the extra effort it takes to do something that is not preferred. The more

24 the worker needs a job for subsistence and the lower the wage, the less freedom for the worker and the higher the exploitation. Capitalism tries to keep wages as low as possible in order to maximize profit and to avoid that workers obtain enough power to counter the capitalist employer. Thus, capitalism exploits peoples’ labour. There is no social explanation why the worker should be paid far less than the employer, who in addition has the privilege to work according to his preference.

Exploitation was prominent in the 19th century and during Western colonialism up to the 1990s. In various Western countries trade unions and the state (try to) take care of the social status of the workers, but differences among countries are large. In the United States no minimal wage and only short vacation periods exist in many states. Social protection is well done in well-developed welfare states, such as in the Scandinavian countries, France and Belgium, but it is always a struggle to obtain, and especially maintain, adequate social protection. Right wing politicians try to undermine the welfare state. They sow fear during economic depressions to gain more power over citizens. Employer organizations also exert more and more pressure on social welfare. Nowadays there is still a lot of labour exploitation by Western big-business in under-developed countries, due to weak control by the local state and the low wage.

In the United Kingdom, the neoliberal period made another class of workers to appear, named precariat or zero-hour contract jobs. It consists of highly unsecure workers who are temporarily part-time employed. Employees can work only when they are needed by employers, often at short notice. Their pay depends on how many hours they work. The working time is unpredictable and they cannot really earn enough to live on. Sick pay is often not included. They have no right to build up a pension. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported that 697,000 people in the United Kingdom were on zero-hour contracts for their main job between October and December 2014. Employees on such a contract worked an average of only 25 hours a week. The trend is growing. In 2013, 8% of workplaces in the United Kingdom employed people on such contracts, while in 2004 it was only 4 %. Employers may also offer more hours to favoured employees and fewer to those less valued. In the United States many combine different jobs to build sufficient resources to live on. Again,

25 these data show that exploitation is at the service of maximizing profit, the main profit being only for the 'happy few'.

Wage is traded on a free market as a commodity among a myriad of other commodities. The consequence is that there is no personal relationship between employer and employee. The employee is considered as a connector in the exchange process in the market. The wage worker often is just a number and is dehumanized. Wage labour has been strongly criticized in terms of its similarity to slavery, often called 'wage slavery' or 'quasi-voluntary slavery', especially when the worker has no alternative for a more desirable job and thus becomes completely dependent on the employer as if he/she would be a slave.

Thus, human self-interest does not seem to be the proper driving force of a just economic system for modern society and Calvinism gave another false foundation to the system.

4. Capitalism violates the achievements of the Enlightenment and anarchist thinking

Modern capitalism developed subsequent to the Enlightenment period, but it is not the intellectual heritage of the latter. The Enlightenment is characterized by a fundamental rebuilding of the society on the following principles: 1) liberty, 2) man - not God - controls the destiny and future of humanity by critical reasoning and 3) these principles will make the World a better place.

Today Western society often refers to 'our values', the values of the Enlightenment, but without these values properly defined. In fact, we live in a capitalist society, which infringes upon the achievements of the Enlightenment. As asserted by John Locke (Second Treatise, 1690), one of the early Enlightenment philosophers, there are three natural and unalienable rights of man: Life, Liberty and Property. Everyone who is created has the absolute right to live, everyone is entitled to freely do what he/she wants, as long as it does not offend the first right and everyone has the right to personal tangible and intangible property. However, the right of property can only be claimed if 1) property is not in conflict with the first and second natural right, 2) the property is obtained by own labour,

26 gift or trade, or used to provide goods useful to society, 3) there is enough common good left for others, 4) the individual does not acquire more than he/she can use and 5) labour is not destructive. In addition, natural rights cannot be overruled by the government or human laws. These statements bring Locke close to socialist thinking but distinguish him from Jean- Jacques Rousseau who put more emphasis on collectivism than on personal property.

Locke specified that a natural resource has no value in itself, but obtains value when labour is invested to transform the resource into a good with value for society. Labour converts a good into property. On the other hand, Locke considered unused property as waste and an offence against Nature. To bypass that offense Locke argued that an individual owning unused property could exchange it for money, reasoning that money is not perishable. This led to the notion of unlimited accumulation of property, found in capitalism. However, Locke added that this should not result in bringing injury to anyone. John Locke’s philosophy on natural rights was very influential; it formed, together with the ideas of Montesquieu and Rousseau, the basis of the Constitution of Western countries.

There is a notable difference between the notion of property rights in the capitalist economy and that conceptualized by Locke. Locke states that an individual owns his own labour and that his labour makes the manufactured object become the property of that individual. In the capitalist mode of production, on the contrary, the worker sells his labour power to the capitalist and does not own the products of his labour. The capitalist owns the manufactured product, which he exchanges for money with a surplus value (profit). The price of labour is driven by the market value of that labour, not by the value of what is produced. In the capitalist economy, labour is a commodity like any other good and is not owned by the labourer. Workers are paid depending on who is willing to do the same job for the lowest wage (although in countries influenced by socialism, a minimum wage system was developed). Ownership in capitalism is a right with zero social obligation and thus in clear cut contradiction with the Enlightenment thinking.

Capitalism is also in fundamental conflict with anarchist thinking that rejects the right of private property of things with value other than use value. Private property violates equality and freedom (see Chapter 8).

Anarchism also denies despotism and hierarchical authority involved in the capitalist system. Indeed, those who ‘have’ exploit those who ‘don’t have’. Anarchism accepts a minimal state but not a state built on an established authority and believes that the self-organization capacity and mutual solidarity of people is the main driver in society. Property in anarchist thinking should not be confused with possession (or personal property). The latter includes things that are essential for everyday life and often used (clothing, books, bicycles, a television set...). Anarchism is about denying the right to privately owned things, such as big factories, big farms, railways, airlines, large amounts of capital and unused land.

Capitalism is also in conflict with the Locke’s right of life. Today capitalist mass production and mega-consumption have strong negative impacts on climate and environment, which have caused already many premature human deaths through the mining and use of fossil fuels and generation of dust and pollutants. Capitalist exploitation caused climate change that now becomes so large that it will even threaten survival of the human species if not drastically halted by global measures.

The individual pursuit of self-interest in capitalism conflicts with the right of liberty of the wage-labourer, since the labourer, unlike the capitalist, is not free to choose the type of work he/she prefers, nor the entity of the commodity to be manufactured. Wage-labour is socially necessary labour for living and coerces the labourer to choose for a job which is the most beneficial for his/her livelihood, not necessarily the most interesting job. Moreover, many workers in non-welfare states today have no guarantee for job security. Capital can freely move to foreign countries, where wages and taxes are low and poorly regulated. The capitalist class controls more and more sectors of society and the government, hindering the liberty of the common man. This is particularly problematic in large cities, where people are expelled to suburbs or slums, because the rich are building expensive houses and condominiums, often not for their use value but as a financial investment that gains exchange value over time. Investing in gigantic buildings has become an important escape route for capitalist profit making. In fact, it was already the case in the 19th century, when Georges-Eugène Haussmann almost completely rebuilt Paris. In New York City, San Francisco, Istanbul and other large cities many condominiums exist without people living in them. In China cities have been built that do not have inhabitants (ghost cities), only because there was so much money

28 available that needed to be invested. The present World is becoming an oligarchy of capital.

Capitalism also is indifferent to several fundamental human rights that were proclaimed by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10 December 1948.

Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.  As already mentioned, the capitalist production system neglects the protection of people against the deleterious consequences of industrial pollution and fossil fuel use, causing disease and death. For decades powerful lobby groups try to influence public opinion and governments to deny climate change.

Article 23: (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.  In the capitalist system workers have less freedom of choosing jobs than middle- and upper class people. Wages do not increase in parallel to productivity (see Chapter 4). Particularly in developing countries, employees often work long hours for low wages and in unhealthy conditions, like it was the case in Western countries in the 19th century. In contrast, over the last 10-20 years the salaries and bonuses of senior managers and CEO's have risen completely out of proportion. Government efforts to tone down this trend are insufficient or absent.

Article 25: (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services.  As said above, in large cities people are being expelled to suburbs or slums as a consequence of building expensive houses as a financial investment for the rich, which forces workers to travel long distances to their place of employment, or even can result in

a loss of their job. Furthermore, the production and distribution of food in the World is dominated by market mechanisms that leads to hunger and malnutrition in some areas. By extension of this article, everyone should have the right to have access to all goods and services of natural environments. This is certainly not the case in many societies in the World.

Article 26: (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.  As dealt with in the Chapter 4, the capitalist system has steadily increased economic and social inequality since the 1980s. The rise of economic productivity is not reflected in the wage of the common man, while higher education is becoming extremely expensive in many countries. The costs have to be paid by the student, who is forced to take loans for studying. In the United States, for example, the total debt of students is now above $1 trillion, an amount that the majority will have to pay back over many years. There are also large differences in the cost of higher education among European countries, in a way not related to the GDP of these countries. This situation obviously favours students who have rich parents and even removes an increasing number of students from higher education.

The accumulation or money seen in modern capitalism since the start of neoliberalism in the 1980s (see Chapter 4), makes the rich richer and impoverishes those deprived of wealth. This is in conflict with the equal opportunity principle of Jean-Jacques Rousseau that, in the state of Nature we are unequal, but we become equal by social contract. Rousseau's social contract theory states that, in exchange for some societal freedoms to the government and laws, individuals are entitled and are free to demand protection. Many examples show that protection is in the first place for the rich and far less for the common man. Total global wealth is now around $241 trillion, which is 39% above the recent low in 2008. Various state measures to control the financial crisis after 2008 were primarily intended to protect the status quo of capitalism by bailing-out the banks with tax money. Today's austerity measures by Central Banks, on the other hand,

30 impoverish the common man and divert it to the rich. Part of the tax money goes to banks, where it disappears into private hands of the rich. Moreover, these austerity measures repress social protest that would eventually threaten the capitalist system. As already said, ownership in capitalism is a right with zero social obligation. Capitalist economic growth never made redistribution of that growth to the poor. It is unwilling to guarantee social justice and, if social justice occurs, it has been achieved by the struggle of socialist parties. That is often forgotten these days. In poor and developing countries most of the land is owned by a small wealthy class that does not use that land, while millions of people have no place to live and 1 billion people are working on land that they do not own. Meanwhile, the rich become richer, just by being a rentier.

Capitalism denies the Rousseau principles of the 'General Will', which is a universal good for society and therefore a higher good than the sum of the different personal wills. Rousseau's thinking forms the basis of collectivism and paved the way to Marxism and Leninism, which are in total contradiction with capitalism. Rousseau was the first to make a distinction between the 'bourgeois' and the 'citizen'. The citizen is a person who respects the 'General Will'. The capitalist, on the contrary, is the selfish money lover who only sees economic advantage in favour of a small individualistic fraction of society. The capitalist tries to optimize profit by whatever means he has. Capitalism never evaded from 'amour de soi' seen in children to 'amour propre' expressed by citizens.

5. Capitalism leads to spoilage

The capitalistic pursuit of profit resulted in creating idle money (private money not used for providing necessary products and services) and for making commodities that have an unnecessary fast turnover. Although this money could serve investments for providing goods and services to society, trillions of it are used for just making larger profit in the financial sector. It is not used for investing in the real economy to fulfil the needs of society. The capitalist system completely negates each philosophy that hinders maximizing profit, which leads to over-consumption. And, if it would not do so, it would not exist in the enormous size observed today. The capitalist system excludes morality by necessity and its institutions

31 are private tyrannies that feed many conservative watch dogs to keep it solidly fixed.

6. Capitalism neglects Nature

John Locke founded the natural rights of an individual on the Biblical book Genesis 1, in which it can be read:

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Enlightened Western society absorbed these religious views into the framework of the secular state. In this way an attitude of superiority over Nature was engrained, creating a state of alienation from Nature and hiding the reality that man is an integrative part of Nature. This led to the disregard of Nature by capitalism. It widely opened the doors to the many deleterious and highly threatening effects imposed by the capitalist society on Nature and ecosystems. However, a colleague of Locke, Charles de Montesquieu, drew attention that man is embedded in Nature and that climate affects the passions and spirit of society. Montesquieu was the first to draw attention to the relationship between society and climate. It would take 200 more years before environmentalists further developed this idea.

Also Albert Einstein drew attention to the alienation of the civilized man from Nature in a letter written to Robert S. Marcus on February 12, 1950.

“A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe", a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue

32 of true religion. Not to nourish the delusion but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind.”

Capitalism completely disregards the impact of burning fuels on Nature and the damage it imposes on it. Capitalism completely refuses to repair these damages. For the sake of profit, capitalism considers Nature as an object of exploitation. An example is the production of meat and selling large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, an important contributor to global warming.

The present climate change is the direct consequence of capitalist pursuits to use cheap energy production from fossil fuels. As reported by Oxfam, 50% of the greenhouse gas emissions is attributed to the richest 10% of people around the World, who have average carbon footprints 11 times as high as the poorest half, while the average footprint of the richest 1% is 175 times that of the poorest 10%. Capitalists leave the concern about Nature to governments, which in turn let the costs pay by common citizens through taxation. The rich polluters, not governments, should pay the damage to Nature.

In a recent study, a mathematical model was developed (HANDY) using the dynamics of the carrying capacity of Nature on the one hand, and consumption dynamics of different types of society on the other. It was concluded that societies with rising consumption and rising inequality experience an initial growth, but eventually collapse, as a consequence of excess consumption by the wealthy elite. The latter leads not only to depletion of natural resources but also to a shortage of working people, the number of which would fall as a result of famine. Egalitarian societies, by contrast, continue to grow as long as certain restrictions of individual consumption are imposed. In many civilizations in the real World a correlation can be found between inequality and collapse. When environmental crisis is combined with failure of society to address it, societal collapse may arise.

Capitalist pursuit of profit has also negatively impacted biodiversity of animals and plants. Examples are the illegal killing (poaching) of elephants and rhinoceroses to provide ivory for the domestic and international black market. In October 2013 more than 300 African elephants were poisoned in Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe. In Sub-Saharan Africa, over 25,000

33 elephants have been poached in 2012 alone. The commercial poaching of white and black rhinoceros steeply increased in South Africa from 12 rhinos killed in 2004 to 946 rhinos killed in 2013. Lions, greater kudus, elands, impala, duiker, reedbuck, bushbuck, bush pig, common warthog, chakma baboon and greater cane rat are illegally hunted in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Asian countries body parts of seahorses, rhinoceros horns, binturong and tiger bones and claws are illegally sold for reasons of superstition to have positive effects on the human body. Elephants, rhinoceros and tigers face extinction. Other threatening poaching occurs in central-America (the solitary eagle, white-tailed deer, red brocket deer, collared peccary, agouti, coati and many other species). In the United States grizzly bears, moose, bighorn sheep, elk, mountain lions, eagles, parrots and snakes suffer poaching. Sturgeon eggs are sold as caviar, snakes for their skins, and bald eagles for their feathers. Millions of protected plants are illegally collected each year in North-America. It is disgusting how capitalist greed kills humans and animals. How can such a system be so dominant? Because it can only survive by pushing for profit seeking.

The domination and exploitation of Nature in capitalism contrast with the ideas of Romanticism that developed together with capitalist exploitation during the first half of the 19th century. Romantic intellectual movement was a countermovement to the Enlightenment because the latter was considered to put too much emphasis on rational thinking and reductive reasoning and to drive humans to dominate Nature. Romanticism viewed humans in a harmonious co-existence with Nature. Unfortunately, that movement was overruled by the individual pursuit of self-interest, rewarded so wrongly in capitalism.

7. Capitalism erodes democracy

The requisites of a democratic state are preservation of individual freedom and rights, development of social justice, universal suffrage, decision by the majority but respect and protection of minorities and continuous open debate. As proposed by John Rawls in his influential book 'A Theory of Justice', three principles should be guaranteed by the state: equal liberty for all, equal opportunity for all and the so called 'difference' principle, which says that inequality of income and wealth is acceptable as long as it

34 works to the benefit of the least well off. As suggested by David Miller at Oxford University, governments should guarantee a social minimal that provides the essential means for living a decent and meaningful life. One way to achieve that aim is through a system called 'unconditional basic income (see Chapter 8)'.

Historically, capitalism developed in parallel to democracy and within certain limits the capitalist entrepreneur has increased happiness in an underdeveloped society. However, most democratic societies under capitalism today do not meet the criteria of a true democracy, particularly since the onset of the neoliberal era in de 1980s. The latter evolution impeded the role of governments in preserving democracy. The neoliberal ideology also shifted the focus from industrial manufacturing to finance because finance is very displaceable, allowing to generate more profit. It created huge amounts of idle money that is just sitting in the banks or is only used to inflate stock markets and house prices. In the United States and Europe this amounts now to $5 trillion, as compared to only $3.4 trillion for meaningful investments. Moreover, power has shifted from national governments to big multinational corporations. Power became supra-political and was taken away from the common citizens. Inequality of income and wealth grew, which is certainly not in accordance with Rawls theory of justice, since it was of no benefit to the bottom fraction of society and many hard working households in the middle class were disadvantaged. But, even before the neoliberal era, capitalism allocated decision-making uniquely to the private sector and minimally allowed interference by the people. For many corporations, the shareholders can't even vote for what the CEO's will earn. The increasing power of the rich over government policy hinders the development of the social minimum.

Income of a person should be proportional to the economical contribution of that person and not to pure chance, inheritance, speculation or return on capital. This is often not the case in a capitalist society. Every person with ethical reflections will raise the following question: Why should medical doctors or lawyers be payed hundreds of euros for one hour of work and a worker repairing gas or water pipes in the streets of the United States during the winter or on rainy days only 12 euro? Why should the white-collar elites be allowed to tax deductions via legal structures that the blue-collar worker cannot get? Why white-collars can use sophisticated practices to avoid taxes, while the common man has no

35 access to these practices or can't pay the service for such practices? Paying taxes is a state right protected by the law and paying taxes must be proportional to the income. Tax evasion may be legal but it is not morally justifiable. It shows the amorality that characterizes the capitalist society. Is the economical contribution of the rich so hugely different from that of the common man? Who will take care of the garbage if there is a strike of garbage collectors for a couple of weeks? Who will take care of prisoners if the jailers go on strike? In Belgium, this is now going on already for 6 weeks. In a time of economic crisis as we experience today, governments need to raise taxation fairly and demand more efforts from the rich, but, in reality, exactly the opposite occurs, also in Belgium, where the New Flemish Alliance party clearly closes eyes for the rich. The lack of reforms for a fair fiscal taxation favours hiding money in tax havens, white collar money laundering and white collar crime. All these tax evaders sneakily hate democratic control and undermine it by their amoral and immoral actions. The extent of these activities is huge, as shown in the recent Panama papers (see section 9).

The direct participatory role of individuals in today's democracies is severely limited. This limitation is indirectly furthered by the capitalist system. In everyday life, employees are accustomed to not interfere with the business of the employer. Only the owner(s) of businesses decide how the business is run, with at most a limited insight of the employees. Trade unions defend the rights of workers, but there is tension and even hostility between them and the direction of the firms. The power of trade unions has been considerably reduced in various countries during the neoliberal era. Furthermore, particularly in the United States, there is mutual interaction between business and politicians, which negatively affects the democratic process of presidential and state elections. The management of firms can intimidate employees directly or indirectly, restricting their freedom. If these firms also have good links with government officials, firms may even extend their power on the next elections via their employees. In the United States elections, rich candidates dispose much more money to support their election campaigns than less wealthy candidates; potentially more competent candidates have no chance. Corporations also have the power to lobby governmental officials to divert political decisions in their advantage. Radio and television run by private companies also manipulate public opinion of citizens. A striking example was Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, who owned several media organizations,

36 which favoured his own election. Other examples are President Putin in Russia and President Erdogan in Turkey.

Other examples of dubious practices and anti-democratic activities are the international free trade organizations, like NAFTA, TPP and WTO. In fact they are not free and not trade agreements, they are Investors Rights agreements. They are kept secret from the Public. The new free trade agreement between the United States and Europe (TTIP) that is being prepared, is an attempt to force growth upward but also to increase corporate power, to impose American rules to Europe and make it more difficult for governments to regulate markets. This may slow down efforts to deal with climate change. For example, TPP and TTIP would allow big- business to sue a government (something a normal citizen cannot do) that makes rules to defend the health of their citizens against climate impacts from big businesses and, by doing so, disadvantage the United States corporations. Corporations have much more money available to win a trial than the state. In May 2016 Greenpeace published a leak of documents dealing with the present status of the negotiations, which indicate “that human health and environmental protections will be seriously undermined if negotiations continue on the current path”. In TPP Obama tries to determine who – America or China – would write the 21st century’s trade rules. The correct approach is to build such rules collectively and in a transparent way. Obama's discourse is to perpetuate business as usual, whereby the rules are written by United States corporations for United States corporations. This is unacceptable in a democracy.

Another uprising danger for democracy is the privatization of education. There is currently a clear trend in the United States that large philanthropic foundations are diverting their donations from public schools, which serve 90 percent of American students, toward private education schools (charter schools), despite the latter schools on average are usually not better and often less performant than the public schools. Moreover, it is disturbing that public funds go to private enterprises. Billionaires like Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg and Rupert Murdoch, try to make education more technology and digital media-driven, without any guarantee that these upgraded programs are balanced with other educational disciplines. Educators, not the donors, should judge what is important in education. It is plausible that these donations are not free from profit concerns of the donors. The education sector in the United

States now represents 9% of the United States GDP, with for-profit education valued at $1.3 trillion. If this trend continues, corporate capitalism risks to take over public education. Critics also point to the pro- profit sales techniques, high costs and poor student outcomes. Education must remain completely out of any profit consideration. Privatization leads to less public control over education and less guarantee for equal opportunity.

An essential platform of democracy is the freedom of press. Only 1/3 of countries in the World enjoys freedom of press, the others have only partial (1/3) or no freedom at all. The global average press freedom score has sharply declined since 2004. The biggest declines between 2010 and 2014 were in Hungary, Serbia, Macedonia, Greece, Turkey, Egypt, Azerbaijan, Honduras, Hong Kong, Ecuador, Mali, Central African Republic and Thailand. Even the proportion of countries with a free press score witnessed a decrease in score from 39 to 32% since 2004. Remarkably, in the United States the press freedom gradually worsened from a score of 12 to a score of 21 between 1993 and 2013, probably as a consequence of the measures of counterterrorism.

8. Capitalism wants the shrinking and weakening of the state

Capitalists manipulate the state to preserve the privileges of the capitalist society. In the mind of the capitalist, that can be reached with a much smaller number of government officials. The reason? A small government is much easier to manipulate than a big one, it saves money, it ascertains that little investment is made for public infrastructure, education and welfare, and it guarantees that little is done to preserve or improve the social safety net. However, the past has shown that it can be different. The 'New Deal' of President F.D. Roosevelt realized enormous investments in public infrastructure, raised high marginal taxes from the rich and freed the American workers of unemployment during the Great Depression in the 1930s. It was completely overthrown by the neoliberal misleading of Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States since the 1980s. That neoliberalism boosted capitalism but ended in the 2008 global bank and credit crisis, from which we did not recover yet. Thatcherism caused an increase of unemployment from

1.5 million in 1979 to 3.3 million in 1984 and brought 28% of the children in the United Kingdom below the poverty line.

9. Capitalism is linked to and thrives on white-collar organized crime

In April 2016 the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) published a huge leak of data, known as the 'Panama Papers'. It uncovered a massive number of the World’s wealthy and powerful individuals and companies hiding large amounts of money in shell companies and tax shelters. No taxes are levied on the revenues of these companies. Assets are operated by middlemen, keeping the owners unknown. The Panama papers contain 11.5 million of on line data files (2.6 terabytes) and are reviewed by 370 journalists from 76 countries. The leaked data cover a period from 1977 through the end of 2015. The business of these rich people are taken to heart by a little-known but powerful law firm, Mossack Fonseca. For each shell firm Mossack Fonseca made a folder containing e-mails, contracts, transcripts, passports and scanned documents. Mossack Fonseca provided services to dictators, drug cartels, Mafia clans, fraudsters, weapons dealers and regimes like North Korea and Iran, and has operated with money from illegal sources. Mossack Fonseca has branches in Hong Kong, Miami, Zurich and more than 35 other places around the World. The quantity of leaked data greatly exceeds the WikiLeaks Cable gate leak in 2010 (1.7 gigabytes), Offshore Leaks in 2013 (260 gigabytes), the 2014 Luxembourg Leaks (4 gigabytes) and the 3.3 gigabytes Swiss Leaks of 2015. The Panama Papers have 2.6 terabytes of data (2,600 gigabytes).

Offshore businesses can be legal, if run in accordance to the law. But the documents show that banks, law firms and other offshore players have often failed to follow legal requirements that assure their clients are not involved in crime, tax dodging, money laundering, or political corruption. In the vast majority of cases, Mossack Fonseca's primary aim was concealing the identities of the true company owners to keep them out of reach for taxation. In some instances, offshore middlemen have protected themselves and their clients by hiding suspect transactions or manipulating official records.

The leaked documents show offshore holdings of 140 politicians and public officials, current and former World leaders, including prime ministers of Iceland and Pakistan, the president of Ukraine, the king of Saudi Arabia, confidants and intimates of President Putin, David Cameron's father and David Cameron himself, the family of China’s President Xi Jinping, Mauricio Macri, president of Argentina, Hosni Moebarak (ex-president of Egypt), Nawaz Sharif (premier of Pakistan), the aunt of the Spanish king Juan Carlos, plastic surgeon Jerome Cahuzac, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, previous head of the IMF, steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal, Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak, the nephew of South African president Jacob Zuma, the grandson of Kazakh president Nursultan Nazarbayev, the personal secretary of Moroccan king Mohammed VI, the "favourite contractor" of Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto, popular Indian celebrities, people from sports such as top soccer player, Lionel Messi, Michel Platini, Juan Pedro Damiani, a member of the FIFA ethical commission, FIFA-President Gianni Infantino, tennis player Carlos Moyà, Formula 1 racer Nico Rosberg, doping physician Eufemiano Fuentes and over 200 members of the Pakistani elite. The Panama paper scandal forced the Prime Minister of Iceland to resign, as he secretly owned an offshore firm that held millions of dollars in Icelandic bank bonds during the country’s financial crisis of 2008. The Aliyevs, Azerbaijan’s ruling first family, have a huge offshore business empire, including banking, telecoms, goldmines and London mansions. A Mossack Fonseca firm called Exaltation Ltd, belongs to Azerbaijan's President Aliyev’s daughters, Leyla and Arzu. Other countries directly mentioning owners of companies are: United Kingdom, Zimbabwe, Iran, Pakistan, Australia, Argentina, Syria and Panama. Many senior European Union figures have been implicated in the Panama Papers scandal and some clients were helped to launder money and avoid tax. Jean-Marie Le Pen, founder of the far-right-wing Front National in France is mentioned in the documents, along with several aides of his daughter Marine Le Pen, the current party leader. Some 600 Israeli companies and 850 Israeli shareholders are listed in the Panama Papers. In Belgium, 732 people are mentioned, e.g. Franco Dragone (theatre), Gery De Cloedt (dredging works and concrete), the Antwerp family Van den Broeke (logistics), family Swenden (bricks) and family Santens (towels). Remarkably, only four United States citizens were found in the documents, all of whom were previously either accused or convicted of financial crimes. However, the United States have huge tax evasion firms in Delaware, and USA Today said that Mossack Fonseca has assisted in

40 establishing almost 1,100 business entities in the United States since 2001, mostly in Nevada and Wyoming. United States President Obama commented: "It's not that they're breaking the laws, it's that the laws are so poorly designed that they allow people, if they've got enough lawyers and enough accountants, to wiggle out of responsibilities that ordinary citizens are having to abide by".

More than 500 banks have worked with Mossack Fonseca since the 1970s to help clients manage offshore companies in tax havens. Also the Belgian Dexia bank, Fortis, KBC and Bank De Groof were involved in finding middlemen for Belgian clients. Transactions as large as $200 million at a time were carried out. More than 214,000 offshore companies in more than 200 countries appear in the leak. UBS set up more than 1,100 offshore companies. HSBC created more than 2,300. Shell companies also “play an important role in large-scale money laundering activities” and offshore companies are often used to “transfer bribe money“. Over £10 million of cash from the sale of the gold stolen in the 1983 Brink's-Mat robbery was laundered, first unwittingly by and later with the complicity of Mossack Fonseca. In the four decades Mossack Fonseca has set up, sold and managed hundreds of thousands of these companies, showing its mala fide activities in conspiracy with the rich and powerful.

The size of offshore fraud in general is enormous, if one realizes that, for the United Kingdom alone, more than £170 billion of property is involved. Much of that is luxury property in London, where unprecedented house price inflation has transformed homes for living into highly profitable investments for asset speculators. London property includes as owners Russian businessman Leonid Fedun, Former HSBC boss Michael Geoghegan, Irish telecoms tycoon Michael Maye, luxury goods retailer Hermès, Tory donor Javad Marandi, several United Arab Emirates royals, Sheikh Khalifa, emir of Abu Dhabi, Folorunsho Coker, former head of the Number Plate Production Authority in Lagos, Nigerian senate president Bukola Saraki's wife, the family of deceased Syrian intelligence boss Ghazi Kanaan, Iraqi prime minister Ayad Allawi and the family of former Sudanese president Ahmad al-Mirghani. The Tax Justice Network estimates the global elites have $21–32 trillion of untaxed assets.

International reactions to the Panama Papers is variable. In several countries the Panama Papers are censured for the general public and some

41 denied money hiding. In other countries, the documents will be investigated by inquiry officials. Azerbaijan shut down critical media organizations and jailed prominent journalists. The Russian general public is left without information and the link to President Putin has been denied by the Kremlin (whatever that means). China's government is suppressing news about the Panama Papers on social media and in search engines results, and has told news organizations to delete all content related to the Panama Papers. The European Union parliament expressed strong indignation and will set up the necessary investigations. However, a clear neoliberal deficit of the European Union is that whistle-blowers are still not fully protected by the law against putative claims of espionage of offshore businesses, which may inhibit journalists and others to report data. Reactions in Belgium are cool, but a parliamentary commission is set up, although investigations are not held under oath.

The Panama Papers and other leaks show that the internet is so public and open that no real secrets can remain hidden for the human eye. This will prevail as long as there is absolute freedom on the internet. Highly organized tax evasion demonstrates the true nature of capitalism. Rich people are greedy and lack ethical standards. The richer, the greedier. This is manifestly unfair. Everybody should pay taxes proportional to one’s income. Not protesting against this situation, is silent complicity.

An interesting idea is that an international tax referee could be appointed (perhaps within the United Nations), who would determine if there is cheating in tax matters, just like there is a United Nations Security Council who decides if military intervention is justified or not.

Conclusion

Capitalism is based on erroneous assumptions of the “invisible hand” of Adam Smith and Calvinist predetermination, which guides many people to self-interest instead of to brotherhood and solidarity. Capitalism is not interested in democracy, nor in the fate of Nature. It is opposed to democracy and can’t survive in a true democracy. It has no moral or social content. It is not concerned with the rights of the common man. Throughout history, capitalism has proven to be unable to give a convenient life to everyone. Despite the phenomenal profits that it made,

42 it mainly is good for the materialistic endeavours of those who already have. It takes power over the common man and abuses power. The rights of the workers have been taken to heart by the socialist movements and the demands of strikers, but their fight is difficult as rich and powerful right wing people repudiate socialists and try to destroy them, particularly in the United States. Now that we realize what capitalism really is, that it injures society and our environment, it is time to replace capitalism with an economic system that guarantees human dignity and respects Nature. The Earth is not a place for self-interest hailed by an amoral and immoral system called capitalism.

References and Readings

Economics on line: http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/index.html Corporation: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corporation.asp Enterprise: http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Business_economics/What_is_enterprise.ht ml Neoliberalism: http://www.globalresearch.ca/neoliberal-globalization-is-there- an-alternative-to-plundering-the-earth/24403 Welfare capitalism: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/welfare- capitalism.asp Nordic model: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/100714/nordic-model-pros- and-cons.asp Keynesian economics: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/keynesianeconomics.asp The financial system: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/financial- system.asp Collateralized debt obligations (CDOs): http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cdo.asp Credit default swaps (CDSs): http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/creditdefaultswap.asp Speculative bubbles: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/speculativebubble.asp European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF): http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/european-financial-stability- facility.asp?o=40186&l=dir&qsrc=999&qo=investopediaSiteSearch European Stability Mechanism (ESM): http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/european-financial-stablisation- mechanism.asp?o=40186&l=dir&qsrc=999&qo=investopediaSiteSearch&ap=inv estopedia.com The 2008 crisis: https://vimeo.com/3261363 Precariat or zero-hour contract jobs: http://socialistreview.org.uk/362/there- precariat Ghost cities: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2066897-how-technology- reveals-the-ghost-cities-in-china-and-the-west/ Locke's three absolute rights: http://www.iep.utm.edu/locke-po/ Rousseau's social contract: http://www.iep.utm.edu/rousseau/ UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights: http://www.un.org/en/universal- declaration-human-rights/

A mathematical model on the dynamics of the carrying capacity of Nature: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa- civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists Poaching: http://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/illegal-wildlife-trade John Rawls: 'A Theory of Justice': http://www.iep.utm.edu/rawls/ NAFTA: http://www.citizen.org/nafta TPP: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ttp-and-ttip-trade-agreements-a- dystopian-future-in-which-corporations-rather-than-elected-governments-call- the-shots/5447643 WTO: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-wto-has-impoverished-developing- countries/5494672 TTIP: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-transatlantic-trade-and-investment- partnership-ttip-would-abolish-europes-sovereignty-the-eu-would-become-a- us-colony/5417382 The Panama papers: https://panamapapers.icij.org/?utm_source=Watchdog&utm_campaign=25e261 6c6f- PP_database_coming_soon_4_26_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ffd1d 0160d-25e2616c6f-102192313&mc_cid=25e2616c6f&mc_eid=1dac69d48f Freedom of press: https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press- 2014/overview-essay#.VVTxSpMvcY1 Tax Justice Network: http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/Price_of_Offshore_Revisited_12072 2.pdf

Chapter 3

Social injury from alienation

“It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.” ― Karl Marx

Alienation by the industrial revolution has been thoroughly analysed by Karl Marx. In preindustrial societies saleable products were manufactured by craftsmen who made the whole product in their home. Personal effort was represented in each part of the whole. The craftsman perceived his/her product as part of the self, he/she was proud of his/her product, felt that he/she owned the product to sell it for own subsistence. Creation was an integral part of life. In the capitalist system production is organized according to the 'capitalist division of labour', which limits the task of each worker to a different part of the whole. Usually, each worker made his/her part repetitively without variation. As all parts were made simultaneously, the product was manufactured much faster, strongly increasing productivity. This was beneficial in providing essential goods at a low price to a rapidly developing society. However, the worker is rendered unskilled because he just repeats all the time the same actions. Doing so, the worker loses his dignity. Moreover, since the capitalist firm owns the means of production and 'buys' labour power from workers on a labour market, the capitalist entrepreneur reasoned and demanded that the manufactured materials and services are owned by him/her, not by the workers. This evolution broke the input of personal creativity of the workers and alienated workers from the products of their labour and the self.

The capitalist mode of production moved labour to factories, which broke the tradition of labour in familiar surroundings. The capitalist dictates the entity of the products primarily on the basis of what is expected to give the most profit and not on the basis of what is best for the workers and society. Competition between factories for the lowest wages alienated workers from each other in their joint struggle for equal labour rights and freedom.

Alienation is also observed between the consumers and those who make decisions and market the products, as they live far from each other, leading to a situation where products are not related to the real needs of society. It led to useless overconsumption.

This trend was strengthened by the increased fragmentation of time and by the growing fractionation of occupations and services, which hid the relative value and awareness of personal contributions. In addition, more and more people are alienated from the cities where they live. Housing becomes increasingly unaffordable unless one is rich.

All these changes shifted the focus of life from the natural need of self- realization, independence and social embeddedness to a feeling of being forced to senseless work, with no time left for reflection and for making proper choices. Over time, people get lost in an ever faster sequence of events and materialistic opportunities and loose hold to real values. The capitalist system destroys all forms of human relations based on personal bondage.

Chapter 4

Social injury from rising inequality

“We cannot have equilibrium in this world with the current inequality and destruction of Mother Earth. Capitalism is what is causing this problem and it needs to end” ― Evo Morales

Today, there is not only too much inequality in the World but, more importantly, it is increasing since the neoliberal period from the 1980s, and this despite the huge rise in overall wealth during that period. It is seen within countries and at many levels: GDP, income, private wealth, social protection by the state, return on capital, the wage system, employment, justice, opportunity, ethnicity, age and life expectancy. Inequality is also seen in the impact of climate change on people.

1. Inequality in Gross Domestic Product

Gross domestic product (GDP) represents the total dollar value of all goods and services produced by a country over a specific time period (usually one year). It is a measure of the size of the economy. Just looking at the GDP per capita, huge differences in economic potential exist between rich and poor countries, with the Democratic Republic of Congo displaying a 500 times lower GDP/capita than Monaco. In Monaco GDP/capita/year is now over $180,000, while it is less than $400 in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In Belgium it is $40,000/capita/year. This inequality is the consequence of unequal developmental rates and chances of countries, but in large part also effectuated by the nature of the capitalist system. During the period of colonialism, Western countries have exploited underdeveloped countries and have heavily enriched themselves.

2. Inequality in income

Economists have claimed that societies become more unequal in the first stages of industrialization, but that inequality disappears as societies achieve maturity. Later evidence showed that this developmental curve (called "Kuznets Curve") is false and that just the opposite occurs. Studies of Thomas Piketty, Anthony Atkinson, Joseph Stiglitz, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Oxfam and others, have found that in Western countries income inequality has been rising over the last 35 years. The top 10% richest and even more so the top 1 and 0.1% are sharing an ever increasing part of total yearly income. This is most pronounced in the United States, while of a considerably lower amplitude in Scandinavian countries. Income inequality is also seen now in the developing economies of India, China, the Russian Federation and South Africa. Joseph Stiglitz wrote in 'Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy': "Since the late 1970s, United States policymakers have tailored the rules to suit this old economic model. As a result, we have a tax system that raises insufficient revenue and encourages the pursuit of short-term gains over long-term investment; weak and unenforced regulation of corporations; a de facto public safety net for too-big-to-fail financial institutions; a dwindling support system for workers and families; and a reorientation of monetary and fiscal policy to promote wealth rather than full employment. Rather than strengthening the economy, these choices have led to lower growth, repeated downturns including the worst crisis since the Great Depression, the shrinking of the middle class and increased concentration of wealth at the top."

According to the OECD Facts book of 2014, the upper 10 % incomes have an income 5 times higher than the bottom 10% in Denmark, while the difference is 15 times in the United States and more than 25 times in Chile and Mexico. According to the World Data Atlas the 20% lowest income people in 2010 shared less than 3-10 % of total World income, while the top 20% shared between 34 and 62% of income. The rise in household income (corrected for household size and deflated by the consumer price index) during the neoliberal period was higher in the 10% top incomes than in the 10% bottom incomes. Between 1980 and the late 2000s, the top 10% of the population saw their household income increase with 4.5%/year in Australia, in the United States this increase was 1.5%/year. In Japan the increase was negligible. On the other hand, the bottom 10%

50 saw considerably less income increase or no increase at all. In the United States in 1979, the average income of the top 1% was 133 times that of the bottom 20%. In 2000 that top had an average income 189 times that of the bottom 20%. It has been shown that the 400 richest tax payers in the United States saw their average income increased 4 times and their taxes decreased with 37 % between 1992 and 2007. Among the Anglo-Saxon countries (United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada), the 1% richest shared 4.5-8% of total income in 1980, but this rose to 10-18% in 2008. Since the 2008 financial crisis there was a fall in disposable income in most OECD countries, but the fall was larger for low income than for high income people. In the United States the recovery from the 2008 crisis went for 95% to the top 1%. Who are the top 1%? In the United States executives, managers, supervisors, medical professionals and financial professionals make more than 60 % of the 1% rich.

Income inequality is also expressed in the Gini index or coefficient. The Gini index measures the extent to which the distribution of income among individuals or households within an economy deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. The higher the Gini coefficient, the higher the inequality. A Gini index of 0 represents perfect equality, while an index of 100% or 1 implies perfect inequality (all income goes to one person). In 17 out of 22 OECD countries, the Gini coefficient has been rising between mid- 1980s and 2008, while in only 2 countries it was decreasing and in 3 unchanged (Belgium, France, Hungary). In 2008, the Gini index was lowest (0.25) in Scandinavian countries and highest in the United States and Mexico (0.37 and 0.47).

Even more striking is the fact that salaries of senior management and bonuses become exceedingly disproportional. Thirty years ago the average real annual compensation of the top 100 chief executives was $1.3 million (39 times more than the average worker), while today it is $37.5 million (1,000 times more than the average worker). In 2014 the top 25 United States hedge fund managers earned more than $11 billion. The BG Group chief executive, Helge Lund, enjoys a £25 million pay package, JP Morgan's chief executive, Jamie Dimon, got a $7.4 million cash bonus “without compelling rationale” and Apple's Angela Ahrendts, the highest- paid woman in the United States, earned $82.6 million. The second-highest earning United States woman was Oracle’s Safra Catz, earning $71.2 million as chief financial officer. WPP’s chief executive Sir Martin Sorrell

51 was paid £43 million last year (£1.15 million as salary, increased by a £36 million long-term incentive plan bonus and a £3.6 million short-term bonus. Ben van Beurden at Royal Dutch Shell, received €24.2 million, Stuart Gulliver, the chief executive of HSBC bank, was paid £7.6 million, Sukawaty of the satellite company Inmarsat, received £3.8 million in 2014, up from £2.5 million in 2013, while the chief executive, Rupert Peace, received a pay rise of £2.3 million from £1.4 million, despite heavy protest from shareholders. The Royal Bank of Scotland paid 128 of its top bankers more than €1 million in 2014, despite its seventh consecutive year of losses since being bailed out by the taxpayer in 2008. The boss of Lloyds Banking Group got £11.5 million in pay and share bonuses. In the United States, Michael Farrell makes an annual salary of $3 million, augmented with a bonus amounting over $29 million, while Leslie Moonves, CEO of CBS, makes a bonus of $27.5 million. There are many more examples to mention. The claim that these salaries and bonuses were the result of “tremendous” performance is absolutely aberrant and totally false. It is a myth. It is an outrage that the great majority of shareholders in corporations agrees with the excessive salaries and bonuses and it shows the immorality that governs big business. In other words, capitalism is good for the capitalists but manifestly bad for ordinary people!

People who profit the most in the capitalist system are often people who do little or no actual work. People doing the most unattractive and heavy work, like toilet cleaning, often earn the lowest wage, while investing in financial instruments can return millions of dollars in a 10 second phone call to a bank or business.

3. Inequality in private wealth

Inequality is also rising in terms of total private wealth. As reported by the Guardian, Oxfam, the Los Angeles Times and Crédit Suisse, the 1% richest of today own about 50 % of total wealth in the World. According to the Boston Consulting Group, total global financial wealth (cash, deposits, funds and listed securities, held directly or indirectly through investment or life and pension assets and other assets, but excluding investors’ own business and real estate) is around $152 trillion. It grew by 14.6 percent in 2013. Credit Suisse Global Wealth Data book reports that global household wealth has more than doubled since 2000, reaching a new high of $241

52 trillion in 2013 and 263 trillion in mid-2014. It rose by 125% between end- 2000 and mid-2014, an average growth rate of 4.3% per annum. The growth was driven primarily by returns on existing assets. In 2013-14 total household wealth grew with $8.8 trillion (+11.9%) in the United States, $2.2 trillion (+19%) in United Kingdom, $1.3 trillion in France (+9.6%) and $275 billion (+12.2%) in Belgium. Total World real estate wealth is worth around $180 trillion, 72% of which is owner occupied residential property.

The total number of dollar millionaire households in the World rose from 13.7 million in 2012 to 16.3 million in 2013, representing 1.1% of all households globally. The population of 'High Net Worth Individuals' (HNWIs) in North America increased 11.5% in 2012 and 15.9% in 2013 to reach 4.3 million, followed closely by the Asia-Pacific region, while Europe’s HNWI population and wealth grew 12.5% and 13.7% respectively. Some 2 million new people joined the HNWI club in 2013. The dollar millionaires had a combined fortune of 41 trillion in 2014 in the United States alone.

The number of dollar billionaires in the World steeply increased as well, while the wealth of a typical common household lowered. The number of billionaires increased from 140 in 1987 to 1400 in 2013. A record of 1,826 billionaires was made in 2015, 181 more than in 2014 (11% rise), a net worth of $7.05 trillion. Of these billionaires, 536 reside in the United States, 213 in China, 103 in Germany and 90 in India. In the most recent report of Oxfam (January 2016 - exposed in the World Economic Forum in Davos), it was shown that the wealth of the less rich and poorest half of the World’s population has fallen by a trillion dollars since 2010, a drop of 41 % and that the 1% top would soon own more than the rest of the World. The wealth of the richest 62 has increased to $1.76 trillion (or $1760 billion). This is an astonishing level of inequality that can no longer be tolerated, particularly because it continuously becomes larger. Where will it end? In a society worse than that of the 19th century?

What about Belgium? The average Belgian household wealth (savings + investments + real estate + pension funds) is about 450,000 euro after deduction of debt. Belgium, together with Spain, are the two richest countries in the Euro zone that have an average wealth about 7 times above the yearly net income. Moreover, since 2000, average wealth in

Belgium has continued to rise, with only a small dip in 2008. In contrast, in the Netherlands and Italy, a much smaller increase in family wealth was observed over the same period.

4. Inequality in median wealth

When looking at the median wealth per adult (the value of wealth separating the higher half of a population from the lower half) in the Global Wealth Data Book 2014 of Crédit Suisse, differences among countries become even more astonishing: Belgium is the second richest country in the World (after Australia) with a score of median wealth of $172,947 per adult and with 60% of the adults owning between $100,000 and $1 million, while in the United States it is only $53,352 with 33% of people in the $100,000-1 million category. Compare this with India: the median wealth per adult is $1006.

Crédit Suisse also compared many countries and categorized them in terms of very high, high, medium and low inequality in household wealth on the basis of the share of the top decile >70%, >60%, >50% and <50%, respectively. In 2014 the United States, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Peru, Philippines, Russia, South-Africa, Thailand and Turkey had the highest, while Belgium and Japan had the lowest wealth inequality. Thus, while Belgium is the second richest country in terms of median household wealth, it is the lowest in terms of inequality.

It is often said that the skew wealth distribution is the consequence of the intrinsic characteristics in the free market. This is a myth as the free market shows the same basic characteristics in Europe and the United States, but the wealth inequality is much higher in the United States.

5. The ratio of capital over income

Another parameter of unequal enrichment is seen in the ratio of private capital over income and the ratio of return on capital over economic growth (GDP). According to Piketty, an economy where the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of economic growth (r>g), inherited wealth will

54 always grow faster than earned wealth. Return on private capital is 6-8%, while economic growth (GDP) is now between 0 and 2% in Western countries. The capital/income ratio was high in the 19th century and dropped after World War I. War destroyed a lot of capital, but many countries also adopted policies with heavy marginal taxes (up to 90% for the highest bracket) and other equalization measures. Under these high tax regimes, economies prospered. However, the private capital/income ratio steadily increased again after 1970, from about 200–300% in 1970 to 400–600% in 2010 (see Picketti & Zuckman *).

6. Better protection of the rich

The ratio of private income over state income also increased during the neoliberal period. That the private sector became much richer than the state is bad for society. Private capital accumulation results in concentrations of power in big corporations. For the benefit of own profit, these corporations got increasing power over crucial sectors, including governments. Particularly in the United States big money is donated by multi-millionaires and billionaires with the aim of getting favours from political candidates as soon as they are elected. There are only two parties in the United States, one representing the right and far right and the other the centre right, an ideal structure to build a plutocracy. The enormous concentration of wealth with a very small number of people will soon be inherited by family members, keeping those families extremely rich, even though they have no merit whatsoever for having built up that wealth. This may evolve to a rentiers system with power based on familial dynasties. That situation is a moral outrage in view of the fact that a billion people suffer from hunger every day and almost 200 million people in the World have no job. This situation is unjust and strongly offends the natural sense of justice in society.

At present, return on capital of wealth above $1 million is expected to be at least 7.7% per year, whereas only a 3.7% per year rise is expected for wealth below $1 million. Money on a savings account of the common man gives <0.1% return (June 2016). The value of luxury residential property around the World rose by just over 2% on average in 2014, but New York's luxury property market showed a 18.8% rise, followed by Bali, Istanbul and Abu Dhabi (14.7- 16%), San Francisco, Dublin, Cape Town and Los

Angeles (13.2-14.3%). Buildings protected on the basis that the owner organizes non-profit residential care also saw this protection lifted by money. In New York City, the Department of Citywide Administrative Services was paid $16.15 million in November 2015 by the building owner to lift those protections and the building was then sold with high profit to a private investor who established private condominiums, chasing people to another place for care. Inequality has also grown dramatically between large corporations and small businesses. Corporations in the United States are now dominating finance and the government is at their service, establishing a real crony capitalism and a plutocracy and creating even more income and asset-based inequality.

7. Rising poverty

Concentration of wealth and rising inequality leads to more poverty. The rich oppose rising taxes as they prefer to build up their capital that is inherited with minimal tax by their children. Lowering taxation weakens the power of the state as it makes revenues insufficient for the protection of the least well-off. As already said earlier, history has shown that government can impose high taxation rates with success for the prosperity of the entire population. The best example is the President F.D. Roosevelt 'New Deal' in the United States, installed in the realm of the Great Depression of the 1930s. Unfortunately, today we are far away from that situation, due to the increasing power of big business over the state.

Although poverty was declining over the last 30 years in poor and developing countries, in OECD countries the relative poverty rate (proportion of people below a level of income set at 50% of the median household income) increased between the mid-1980s and the mid-2000s, ranging between 5% (Czech Republic) and 21% (Israel) in 2010. Belgium had a relative poverty rate of 9%. According to the Census Bureau in the United States – the most powerful nation in the World – 46 million Americans (15% of the population) lived below the poverty line after the 2008 crisis. Poverty rates, however, are much larger in subgroups of the population. In the United States in 2010, 27.4 percent of blacks and 26.6 percent of Hispanics were poor, compared to 9.9 percent of non-Hispanic whites and 12.1 percent of Asians. In Belgium, the chance to become poor

56 is double as high in Wallonia than in Flanders and around 45% in the Brussels region, where many immigrants live.

8. Increasing productivity but stagnating wages

Inequality is also detectable when comparing the growth rate of labour productivity (worker output per hour) with that of wages. According to the Global Wage Report 2014-2015, labour productivity has significantly increased during the last 25 years, but it is contrasted by a significantly lower increase in wages, which is in outrageous contrast to the salaries of high rank employees that increased tremendously. Thus, increased wealth does not result in increased wages. In the United States the median family income actually decreased by 7% between 2000 and 2013. Wages stagnated since the 2008 crisis, while productivity continued to rise after only a small dip in 2009. That those who perform the labour for the capitalist elite proportionally get far less of the profit is blatantly unfair and even damages economy, since lower wages lead to social dissatisfaction and lower purchasing power.

In France there was an enormous protest developing in May 2016 against a new law that aims the liberalization of the labour market and easier dismissal procedures for the employer, a law that was even not discussed in the parliament. Strong police reactions were seen against protesting citizens, who fear lower wages and easier dismissals.

9. Rising unemployment

Despite the rising economic productivity, employment went down, particularly among young, less educated people and migrants. An unemployed person is defined as someone who does not have a job but is actively seeking work. More than 200 million people in the World had no job in 2014. In about half of the OECD countries, the fraction of people in long term unemployment was reported to be between 35% and 64% of totally unemployed people, indicating that labour markets are operating inefficiently. Moreover, highly skilled workers have had to move into lower skilled jobs. Especially young women and people with coloured skin are disproportionately affected by unemployment across all regions of the

World. In the United States fewer people of prime working age are in the labour force since the 2008 crisis. It is a shame when this is compared with the enormous wealth that exists in the 1% rich population. Interestingly, in 2012, Belgium was the 3d country in the European Union (after Spain and Greece) with the highest unemployment rate for non-European Union citizens (22% vs. 6% for native Belgians), which is in great contrast to the fact that Belgium is one of the richest countries in Europe.

Youth unemployment is below 10% in Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Norway, The Netherlands and Austria, but it is above 50% in Bosnia- Herzegovina, Greece, Kosovo, Macedonia, Spain, South-Africa and Serbia. In Belgium youth unemployment is 20%, but in Molenbeek, Brussels, some 30 % of youngsters, mostly Muslims, are on long term unemployment or stopped looking for a job by despair. The latter are even not included in the statistics. Almost 74 million young people, aged 15–24, were looking for a job in 2014. Youth unemployment is becoming a serious problem in many countries. It is 3 times higher than adult unemployment and leads to economic losses due to less productivity and higher costs for dependency on the social security system. In many countries youngsters now live with their parents into their late twenties. It also has long term consequences such as a lower wage or salary during the following 20 years. Those who experienced unemployment early in their life are more likely to be unemployed again in later years.

10. Inequality of opportunity

It has been shown that the environment in which a person develops has a large influence on the cultural resources that a person will have. Therefore, economic inequality has led to inequality in opportunity among social classes, ethnicity and gender and a decline in intergenerational mobility, i.e. the ability of someone to ascend to a higher income group based on education and hard work. Basic needs, such as education, housing and health care are becoming more and more expensive.

People born in rich households can study without restriction, while middle-class students have to lend money or do jobs to pay their studies. In the United States over 93% of people starting out in the bottom income group did not ascend to more than the middle-income group over 10 years,

58 whereas 80% of those starting in the top income group remained there or just underneath it after 10 years. A study of Earl Wysong of Indiana University showed that some 70% of the sons in 1998 had remained either at the same social level or were doing worse than their fathers in 1979, while affluent sons were moving upwards more often than their fathers had. Scholars in the Economic Policy Institute, the American University in Washington, DC, the Bureau of Labour Statistics and the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston also concluded that social mobility has declined since the 1970s. The "American Dream" has crumbled. Tuition fees for college education in the United States increased 500% since 1985, while during the same period of time the median household income in the United States has only risen from $47,181 in 1984 to $53,891 in 2014. The consequence was a steep increase in student loans (1.2 trillion in 2014 with 7 million borrowers now in default). Only a few European universities do not charge any tuition fee (Germany, Sweden, Norway and France). Discrimination on the basis of gender, ethnicity, colour or nationality is still large and negatively affects opportunity for education and jobs. The high unemployment rate among migrant and minority youth in Europe is even more disconcerting: migrants from non-European Union member states, refugees and asylum seekers, Muslims - and especially Muslim women -, Roma, people of African descent and Black people and all women with a minority or migrant background, all suffer from discrimination. Belgium has a very bad score of discrimination of minority groups. Inequality also led to the expansion of the 'underclass' and its segregation from the 'creative class'. There is no economic, social and cultural capital present in the underclass, making future improvements very difficult.

11. Inequality in life expectancy

A study in the United States showed that life expectancy is positively correlated with income and that this correlation is much stronger than one generation ago. At a median income of $20,000, average life expectancy in 2010 was 65-72 years (both sexes average), while at a median income of $80,000, it was 75-80 years. Importantly, inequality of life expectancy between rich and poor people is also manifest today in certain regions in Belgium.

12. Inequality in justice

Over the last 30 years, a clear cut inequality in justice developed in the United States. Justice is not for all, but only for those who can afford it. The rich have access to justice, but the middle class and the poor have far less or nothing at all, as they cannot afford the cost. Equality in justice is a central element in the Declaration of Fundamental Rights, but the United States performs very weakly in this respect. United States jails are overwhelmingly filled with poor people and people of colour. Two-thirds of African-American men with low levels of schooling will go to prison during their lifetimes. Most inmates are minority men under age 40 who suffered the most of rising inequality over the last 30 years. It’s simple: people without education, jobs, housing, or hope get involved in crimes and cannot pay legal assistance. Often poor people suffer the prejudices from the well-off, who clear their conscience by saying that criminal behaviour is always the fault of the criminal. Moreover, experts conclude that national crime policies adopted harsher, but not more effective punishments. The ‘War on drugs’ worsened the situation. The increasingly crime-conscious 1980s in the United States were aimed at making sentencing fairer and streets safer, but these aims were not at all met. Mandatory sentencing was introduced for various crimes and parole was eliminated for some cases. Inmates are often mentally ill or drug-addicted. Most who leave prison return to poverty and live surrounded by violence and getting a job is quite difficult with a criminal record.

That situation is similar in Belgium. Old prison buildings, overpopulation, poignant living conditions, and lack of basic services and health care have already generated legal convictions by the European human rights control system. No wonder why a large part of inmates returns to prison after their first release. The main cause is insufficient funding by the state, already for decades.

13. Inequality in scientific research

Even science and knowledge are marketed today. A comment in 'The Independent' (12 May 2015) reads as follows: "Most great inventions did not benefit the direct inventor, but only the capitalist company that developed the invention. And most great advances in technology, social

60 welfare, productivity and health were found and developed by state funding, with businesses moving into the game only once the returns were in clear sight." The state and private companies invest considerably more money in biotechnology than in Human Sciences. The tenet is that science must generate money. Marketing of science is rationalized on the reasoning that when the tax payer invests money in research, it needs to be shown that it is to the benefit of the population. That is reasonable, but it cannot become the primary motivation. The danger is that pursuit for immediate return becomes more important than the science itself. For example, genetically modified organisms are imposed in large scale agricultural enterprises without there is a real need for it and with little respect for local farmers or local agriculture. Scientists from renowned laboratories get more grants and chances than scientists whose interest is in less promising but otherwise good laboratories.

The profit incentive also directs the subject of research. Scientists are often pressured to application-oriented topics. To be accepted in prestigious departments, scientists are expected to acquire patents, endangering the freedom of research. Basic research tends to be proportionally in decline as a consequence of the profit incentive. Respect for knowledge as a value in a civilized society is subordinated to the capitalist pursuit of profit seeking. In general, young scientists are unhappy with that evolution. The subordination of knowledge acquisition is one of the most dangerous evolutions in the present scientific community, as it strongly undermines unconstrained curiosity of human nature. It also is considered as an incentive to increasing scientific misconduct in biosciences. University authorities do little to reverse this evolution because they also have an eye on the profit.

14. Inequality in climate change impacts

Climate change has the largest negative impact on Nature in tropical and subtropical countries, as a consequence of higher temperatures and droughts in those regions, and in coastal areas as a consequence of sea level rise. This poses unequal burdens to people. Industrialized countries in the Northern hemisphere, are the ones responsible for the environmental damage, as rise in CO2 and warming produced in that region of the World spreads over the whole Planet. It leads to

‘environmental discrimination’ and climate inequality. In addition, among these populations the richer people are the most polluting as a consequence of their larger consumption. But even in developed countries, citizens in certain areas are discriminated because public services have been less developed in the regions where they live. Moreover, poorer people have a cheaper car or have no car at all, which exposes them more to the danger of accidents on the road. Inequity may become flashpoints for conflicts and disasters.

15. Underlying mechanisms and consequences

During the post-World War II period (1945-1960s), the state was focusing on the welfare of the citizen, both in the United States and in Europe. Countries raised marginal taxes up to 90% for the highest income bracket. But, from the 1970s onwards, the neoliberal economic ‘theory’ elaborated by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman and politically established by Pinochet, Thatcher and Reagan, preached economic liberalization in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy and to reduce economic regulations by the state. The financial system and the markets were deregulated by reducing the rules that limit who can enter a business (entry controls) and what prices they may charge. Public services were downsized and privatized. Marginal taxation was reduced, tax privileges were given to multinationals and fiscal experts provided their services for tax evasion, tax avoidance, moving capital to tax havens and making ownership hidden behind shell companies. Globalization of free trade led to several free Trade Agreements, such as NAFTA, TPP and WTO, which were criticized of not taking into account important social and environmental considerations (externalities). The neoliberal doctrine was misleading and let people believe that globalization of the market and technological progress made increasing inequality inevitable and that not redistribution of wealth but the adoption of new rules allowing more income to those at the top, drive the economy. It was also pretended that a "trickle down" mechanism from the top to the bottom would improve prosperity for all. Today all this has been shown to be false. It was a myth. Increased liberalization of markets was good only for the top 1%, but bad for the majority. The word 'equality' was removed from the dictionaries of neoliberalism and morality was swept aside.

In a recent study at Oxford University and the London School of Economics, it has been shown that the richer the top of society gets, the unhappier the rest of the population. If inequality rises in the advantage of the top 1%, the 99% people appear to feel more anxious, stressed and angrier. A higher position on the social ladder becomes also more difficult to reach. That often manifests itself in increasingly expensive luxury goods, making it more difficult for the middle class to get social ties for kids or to buy a house in a nice neighbourhood or in the neighbourhood of good schools.

Dissatisfaction of the large majority in society will lead to less economic performance and ultimately activate social unrest. Regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria and Yemen, ruled by dictators, witnessed protests led by young people, who were angry with the privileges of the rich. Since 2008 riots and protests against the rich elites were also seen in European cities (Spain, France, United Kingdom and Germany), in North American cities and in Singapore. But the rich maintain their indifference.

It has been shown that rising inequality negatively correlates with economic growth (GDP/person) and that in countries where inequality is diminishing economic growth rises again. On the other hand, more income inequality can lead to reduced overall consumption at any given level of national income, reducing overall demand and, thus, economic expansion. Thus, in the end, inequality is bad for the economy and the rich will eventually also suffer, as they will no longer find the necessary workers in their neighbourhood.

References and Readings

Oxfam: https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/bp210- economy-one-percent-tax-havens-180116-en_0.pdf Crédit Suisse: https://www.credit-suisse.com/nl/en/about- us/research/research-institute/news-and-videos/articles/news-and- expertise/2015/10/en/global-wealth-in-2015-underlying-trends-remain- positive.html Inequality in GDP: http://voxeu.org/article/effects-income-inequality-economic- growth Inequality in income: http://www.bloombergview.com/quicktake/income- inequality and https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf Inequality in wealth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWSxzjyMNpU * Picketti & Zuckman, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2014, 129:3, 1255 http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/PikettyZucman2014QJE.pdf Racial inequality: http://inequality.org/racial-inequality/ and http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2015/03/26/the-racial-wealth- gap-why-a-typical-white-household-has-16-times-the-wealth-of-a-black- one/#70552e326c5b Crony capitalism: http://www.globalresearch.ca/crony-capitalism-empire-and- americas-military-industrial-complex/5410615 Plutocracy: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-global-plutocracy/5365647 Poverty: http://www.globalissues.org/issue/2/causes-of-poverty Stagnating wages: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21650086- salaries-rich-countries-are-stagnating-even-growth-returns-and-politicians-are- paying Unemployment: http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-unemployment-a-bleak- ilo-unemployment-report-and-even-bleaker-projections/5502532 International Labour Organization (ILO) Global Wage Report 2014/15: http://www.ilo.org/global/research/global-reports/global-wage- report/2014/lang--en/index.htm Youth unemployment: http://world.bymap.org/UnemploymentRatesYouth.html Inequality in opportunity: http://www.poverty.ac.uk/inequality-international- comparisons-reports-social-mobility/inequality-opportunity-%E2%80%93- international Inequality in justice: http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016- 03-01/the-costs-of-inequality-goal-is-justice-but-reality-is-unfairness

Chapter 5

Social injury from violence

“This world is full of suffering, distress, violence and catastrophes. Students must decide: does something concern you or not? I say: look around, analyse the problems, ask yourself what you can do and set out on the work!” - Noam Chomsky

Despite enormous progress in knowledge and technology in Western countries, society suffers from increasing violence and intolerance, caused by the continuous threat of nuclear bombs, extreme terrorist attacks, counterterrorism and police violence, all inducing fear and long term negative effects on social cohesion and safety feeling. Furthermore, the role of knowledge in society becomes more difficult to observe and it becomes more difficult to explain to the common man, enhancing its alienation. Indifference and belief in irrational truths are the consequence. Violence is a symptom of maintenance and expansion of power in an unsafe World, resulting in authoritarianism by those in power.

1. Nuclear threat

After two nuclear bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States in August 1945, which killed more than 200,000 civilians, and the many nuclear incidents afterwards, it is a miracle that a nuclear disaster has been avoided so far. The ethics of using nuclear bombs against Japan has been heavily contested. The United States army claimed that, if the bombs had not been used, it would have costed many more lives if the country had preferred to invade Japan. Today, most critics argue that dropping nuclear bombs was an immoral act, as the destructive power of a nuclear bomb was well known at that time and was targeting mainly civilians, while the military necessity was not evident. In 1967, Noam Chomsky described the atomic bombings as "among the most unspeakable crimes in history". Especially the second nuclear bomb (on Nagasaki) was

65 unnecessary. It was used to test the proper functioning of a Plutonium bomb on a non-destroyed city. As a matter of fact, massive conventional bombing of Japanese cities had already led to a higher number of civilian deaths. Furthermore, there was a very effective sea blockade of Japan, depriving the population of food and materials. Both these actions would have led at least to a Japanese conditional surrender. Moreover, around the same time the Soviet Union launched a surprise attack with 1.6 million troops against the Kwantung Army in Manchuria, which, according to Japanese historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, would have turned down any hope of Japan to negotiate a conditional surrender. Why then the United States dropped the nuclear bombs? Possibly, it was in part the expression of racism against the Japanese people. Americans regarded the Japanese as "a nameless mass of vermin", unhuman like monkeys. Moreover, the United States and United Kingdom wanted an unconditional surrender and used the atomic bombs mainly as a psychological weapon. Strictly spoken, it was state terrorism. Thus, the use of atomic bombs was not legitimate. Remarkably, for 22 years the American public was restrained from any documentary movies that had been made on the civil suffering in Japan after the bombing.

After World War II the United States wanted to keep nuclear weapons as a monopoly to dominate the World. The United States brought Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to court for passing information about nuclear bomb data to the Soviet Union. Since there was not enough evidence to convict them on espionage, they were convicted for 'conspiracy to commit espionage'. The Rosenbergs were executed on the electric chair on June 19, 1953, despite an international movement demanding clemency and appeals to President Eisenhower by leading European intellectuals and the Pope. This was during the early Cold War, the peak of the Korean War and the McCarthy communist witch-hunt in the United States. In contrast, 9 other American spies of that time period were only sentenced to prison. Klaus Fuchs, a German refugee in the United Kingdom, who delivered much more details of the bomb to the Soviets, was only 9 years in prison. In several cases original testimonies or confessions later on turned out to be fabricated. Importantly, there was a movement among nuclear scientists to share nuclear information with the World scientific community, as one way to prevent nuclear war, but that effort was thwarted by the United States government. Other scientists were passionate communists, which was not illegal. But, the United States judged communism was evil. Because

66 they were so powerful, their opinion, even when wrong, was setting the rule.

The Soviet Union tested its first atomic bomb in 1949, igniting the nuclear arms race. During the Cold War the United States alone produced over 70,000 nuclear weapons (rewarding big business with tax money!). That number has been significantly reduced today, but the Federation of American Scientists estimates that, as of 2012, there were still more than 17,000 nuclear warheads worldwide, with around 4,300 of them considered "operational" (ready for immediate use). These bombs can destroy the whole World hundreds of times, inevitably leading to the end of civilization and entailing those who survive in unimaginable suffering during the nuclear winter until death. Their existence is therefore of no military strategic value per se. As a matter of fact, even their limited use would be a war crime, as the destructive power on civilians is by no means defendable. Although nuclear weapons may have a deterrence effect and therefore may avoid a nuclear conflict, there is no guarantee that they would never be used in critical circumstances.

The nuclear threat can only be averted when all nuclear weapons are dismantled. To mitigate the threat of nuclear war a Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed by 191 states, but not by India and Pakistan, while Israel and North Korea withdrew from the Treaty in 2003. India, Pakistan and North-Korea officially have nuclear weapons and Israel probably has them in secrecy. NPT is an international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, disarmament of nuclear weapons and the peaceful use of nuclear materials. Five states are accepted to have nuclear weapons but signed not to provide them to others: the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, China and France. Nevertheless, the United States provided nuclear weapons for storage to Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey under NATO agreement, which is violating the NPT but the United States argues that it did not give control over the weapons. NPT Article I says: Each nuclear-weapons state (NWS) undertakes not to transfer, to any recipient, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices. Article II says: Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices. By accepting the bombs the receiving countries are complicit with the weapon producer (the United States). The United States, the first country that made and used nuclear bombs, should

67 give the good example and not use double standards. The recent decision (early 2016) that President Obama is pursuing a trillion dollar plan to rebuild all three legs of the triad (strategic bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles) and their supporting infrastructure over the next 30 years is not an example. To make the plan more acceptable, smaller bombs will be produced, but these small tactical weapons have a lower deterrence potential and this is exactly what will enhance the threat of a life-destroying nuclear catastrophe. Russia and other countries will follow. Russia is already developing a drone submarine that can deliver a nuclear warhead or a dirty bomb (targeting electronics) at the United States coast. The nuclear arms race has restarted! In fact it never ended.

Of extremely high concern is that a nuclear incident could be the consequence of an accident, a false alarm or a misinterpretation. The World already experienced near-nuclear weapon use incidents due to conflict, miscalculation or error more than 10 times. According to Eric Schlosser, there were at least 700 accidents related to nuclear weapons between 1950 and 1968 alone. Nine near-nuclear weapon use incidences occurred during the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States. There is evidence that Israel considered nuclear bomb use during the early days of the 1973 Yom Kippur war, but Golda Meir rejected the proposal. Two near-nuclear use incidents occurred between India and Pakistan. During the Korean War (1950-1954), the United States, who supported South Korea against North-Korea, considered several times to use nuclear bombs and sent B-29 bombers with nuclear weapons for an eventual attack.

Less serious, but still dangerous incidents, were experienced as a consequence of the sloppiness of state leaders. In May 1981, President Mitterrand, accidentally left the launch codes of nuclear missiles given to him by his predecessor in his suit. A similar incident happened to President Jimmy Carter, whose suit went to the dry cleaner. Nuclear safety and security people and top-level military personnel have also occasionally been sloppy, which is not surprising when one realizes that between 1975 and 1977, 120,000 members of the United States military had direct contact with nuclear weapons and a significant proportion of this personnel had been found on drugs, making them less reliable. There have been numerous crashes of air planes carrying nuclear bombs, although

68 without nuclear explosion, many resulting in contaminations of land and sea. There have been accidents in nuclear submarines and ships as well, of which one resulted in a near-meltdown of the reactor.

The most immediate threat to global security is the use of atomic weapons by terrorists, especially the terrorists that operate today. They are extremely radicalized and carry out suicide attacks in various countries in the Middle-East as well as in major cities of the West. Countries are not prepared for these attacks. Nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel stock facilities are not built to resist attacks by air. Nuclear material can be stolen and dirty bombs can be prepared by attackers. There have been 18 incidences of thefts or loss of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium. Chechen terrorists have used dirty bombs, which spread radioactive material from a regular bomb. British intelligence officers believe that al-Qaeda seeks to attack the United Kingdom with a nuclear weapon. In 1998 a group of workers at one of Russia’s largest nuclear weapons facilities attempted to steal 18.5 kg of HEU, enough for fabricating a dirty bomb. In February 2006, Oleg Khinsagov of Russia was arrested in Georgia, with 79.5 grams of HEU. Russia is particularly vulnerable to theft, as it has the World’s largest nuclear stockpiles in the World’s largest number of buildings and bunkers. It is plagued by corruption, which would facilitate illicit traffic. Today anyone in Russia with enough money can buy a nuclear bomb. Sabotage of nuclear power plants has also been reported several times in the United States and other countries, including Belgium. In 2010, six unarmed anti-nuclear activists in Belgium easily entered Kleine Brogel Air Base, which stores United States nuclear warheads, clearly demonstrating that theft of nuclear material is feasible. Most frightening is a recent report that Islamic State (IS) has the capability and resources to acquire nuclear weapons within the year, possibly from corrupt circuits in Pakistan. Pakistan covertly developed nuclear weapons since the late 1970s with equipment and materials supplied by Western countries in the early 1970s. In 2004 A.Q. Khan, a key figure in Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, confessed heading an international black market involved in selling nuclear weapons technology to North Korea, Iran and Libya. Any country that possesses a stockpile of separated plutonium, used for peaceful application (e.g. Japan, Iran), could fabricate these weapons relatively quickly (nuclear proliferation). The 1981 bombing of Iraq by the United States, aimed to destroy presumed nuclear installations, did not prevent but actually

69 initiated the nuclear weapon race in the region. The Iraq war was legitimized by the United States and United Kingdom on the false grounds of the presence of nuclear weapons in Iraq.

It looks as if the ‘invisible hand’ of God has protected humanity, but that is, for sure, not the case. It is pure luck that a nuclear catastrophe did not occur yet, but statistics has learned that there is a day for which just luck can no longer be invoked and that will be the day of human self- destruction. If nuclear weapons are not completely banned on the Planet, such a day will come.

2. Extreme terrorist attacks and counterterrorism

Terrorism are violent acts, perpetrated to reach an economic, religious, political or ideological goal, which deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians). A broad array of political organizations and sometimes the state have practiced terrorism to obtain their goals. The capitalist myth of limitlessness nourished an attitude of superiority towards other cultures, leading to exploitation of land belonging to others without a fair return was granted to the local population. Ethnic discrimination and the hunt for power, especially over oil, initiated unjustified wars, which increasingly evoked terrorist violence in return. This state terrorism has initiated the development of the self-proclaimed Islamic State in Iraq, Syria and Libya.

Terrorism is not a novel phenomenon. Earlier examples are: the Jacobin Club during the "Reign of Terror" during the French Revolution, the Irish Republican Brotherhood, the Kuk Klux Klan in the United States, terrorist acts in Russia during Stalin, the terrorist actions in Ireland, Kenya, Algeria and Cyprus during their independence struggles, the Palestinian airplane hijackings in 1970, the South Moluccan hostage crisis in the Netherlands in 1975, the 9/11 attacks by al-Qaeda, ETA in Spain, the Shining Path in Peru, the Kurdistan Workers Party, the Palestine Liberation Organization, the ANC in South Africa and the 2002 Bali bombing.

The number of terrorist attacks has been rising exponentially since the meddling of Western countries in the Middle-East and North-Africa. There were 189 attacks in 2000, often suicide attacks, in which the terrorist kills

70 also himself in the attack. In 2014 the number had risen to over 370. Attacks have recently been deployed in Western-Europe (for example, the Paris terrorist attack in November 2015 and the two Brussels attacks in 2016) and in the United States (the most recent attack against a gay nightclub in Orlando, FD, in June 2016, making 49 deaths and 53 wounded, by a security guard claiming to act for Islamic State). The causes can be found in the continuous occupation and imperialism of the West in Muslim countries and racism, discrimination, poverty, youth unemployment and lack of public respect for Muslim migrants within Western countries. Increasing repression, increasing violence, increasing stigmatization of innocent communities offer no solution, on the contrary. Today, terrorists utilize the internet or social media for communication among each other and for making propaganda videos (published on YouTube). Financing comes from states, such as Saudi-Arabia, other Gulf States, Iran and Russia, kidnapping for ransoms, smuggling, fraud and robbery.

Violence can also be connived in order to legitimize government support for the weapon industry.

To deal with hidden enemies (terrorists), governments, army and police developed various strategies, known as counterterrorism. This includes enforcing standard police and domestic intelligence agencies, interception of telephone and email communications, tracing of persons and mass surveillance. Counterterrorist action has led to abuses of power and violations of human rights by the state. Among these human rights violations is the Extraordinary Rendition Program from the CIA. It is a United States government-sponsored abduction and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one country to another with the aim to subject this person to special interrogations, generally considered to be a form of torture (sleep deprivation, waterboarding, exposure to strong sounds and isolation over long periods). The United Nations consider this program a crime against humanity and a violation of international law. Extraordinary Rendition is, in fact, an action of state sponsored terrorism. In July 2014 the European Court of Human Rights condemned the government of Poland for participating in CIA extraordinary rendition, ordering Poland to pay restitution to men who had been abducted and taken to a CIA black site in Poland for torture. Fifty four countries have been involved with such activities. Extraordinary Rendition occurred under the Presidents Reagan and Clinton and was intensified under President G.W. Bush. It continued

71 with reduced frequency during the Obama administration, when most of those persons have been conventionally interrogated and subsequently taken to the United States for trial.

United Kingdom government agencies spied on Amnesty International by intercepting, accessing and storing its communications. The National Security Agency (NSA) was spying on millions of innocent American phone calls and emails. Many of these measures were unconstitutional, giving the government and military more power over 'unwanted' citizens. The CIA is expanding its counterterrorism programs in Yemen, Somalia and North Africa. That new order is also made in an attempt to legitimize Western domination over the rest of the World, especially over Muslims. There is a terrorist list, but who decides who will be on or off that list? Not the judges but a small group of security agents and the government. But what have these measures brought? Arresting thousands of people suspected of terrorist action and incarcerating them in Guantanamo base and Abu Ghraib prison (west of Baghdad's city centre).

What do states persistently do to preserve peace? Use violence to oppress the 'terrorists'. They create terrorism themselves. And the weapons they use are used illegitimately. Someone giving legal advice to a terrorist is now considered a criminal himself and has all chances to be judged on insufficient grounds. Governments should give examples, but they increasingly use weapons to impose their power and suppress presumptive enemies. And far more seriously, they make the necessary laws to impose their unfounded judgments.

3. Police violence

Police has the duty to protect civilians. This is not always the case and brutality by police has been increasing, particularly in the United States. Police brutality includes different abuses such as false arrest, intimidation, racial profiling, political repression, surveillance abuse and sexual abuse. Although the prevalence of police-citizen conflict has diminished in recent decades, use of excessive force by police against subpopulations is a rising concern. In the United States police repression is preferentially directed against people with a coloured skin. Three times more blacks were killed than white people and 1/3 of these blacks were unarmed, compared to

18% of white victims. In Oklahoma the difference is 6 times more blacks killed per 1 million civilians. Only 2 out of 168 killings resulted in officers being charged with a crime. In Baltimore a case has been reported of a police officer punching a black man who did not do anything wrong. His girlfriend tried to stop the officer, but the other officers did not do anything. In Ferguson, Mo., the fatal shooting of teenager Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson caused heavy protests, which was further incited after Officer Wilson was not indicted by a grand jury. Various reports are known of handcuffed teenagers beaten with guns, unarmed people shot and killed in their cars, cops firing guns carelessly into busy streets, an officer shooting and killing a 12-year-old African-American boy for waving a toy gun on a playground and mentally ill people tasered in ambulances. At least 15 reasons are given by the Department of Justice of Cleveland why this excessive brutality occurs and it looks very deeply rooted. Also women are victims of police violence. Allegations of the use of excessive force by United States police continue more than two decades after the 1992 Los Angeles riots brought the issue to mass public attention. On top of all this, the World has been shaken by two killing incidents of several police officers, one shooting being in Dallas, TX on July, 8, 2016 and another in Baton-rouge, LA on July, 18, 2016. Both incidents were revenge attacks for the killing of young blacks by the police.

Also in Europe and other countries police repression increases, particularly against Muslims.

Conclusion: What is the explanation of all this violence? The answer lies in the behaviour of the wealthy elites. At the geopolitical level, the United States is the wealthiest, the most unequal and also the most aggressive. The country does not tolerate any weakening of its power and wants to remain the ruler of the World, using democracy as its shield. To find a justification of violence, there is the mala fide attitude that first an enemy is created, then declared a terrorist and then the country is attacked to kill the terrorists. At the societal level, the answer is the unequal distribution of wealth and the status quo of the capitalist elite that exploits those who don’t have. If the difference in wealth is large enough and if the capitalist elite moreover is getting privileges, it causes dissatisfaction and envy, leading to aggression and violence. Unequal distribution of wealth is the

73 basis of capitalism and it requires force (the police) to sustain it. More egalitarian and tolerant societies experience far less violence and crime.

References and Readings

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): http://www.oecd.org/ Federation of American Scientists: https://fas.org/ Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): http://fas.org/nuke/control/npt/ Kleine Brogel Air Base: http://www.worldlibrary.org/articles/kleine_brogel_air_base List of non-state terrorist incidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_non- state_terrorist_incidents and http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/home/chatham/publ ic_html/sites/default/files/20140428TooCloseforComfortNuclearUseLewisWilli amsPelopidasAghlani.pdf Police brutality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_brutality and http://www.salon.com/2014/12/20/15_reasons_americas_police_are_so_brutal _partner/

Chapter 6

Capitalism and War

“Le capitalisme porte en lui la guerre comme les nuages portent la pluie“ “Capitalism carries within itself war the way clouds carry rain” ― Jean Jaurès

In July 1957, following a failed coup by the CIA in Syria, Senator John F. Kennedy, enraged the Eisenhower administration and the European allies with a speech in favour of the right of self-governance in the Arab World and other colonies. The speech reminded the pledges the United States and the United Kingdom made in 1941 in the Atlantic Charter, in which both states committed to supporting the restoration of self-governments for all countries that had been occupied during World War II and allowing all peoples to choose their own form of government. These commitments were not met, but the United Nations General Assembly, more than 20 years later, ascertained the Charter by the declaration that "all peoples had the right to self-determination and that inadequacy of political, economic, social, or educational preparedness should never be a pretext for delaying their independence".

Unfortunately, these texts could not prevent that the CIA and the United States government, driven by anti-communist politics and control over oil, were negatively interfering with the will of the local governments in Latin- America, South-East Asia, Indonesia and the Arab World. It originated violence and many wars, none of which were legitimate. These wars were 'proxy wars', i.e. wars instigated by major powers that do not themselves become fully involved. The conflicts were often against enemies created by these major powers. The consequence of these imperialistic actions was the proliferation of terrorism, directed against American and European civilian targets. These proxy wars never were won by the United States or their allies, but tremendously proliferated weaponry that were an escape road for capitalist profit. Most importantly, weapons came in the hands of those to which they were not sold. Proxy wars are worse than real wars, they are, almost by definition, immoral and feed capitalist power.

1. The United States interference in Latin-America

Cuba

The Cuban revolution in 1959 was led by Fidel Castro, his brother Raul and Che Guevara and ousted President Fulgencio Batista from the island. Batista was a radical anti-communist dictator, particularly during his second term as President, after he took power by a coup. Batista heavily supported economic colonization and capitalist exploitation in Cuba, established relationships with organized crime and frightened the population through open displays of brutal repression. Money was wasted in gambling and black markets. The United States government openly approved the Batista administration and used its influence to increase the profits of American companies that completely dominated the island's economy, in a manner antagonizing the interests of the Cuban people. The United States provided large weapons assistance: planes, ships, tanks and even napalm, which Batista used against insurgents. Not the people, but money and economic stability for United States businesses in Cuba was the only important issue. However, Senator John F. Kennedy accused Batista's relationship with the United States government and criticized the Eisenhower administration for its support to Batista. In the 1950s the economy began to stagnate and middle-class job opportunities fell dramatically, making university graduates to leave the country, to work much underneath their diploma, or to stay unemployed. There was extreme wealth and extreme poverty, typical for capitalism. Thus, the Castro revolution was legitimate.

After the revolution, Cuba rapidly began broad social reforms, expanding healthcare and education. Farms were confiscated and land, businesses and companies, owned by middle-class Cubans, were nationalized. The focus was to balance growth with equity. Although the United States were initially willing to recognize Castro's new government, it soon feared that communism would spread from Cuba into Latin America. That idea became a real obsession just like it was in many other capitalist countries in the World. In 1960 the United States imposed a commercial, economic and financial embargo on Cuba. An invasion by United States CIA-trained forces in the Bay of Pigs in 1961 during the Kennedy administration, meant to overthrow Castro, failed. That incident brought the Kennedy administration in a state of hysteria for revenge. In fact, it was one of the

78 prime goals of the Kennedy administration to bring the terror of the whole World to Cuba. A major terrorist war against Cuba was started, including bombing, sabotage, attacks on Russian ships and spraying toxic materials to kill crops. The sole effect these measures made was that Cuba was driven towards a friendly relationship with the Soviet Union. The Cuban Missile Crisis followed in 1962, when the Soviet Union wanted to install Soviet ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads to protect Cuba against American aggression. The Soviet action was also a response to the installation of American Jupiter ballistic missiles in Italy and Turkey directed at the Soviet Union. The missiles were withdrawn in exchange for a United States agreement never to invade Cuba without direct provocation. Secretly, the United States also agreed to dismantle all Jupiter missiles in Turkey and Italy. However, the United States continued a coordinated program of political, psychological and military sabotage, involving several CIA operations and assassination attempts on Castro and key political leaders in Cuba. According to a United States Senate Select Intelligence Committee, over eight attempted plots to kill Castro were seen between 1960 and 1965. These terror actions continued up to the 1990s. The fact that Castro's ideology was Marxist, that Castro freed Cuba from a dictator and that Castro was not threatening the United States, demonstrated that the murder attempts by the United States were not legitimate and morally wrong acts of state terrorism.

The United States embargo on Cuba worsened international relations and obviously the situation in Cuba, particularly after the implosion of the Soviet Union in 1992. The country found a new source of aid in the People's Republic of China, Hugo Chávez, former President of Venezuela and Evo Morales, President of Bolivia. Mutual agreement with Venezuela resulted in oil delivery to Cuba at discounted prices, while Cuba sent doctors to Venezuela. Since 1992, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution every year condemning the ongoing embargo and declaring it to be in violation of the United Nations Charter and international law. But the United States did not change its attitude. A deeply deplorable fact and one of the most cruel terror actions in the World. In 2004, United States President George W. Bush declared Cuba to be one of the few "outposts of tyranny". The real tyrant was Bush himself, not Castro. Castro's actions are based on the principles of Marxism, which is a political system operating in numerous countries. In 2014, 188 of the 193 countries in the United Nations voted for the nonbinding resolution against the embargo. Only the

United States and Israel voted against. The embargo was at times relaxed and tightened over decades, depending on who was the United States President (for example, the embargo was tightened under Bill Clinton), but it was never lifted. The United States was so obsessed with Marxism and communism that it justified the protracted actions of the embargo by arguing that the Cuban government refused to move toward "democratization and greater respect for human rights", a hypocritical excuse and an unsupported pretence. The embargo was also vigorously criticized by Human Right movements.

In 2008 Fidel Castro resigned as President and gave the Presidency to his brother Raul. Raul removed some of the restrictions on freedom. For example, requirements for travel abroad were simplified: Cubans need only a passport and a national ID card and they are allowed to take their young children with them. The United States embargo has been maintained until today, although, with the help of Pope Francis, President Obama and the Castro administration agreed to move toward the normalization of Cuba–United States relations. Diplomatic relationships reopened. Some critics (including Noam Chomsky) say that the Obama action was because the United States would be excluded from the 7th Western Hemisphere Meeting in Panama in 2015 (a summit meeting of the heads of state of North America, Central America, the Caribbean and South America) and that the meeting would be boycotted, if Cuba was not admitted to that meeting. To allow Cuba in, a diplomatic relationship had to be made between Cuba and the United States. But that reason was not openly admitted. The United States Government dropped its objections to Cuba’s presence on the Western Hemisphere Meeting in December 2014. American capitalism will never create equality in Cuba. It will sell iPhones and modern cars, that's probably all. Obama's action is above everything an outlet to serve capitalism.

In February 2013, Raul Castro announced his resignation as President for 2018 and implementation of permanent term limits for future Cuban Presidents, including age limits. There is a new wind, but will the welfare state of Cuba be capable of resisting the greed of American capitalism, fed by irrationally minded people?

Today, Cuba is not a rich country but people are well educated and generally support their leaders. Havana is an oasis in a World of strident

80 commercialism. It keeps a fleet of pre-1959 American cars in good shape in the face of a 50-year-long embargo that denies them replacement parts. Although private property was abolished, new laws today permit some private enterprise. No armed soldiers patrol the streets, no checkpoints, no restricted movements, there is rampant poverty but no beggars in the street. State-run enterprises are transformed today into worker-run cooperatives that are handing their control over to their employees for self-management. The government subsidizes food, housing and utilities. Cuba ranks high in human development score given by the United Nations and performs well in health and education. In 2015, it became the first country to eradicate mother-to-child transmission of HIV and syphilis, a milestone hailed by the World Health Organization. Education, including university level, is free. Literacy rate is 99.8 %. Cuba has 70,000 qualified doctors while the whole of Africa has 50,000. Medical care is free, though people do complain of long waits for specialty care. In great contrast to the United States' waste and inequality culture, the Cuban story demonstrates that communism can still be a 'grand narrative' for people, something to believe in and to hold. However, according to Human Rights Watch, the Cuban government represses nearly all forms of political dissent and Cubans are systematically denied basic rights of free expression, association, assembly, privacy and due process of law. Although capitalism advances freedom as basic good, in everyday life true freedom is often hard to find in the United States and actually mainly available to the 1% rich. Cuba on his side considers the United States embargo a violation of human rights, which, in fact, is true. In the Guantanamo base prison, occupied by the United States on Cuba, human rights are also heavily infringed, since many detainees are held there in secret as suspects of terrorist action without any perspective on a trial. During recent years Cuba's welfare state program is deteriorating, but this may well be the consequence of the more than half a century embargo by the United States.

Central- and South-America

The United States also saw the rise of left-wing governments in Central- and South-America as a threat to their safety (read profit) and illegally impeded these countries for decades. For that reason the CIA was set up after the end of World War II with the aim to keep Latin-American populations passive and incapable to develop so that the profits of United States industries in these countries could completely be derived to the

United States. When left governments nationalized these industries to improve justice in the nation, the United States spread myths about the inefficiency of state owned companies to justify their meddling actions. Democratically elected left governments were subordinated with CIA- organized coups and installation of United States friendly puppets. There were at least 10 major CIA operations that undermined Latin-America’s Democratic development: Guatemala (1954), Haiti (1959), Brazil (1964), Uruguay (1969), Bolivia (1971), Chile (1973), Argentina (1976), El Salvador (1980), Panama (1989) and Peru (1990). There is only one explanation for all this. The United States considered itself as the defender of liberty and democracy but in reality behaved as a capitalist tyrant. It claimed the right to put countries like Cuba on a list of sponsors of terrorism, but imposed the longest barbaric sanctions ever on a country, disregarded the United Nations resolutions and international protests and organized several attempts to assassinate high-ranking officials (including Castro and Che Guevara) on the basis that they were Marxist-Leninists, commonly named 'socialists'. They have only one doctrine: submit people to the rule of business and the market, take the profit, disseminate fear and keep people dumb. Such actions are morally unjustifiable but were never condemned and punished. Nevertheless, since the 1990s Latin-American countries gradually evolved to democracies and the United States’ imperialism in that region of the World faded.

2. Wars in South-East Asia

Also the wars in South-East Asia were not conducted to install democracy and freedom of people against an attacking foreign country, but were intended in the first place to stop the spreading of the communist power in South- and East-Asia. Communism was evil, because the West considered capitalism as the only legitimate international socio-economic order.

The Korean War

The United States' crusade against Communism started at the end of World War II, after the surrender of the Japanese. Korea came under occupation by the United States south of the 38th parallel and by the Soviet Union north of the 38th parallel. The provisional administration of the United States

Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK) refused to recognize the provisional government of the People's Republic of Korea (PRK), which wanted a government encompassing the entire territory of Korea. This refusal was mainly on the basis of suspected communist sympathies. However, their program was in essence not communist, as it guaranteed basic human rights and freedoms (speech, press, assembly and religion), universal suffrage at the age of eighteen, equality for women, labor limited to eight-hour/day, a minimum wage, prohibition of child labor and establishment of close relations with the United States, Soviet Union, United Kingdom and China and opposition to foreign influence interfering with the state. Instead, the country was co-administrated with the Soviet Union, with the aim to allow independence after a five-year trusteeship. The trusteeship was not appreciated by the Koreans, leading to riots. The PRK was outlawed. Also the leader of the Right-Wing Representative Democratic Council, Syngman Rhee, who had arrived with the United States military, opposed the trusteeship. Many riots occurred which led to the establishment of martial law. In 1948 American and Soviet troops withdrew and Korea was officially divided along the 38th parallel in South- Korea with the anti-communist Syngman Rhee as President and Soviet Union-friendly North-Korea under Kim Il-sung. However, President Rhee's regime excluded communists and leftists from politics in South-Korea and committed many atrocities against uprising South-Koreans. North and South-Korea regularly confronted each other along the 38th parallel with regular assaults, more by South than by North-Korea, ultimately resulting in an invasion of South-Korea by North-Korea. Backed by United Nation Security Council resolution 82 and 83, the United States, in coalition with the United Kingdom and several United Nations allies, started a military intervention in Korea on June 27, 1950, even though South-Korea had been beginning a massacre and committed war crimes against communists and suspected sympathizers, many of whom were civilians who had no connection with communism. The Soviet Union challenged the United Nations resolution on several grounds, such as that North-Korea had not been invited on the United Nations assembly and that the North-South Korean conflict was classified as a civil war, which was beyond the United Nations’ charter scope (Article 32). Since the Soviet Union had boycotted the Security Council, there was no full agreement on the resolution. The United States unduly compared the action of North-Koreans with those of Hitler and Mussolini 20 years earlier. Between mid-1950 and mid-1953, more than 600,000 tons of conventional bombs and 32,000 tons of napalm

83 were dropped on North Korea, destroying almost every substantial building. On several occasions the United States even considered using atomic weapons. After the implication of China the war got in a deadlock for two years. An armistice (not a peace treaty) was signed on 27 July 1953 and a Demilitarized Zone was installed close to the 38th parallel. The war costed the lives of over a million of Koreans and 33,000 American soldiers. How many Chinese died is not known. The United States also continued to support the authoritarian regime in South-Korea after the war and there are still 28,500 American soldiers in South-Korea today. The United States did not respect the will of the Korean people to self-determine their future. Credibility and authority of the state declined but state terrorism was reinforced. The fate of Korea is still unsettled. The South has been exploited by the United States but became well developed, the North remained communist until today with very little development. Communism was not stopped. Boundary incidents have occurred up to today.

Not only at the international level but also at home, the United States led an undemocratic anti-communist terror in the 1950s. Particularly under the impulse of Senator McCarthy, thousands of Americans were accused of being communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive and unfounded investigations (exactly what President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is doing today in Turkey against the Gülen movement!). The primary targets of the terror were government employees, people in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. This was certainly not in the disadvantage of the rich, most of whom hate communists and 'lefties'.

The Vietnam War

The Vietnam War (1963-1975) had its origin in the aftermath of the First Indochina war (1946-1954), a colonial war led by France against the Viet Mihn, a movement of communists and non-communists. Already in 1950, American military advisors and weapons were sent to Vietnam. There were also talks between the French and Americans to use tactical nuclear weapons against the communists. After the French colonialists lost the war subsequent to the battle of Dien Bien Phu, Vietnam was split at the 17th parallel into a Communist North and a non-Communist South, with each a separate government. Nevertheless, American troops were located in

South-Vietnam in 1961 and 1962 during the Kennedy administration. The war started one year later in support of the South-Vietnamese non- communist regime of Ngo Dinh Dien who opposed the communist Viet Cong in South Vietnam and communist North-Vietnam, the latter being supported by proxy actions from the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China. Again the United States incentive was to stop communist expansion all over South-East Asia and Indonesia. Massive United States bombardments and delivery of herbicides (including Agent Orange) intended to destroy crops used as food by the Vietnamese population, could not turn the war in the advantage of the United States and South- Vietnam. A large number of war crimes took place at both sides. After the escalation of the United States intervention, nearly a third of the American population became strongly opposed to the war and led to heavy street protests and riots, leading to the fatal shooting of four students at Kent state University. Despite massive bombing, the United States lost the war and Vietnam became a communist state. The number of Vietnamese service members and civilians killed vary from 800,000 to 3.1 million in Vietnam alone and 58,220 United States service members died. After the war the Khmer Rouge killed an additional 1–3 million Cambodians out of a population of around 8 million. Agent Orange and similar herbicides have caused a considerable number of deaths and injuries over the years, including the United States Air Force crew that handled them. At least 21,000 American soldiers had been permanently disabled and 830,000 Vietnam veterans suffered of posttraumatic stress disorder.

None of these wars did give any military advantage to the United States. They lost the war and only disaster, atrocities and suffering to the local as well as the American people was the consequence. The obsession of anti- communism was totally out of proportion and fighting intended to prevent expansion of communism resulted in an opposite effect. It was not legitimate, as the United States intervention in South-East Asia was not the will of the people, neither of South-East Asian nor of the American people. It was imperialism and state terrorism.

3. United States support for the Indonesian President Suharto

In 1974, a coup in Lisbon changed Portugal's relationship to its colony of East Timor and the new Portuguese government began a decolonisation

85 process for East Timor. Three political movements had been developing in East Timor. The FRETILIN group endorsed "the universal doctrines of socialism", as well as "the right to independence", while a second movement (Association for the Integration of Timor into Indonesia) wanted East Timor's integration with Indonesia. A third group of wealthy landowners initially opted to preserve East Timor as a protectorate of Portugal but later supported independence. Although the FRETILIN group was socialist and not communist, the Indonesian government and military feared that a leftist government in East Timor could be used as a base for meddling by unfriendly powers into Indonesia and that an independent East Timor could cause secessionist sentiments in Indonesian provinces. There were no real arguments to support these hypotheses. The United States obviously preferred friendly relations with the Indonesian government, which was considered more important than the decolonisation process from Portugal. On 28 November 1975, FRETILIN unilaterally declared independence for the Democratic Republic of East Timor.

The anti-communist Indonesian President Suharto ordered the invasion of East-Timor in December 1975 to crack the aspirations of independence and self-determination of the East Timorese people. United States President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger had given their full approval for the invasion to safeguard their interests. The United Nations Security Council immediately condemned the invasion but failed to have an effect on the action. The military was conducting widespread atrocities against civilians, including extrajudicial executions, rape and assassinations of women and children and the use of chemical weapons and napalm to poison food and water supplies. Destruction of food crops forced many civilians to flee and surrender to the army. They were mercilessly executed. Those suspected of opposing annexation to Indonesia were arrested and tortured. Indonesian military refused the Red Cross providing humanitarian aid and medical care in interrogation camps, which were intended to select out FRETILIN sympathizers and assassinate them. In addition to FRETILIN supporters, Chinese migrants were also selected out for execution. A massive number of people in the interrogation camps died of malnutrition, cholera, diarrhoea and tuberculosis. Starving and exhausted civilians were also forced to march in advance of Indonesian troops as human shields. Amnesty International also reported extrajudicial killings by FRETILIN.

Despite these flagrant atrocities and crimes against humanity, the United States supplied weapons to Indonesia during the invasion and the subsequent occupation, actually amounting to the double above what they originally had promised. Arms sales (amounting to $1.1 billion) continued through the Bush and Clinton administrations until 1999, which is long after the implosion of the Soviet Union. Apparently, anti-communism was not the main driver any longer; capitalist profit making of the neoliberal style had taken over. The life of East Timorese people was less important for the United States. Also the United Kingdom and Canada sold weapons to Indonesia in support of the occupation.

The United States abstained from most of the United Nations resolutions censuring the Indonesian invasion. According to the 2005 report of the United Nations' Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor (CAVR), the minimum number of conflict-related civilian deaths was 102,800 (on a population of 688,711 or ~15%). Of these, approximately 18,600 were either killed or disappeared and 84,000 died from hunger or illness. Many observers have called the Indonesian invasion in East Timor an example of genocide, comparable to the killings of the Khmer Rouge, the Yugoslavian wars, and the Rwandan Genocide.

The 1997 Asian Financial Crisis caused tremendous upheaval in Indonesia and led to Suharto's resignation in May 1998. That shuffled the cards and in 1999 a referendum convincingly showed that more than 78% of people in East Timor wanted independence. After the voting, paramilitary groups on the side of the Indonesian army undertook a final wave of violence, during which most of the country's infrastructure was destroyed. An Australian peace keeping force was installed, leading in 2002 to independence. Numerous observers call for an international tribunal for East Timor to address the genocidal actions of the past.

4. Wars in the Middle-East and North-Africa

Intervention of Western Allies in the Middle-East were originally justified on the pretext that there was an imminent danger of communist expansion in that area. Therefore, Saddam Hussein and other heads of state in the neighbourhood were supported by the West. But, after the collapse of the

Soviet Union (1992), it was no longer the communists who were the presumed enemy. A new enemy had to be sought to legitimize interference in these countries: that enemy was the Islam. The true reason of the Middle-East interventions of the United States and its Western Allies was Western domination in the World and control over oil reserves (see further under the ‘Wolfowitz doctrine’, p. 102). Big-business and powerful states consented with each other to expand their power over the World. Aggression and war crimes against Palestinians, the Iraq wars, the wars in Afghanistan and Northern-Africa followed. The freedom of local population and democracy was never of any real concern.

The Arab-Israeli conflicts

This conflict is generated in part on the religious beliefs of Jews and Palestinian Arabs. The Jews believe that the region of Kanaan was promised to them by God and that they therefore had a right to own it. Muslims and Jews claim the same sites holy, such as the Cave of the Patriarchs and the Temple Mount. In the past 1,400 years, Muslims have constructed Islamic landmarks on these ancient Israelite sites, such as the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount. The rise of Zionism at the end of the 19th century and the reactionary Arab nationalism that in part arose in response to it, are the immediate motives of the conflict. In 1917, the British conquered Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and issued the Balfour Declaration, which stated that the British government viewed favourably "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". In reality, the British saw the support of Jews as an important factor for their fight against the Ottoman Empire. During the 1920s, Palestinian Arabs considered the rising immigration of Jews as a threat to their homeland. Furthermore, the employment of Arabs in Jewish-owned industries and farms was prohibited, which greatly irritated the Palestinians. Then came rumours that Jews were planning to seize control of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This led, in 1929, to the killing of Jews in the massacre of Hebron, located in the West bank, a region now reserved for the Palestinians in the two state model proposed by the United Nations. In 1936, came the 1936–1939 Arab revolt against British colonial rule, with the demand for independence and opposition to mass Jewish immigration. The British occupants repressed the Arab movements violently. A civil war broke out in 1947, leading into the First Arab-Israeli War in May 1948 (Palestine,

Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq, against Israel) and was followed by the declaration of the establishment of the state of Israel (but no equivalent declaration of the Palestinian state) and the ending of the British mandate over Palestine. There was a United Nations proposal for a two-state solution, allocating the West bank and Gaza to the Palestinians and the rest of the territory to the Jews. It was accepted by the Jews, but not by the Palestinians, who founded their attitude on the self- determination of people declared in the United Nations charter. Some 713,000 Palestinians fled their original lands to become Palestinian refugees. Their refugee status was set by the promise from Arab leaders that the Palestinians could return to their home land after the war and by attacks by Israeli Defence Forces on Palestinian villages and towns had ended. Although peace has been signed between Israel, Egypt and Jordan, the Israel-Palestine conflict went from one into another up to today. Since 1945, there were 25 major conflicts, making 74,000 military and 18,000 civilian deaths from 1945 to 1995 and a cost of $12 trillion between 1991 and 2010. Israel was heavily sustained by the United States, with little or no support for the Palestinians.

The silly thing is that Jews maintained good relationships with the Muslims for centuries. Historically, it is the Western World and the British and French colonialists who must assume the first responsibility for the hatred between the two peoples. The British presence in Palestine and their actions against Palestinians was by no means legitimate. Also the preponderant support of Israel by the United States created a permanent hostility from Palestinians and the Arab World against the Western World. In Syria, where the French ruled up to the 1950s, the situation was even more cruel and desperate up to today (see McHugo).

The secret wars of the CIA

In Syria: In March 1949, Syria’s democratically elected president, Shukri- al-Quwatli, hesitated to approve the Trans-Arabian Pipeline, from the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to Lebanese ports via Syria. The CIA engineered a coup replacing al-Quwatli with a CIA-picked dictator, Husni al-Za’im. Al- Za’im quickly approved the pipeline but he was displaced by the Syrian people after a few months. In 1955, the Syrian people re-elected al- Quwatli. Al-Quwatli, upset by the CIA involvement, sought help with the Soviet Union. That move caused CIA Director Allen Dulles to declare that a

89 coup needed to be set up in Syria. In 1957, the CIA planned to assassinate several Syrian high officials and engineered provocations in Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan with the aim that public opinion would weaken the Syrian state. The coup, however, failed, United States officials were expelled and all military officers associated with the coup were executed for treason. United States President Eisenhower deceived the American public by saying that the Syrian allegations were false. In retaliation, the United States moved the Sixth Fleet to the Mediterranean, threatened war and impelled Turkey to invade Syria. The Turks, however, retreated upon a unified opposition from the Arab League that was furious at the United States intervention.

The CIA continued its secret efforts to overturn Syria’s democratically elected Ba’athist government of 1963. A new coup provoked anti- American riots from Lebanon to Algeria. Hafez al-Assad took power in 1970. In 1983, he signed a friendship treaty with the Soviet Union and it has been suggested that a CIA operation was set up to overthrow Assad for his pro-Soviet policies.

From 2001 to 2003 the CIA used Syria as an illicit place to torture 'ghost detainees' (persons kept anonymously in prison), in the context of the 'extraordinary rendition' program (see later). Syria was one of the most common destinations for rendered terrorist suspects by the CIA. WikiLeaks reported that the United States government has covertly funded the Syrian opposition since 2006. In 2008, the CIA conducted a paramilitary raid on the town of Sukkariyeh in East-Syria. The CIA has covertly trained and armed nearly 10,000 rebel fighters at a cost of $1 billion a year and has been sending weapons to anti-government rebels in Syria since 2012. These weapons fell into the hands of the al-Qaeda- related al-Nusra Front and Islamic State (IS).

In Iran: The CIA also orchestrated a coup in Iran against the democratically elected President Mohammed Mossadegh, after Mossadegh tried to renegotiate the terms of Iran’s contracts with the British Anglo- Iranian Oil Company (now British Petroleum - BP). Mossadegh expelled all British diplomats after a coup attempt against him by United Kingdom intelligence officers working with BP. When Eisenhower became President in 1953, Mossadegh was removed from power in “Operation Ajax,” and Shah Reza Pahlavi, who favoured United States oil companies, was

90 installed. The coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by the United States. The CIA also helped the Shah install the SAVAC, a combination of secret police, domestic security and intelligence service in Iran. The SAVAC was very hated and feared because of torturing and executing opponents of the regime. The Shah was an autocrat, which finally ignited the 1979 Islamic revolution that installed the Ayatollah Khomeini. He had been previously (1963) arrested after declaring the Shah a "wretched miserable man" who had "embarked on the [path toward] destruction of Islam in Iran”. In 1983, the CIA passed an extensive list of Iranian communists and other leftists secretly working in the Iranian government. A 'Tower Commission' report later observed that the list was used to take ‘measures, including mass executions, which virtually eliminated the pro-Soviet infrastructure in Iran’. In 1984, the CIA also illegally and secretly sold anti- tank and anti-aircraft missiles to Iran, which, at the time, was subjected to an arms embargo, a crime known as the Iran-Contra scandal. The CIA used the money from the weapons sale to free American hostages in Lebanon and to support the Contras, an anti-communist rebel group in Nicaragua. In more recent times the CIA got involved in covert operations in Iran, such as sabotage by means of cyber attacks of Iran’s nuclear program, Operation Merlin during the Clinton administration to provide Iran with a flawed design for a component of a nuclear weapon and support for anti-Iranian organizations groups since 2006.

In Iraq: In 1958, anti-American Army officers overthrew Iraq’s pro- American Prime Minister, Nuri al-Said, a puppet of the CIA in Iraq and Iraq became a republic. As a reaction against CIA actions, the Iraqi government turned its back on the West and invited Soviet diplomats and economic advisers. A new attempt to assassinate the new Iraqi president failed but in 1963, the CIA finally succeeded in overthrowing the Iraqi President Abd al-Karim Qassim, although declassified material showed no direct CIA involvement. The Ba’ath Party came to power. The United States supported the Ba’ath Party and arms shipments immediately began. The government fell after a few months, but the next 5 year brought two new CIA-assisted coups of the Ba’athist Party. Under their regimes Western business (Mobil, Bechtel and BP) moved in. During the last coup in 1968 state security was consigned to Saddam Hoessein. The CIA also colluded with the Shah of Iran to finance and arm Kurdish rebels in the Second Kurdish-Iraqi War. CIA puppet Saddam became President in another coup

91 in 1979. The CIA assisted Iraq with money and weapons in invading Iran during the Iran–Iraq War (1980-1988) that ended in a deadlock and left Iraq in a state of bankruptcy, but meanwhile the United States had provided biological and chemical weapons and billions of dollars to Iraq. The United States under the Reagan administration were well aware of the repressive nature of Saddam’s regime and its support of international terrorism, but nevertheless increased ties with Saddam. The CIA was also involved in the failed 1996 coup against Saddam Hussein.

Following the 11 September 2001 attacks, the United States and the CIA have been accused of rendering hundreds of people suspected of being terrorists, or of aiding and abetting terrorist organizations, to third-party states such as Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Uzbekistan. The CIA has conducted 1,245 flights to destinations where suspects could face torture, in violation of the United Nations Convention against Torture. Information used to justify the United States invasion of Iraq came from a discredited informant, codenamed ‘Curveball’ by the CIA, who falsely claimed that he had worked as a chemical engineer at a plant that manufactured mobile biological weapon laboratories. Members of Congress have claimed that the then Director of the CIA Leon Panetta admitted that, over a period of several years since 2001, the CIA deceived Congress, including lying. During the Iraq war that began in March 2003, personnel of the United States Army and the CIA committed a series of human rights violations against detainees in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, including physical and sexual abuse, torture, rape, sodomy and murder. The abuses were brought into the public by Amnesty International and Associated Press. The allegations were dismissed by President G.W. Bush as isolated cases, but this was contradicted by Amnesty International, the Red Cross and Human Rights Watch. These abuses were committed under the 'enhanced interrogation techniques' adopted during the 2003 Iraq war. In addition, there were threats to families of the detainees such as threats to harm children and threats to sexually abuse or to cut the throat of detainee's mothers. Already in 2002, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld himself signed several memos authorizing "Special Interrogation Plans" for specific detainees in Guantanamo Bay prison, in an attempt to obtain strategic information from them.

In conclusion: Many examples show that the CIA has been involved in covert and illegal anti-communist actions, the installation of puppet

92 governments and murders on behalf of the United States interests for more than 60 years, sometimes without knowledge of the United States federal government.

Gulf War

Antecedents: As explained above, Iraq had been an ally of the Soviet Union in the late 1950s. The country had supported many Arab and Palestinian militant groups, which led the United States to putting Iraq on the list of states supporting terrorism. Putting a country on a terrorist list for those reasons was purely opportunistic. It was itself an act of terrorism, or at least an act that further instigated terrorism. However, in November 1983, the Reagan administration sent Donald Rumsfeld to Saddam Hussein to create again ties of friendship. Iraq was removed from the terrorist list. During the Iraq-Iran war (1980-1988) the United States were supporting Iraq, as Iran had become an Islamic State since April 1979. The CIA overloaded Saddam with billions of dollars in training, Special Forces support, weapons and battlefield intelligence, knowing that he was using nerve gas and biological weapons in his war against Iran. After the war against Iran, Iraq suffered high debts owed to Saudi-Arabia and Kuwait as a consequence of that war. These countries rejected the query of Saddam to release the debts. In addition to an Iraq claim that Kuwait was historically Iraqi territory and that it was separated from Iraq by the United Kingdom during the latter’s imperialistic domination, there were conflicts with Kuwait about Kuwait pumping up oil from Iraqi territory. Moreover, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait were consistently overproducing oil, resulting in lower oil prices, which made it very difficult for Iraq to reconstruct its economic losses due to the previous war with Iran. Kuwait refused to make a deal about the latter issues. Nevertheless, the efforts of Saddam to make closer ties with Arab states that had supported Iraq in the war were supported by the United States, as it was believed to help maintain Iraq inside the United States’ sphere of influence in the Middle-East. However, chemical weapons threats of Iraq against Israel, if Israel would attack Iraq, and Iraq's human rights violation record cooled the United States’ interests in Saddam. The movement of the United States combat ships to the Persian Gulf made Saddam distrust the United States, together with the fact that Kuwait had begun talks with Iran, while Iraq's rival Syria had planned an air strike on Iraq drove Iraq to threaten force against Kuwait. The United States ambassador in Iraq stated that the

United States did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq", which was interpreted by Saddam that the United States were neutral in the conflict with Kuwait. Saddam demanded $10 billion to cover the lost oil revenues; the Kuwaiti response was to offer $9 billion. Saddam considered that insufficient and invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990. The country was occupied within 2 days. The United Nations Security Council resolution 660 condemned the invasion and ordered immediate withdrawal of the Iraqi army. Resolution 661 placed economic sanctions on Iraq and Resolution 665 soon thereafter authorized a naval blockade to enforce the sanctions.

Course of events: The Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991), with code names Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm, was a war waged by coalition forces from 34 nations, led by the United States, during the George H.W. Bush administration in response to Iraq's invasion and annexation of Kuwait. There were leading contributions from Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom and Egypt. The war started with aerial and naval bombardment of Saddam Hussein's troops in Kuwait. Saddam made several proposals to withdraw from Kuwait if other Arab problems would be dealt with at the same time. The United States refused all of them and demanded unilateral withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The aerial assault was followed by a ground assault into Iraq. The destructive intensity of the United States army was out of proportion and dubious killings of Iraqi soldiers occurred. For example, plows mounted on United States tanks and combat earthmovers were used to bury thousands of enemy soldiers in trenches. Although Iraqi troops were retreating from Kuwait, the Iraq army convoy was bombed extensively by the coalition air force, causing unnecessary killing. Civilian infrastructures in Iraq were deliberately destroyed as well, just to demonstrate the overwhelming power of the United States army. Iraqis may have comprehended the legitimacy of a military action to free Kuwait, but, evidently, they did not agree with the invasion and destruction of civilian infrastructure by the coalition army in Iraq itself.

Aftermath: The war ended in a ceasefire and withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq, without Saddam was removed from power. In addition, United States troops and weapons remained stationed in Saudi-Arabia and Qatar, and the United States Fifth Fleet remained in Bahrain, all decisions that prepared for the subsequent Western harm to the Middle-East. Military

94 support to Saudi-Arabia and the presence of military troops in other Gulf States was in the first place to safe guard oil export from these countries. The whole operation was a convenient opportunity to increase the Western influence in the Middle-East.

Within one day after the ceasefire, serious uprisings arose in South (Shiite Muslims) and North Iraq (Kurds, mainly Sunni Muslims), which were repressed with extraordinary cruelty by Saddam's loyalist troops within one month. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 condemned the repression and demanded Iraq to end the violence and to respect the human rights of its population. However, the United States and some of the Allies did not want to let Saddam Hussein's regime to collapse, because Saddam was considered a convenient threat to Iran, a United States' enemy. Therefore, the Allies established no-fly zones (without United Nations Security Council backing) but allowed Iraq to keep using gun-helicopters. The Allies provided humanitarian assistance and warned Iraqi authorities not to use chemical weapons during the unrest. The United States destroyed weapon depots to avoid the weapons would fall in the hands of the insurgents, blocked the rebels from attacking Baghdad and actively disarmed some rebel groups. The George H.W. Bush rhetoric may have given encouragement to the rebels, but the rebels were not further supported by the Allies, on the pretence that they did not want to interfere with the internal affairs of Iraq. Obviously, they rapidly forgot that they had been intervening themselves in the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait. The non-aid decision by the Allies was highly criticized by both rebels and analysts. From 27 August 1992, many military air strike operations were carried out by the United States, United Kingdom, Saudi- Arabian and French military forces between the 32nd and 33rd Parallel (Operation Southern Watch) and in Southern and Northern Iraq up to 2003. This was done in retaliation of Iraqi attacks but without United Nations Security Council approval. No success was obtained.

The 9/11 attacks and War on terror

Antecedents: In 1996 a group was formed, named World Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders (WIFJAJC). It was financially sponsored by Saudi Osama bin Laden and later became known as al-Qaeda. In 1996, Osama bin Laden issued a Fatwa, calling for United States troops to leave Saudi Arabia. A Fatwa is a reasoning of an Islamic scholar in response to a

95 particular incident and is considered a binding precedent by those Muslims who are followers of that scholar. The United States disregarded bin Laden's Fatwa. In February 1998, bin Laden signed a Fatwa declaring war on the West and Israel. The following facts were given as motivation: United States support of Israel, United States attacks in Somalia, Russian atrocities in Chechnya, retaliation against pro-American governments in the Middle East acting as United States agents, the presence of United States troops in Saudi Arabia and the sanctions of the West against Iraq. More generally, the 9/11 attack was rooted in the Islamic reactions against the continuous presence of United States troops in Saudi-Arabia and other Gulf states after the Gulf War, considered as a threat to Muslims in the region. Since Saudi Arabia houses the Islam's holiest sites, Mecca and Medina, many Muslims, but not the Saudi royal family, which was a friend of the United States, were upset at the permanent Western military presence.

On August 7, 1998, al-Qaeda made a big suicide bomb attack against the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 people, including 12 Americans. In retaliation, United States President Bill Clinton launched Operation Infinite Reach, consisting of cruise missile strikes on a suspected facility of chemical weapons in Sudan and on training camps in Afghanistan, both considered to be associated with al-Qaeda. The bombing in Afghanistan was also meant to kill bin Laden, but it failed as bin Laden had fled to Pakistan in time. The target in Sudan was a pharmaceutical plant and no evidence has been found that chemical weapons were produced there. Actually, the plant produced much of the region's antimalarial drugs and around half of Sudan's pharmaceutical needs. The strikes were based on untrue information and failed to kill any terrorist leaders. Bin Laden was placed on the 'Ten Most Wanted Terrorists' list of the FBI in June 1999. In January 2000, two so called 'Millennium plots' were thwarted and one failed, but bombing of the USS Cole battleship on October 12, 2000 near the Yemen coast was successful.

During the spring and summer of 2001, United States intelligence agencies received many warnings from foreign governments and intelligence services, including those of France, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, Israel, Jordan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Morocco and Russia, about a large-scale attack al-Qaeda was planning within the United States. President George W. Bush received in the President's Daily Brief on Monday, August 6, 2001, a

96 warning from the CIA of a plausible terrorist action by bin Laden and al- Qaeda. It was kept secret but leaked in 2002. Bush didn’t believe the threat or didn’t react to it.

Course of events: The 9/11 terrorist attacks are four coordinated attacks by in total 19 terrorists of al-Qaeda against the United States, on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001. Two hijacked air planes were crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre in New York, which shortly after the impact completely collapsed due to fire-induced structural failure, one hijacked air plane was crashed into the Pentagon building in Virginia and one hijacked air plane crashed in a field after its passengers tried to overcome the hijackers and before it could hit the White House in Washington. In total, 2,996 people, all civilians, died in the attacks and caused $10 billion damage in infrastructure. Suspicion, but not proof, for the attack quickly fell on al-Qaeda.

Aftermath: On September 14, 2001, the United States Congress passed Authorization for use of Military Force against Terrorists. Within one month a broad United States-led coalition of international forces was set up, with the diplomatic help of United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair, to overthrow the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, because it had harboured al-Qaeda. The Bush administration called for a 'War on Terror', with the goal of bringing bin Laden and al-Qaeda to justice and preventing other terrorist developments. On October 7, 2001, the War in Afghanistan began with aerial bombing campaigns by the United States and British forces against the Taliban and al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan (see next section).

The United States Homeland Security Act of 2002 created the Department of Homeland Security and Congress passed the Patriot Act, aimed to help detect and prosecute terrorists and other criminals. In addition, the National Security Agency (NSA) started illegal surveillance of telecommunications and violated the court restrictions by lying to judges about how the collected data were used. Numerous harassment and hate crimes against Muslims, but also against South Asians, were reported and numerous countries introduced similar anti-terrorism legislation. Bank accounts of people suspected of being al-Qaeda sympathizers, were frozen. The United States set up the Guantanamo Bay detention camp on their military base in Cuba and in many foreign countries hidden jails were established to hold terrorist suspects as "illegal enemy combatants"

97 without any juridical outlook for years or official inculpation. The CIA has been torturing many detainees under the so called 'enhanced interrogation techniques'. The legitimacy of these detentions has been seriously criticized by the European Union and human rights organizations. In February 2002 a congressional inquiry found failings of the FBI and CIA to use available information, including information about terrorists of whom the CIA knew they were living in the United States. Also, the 9/11 commission, formed in the late 2002 to analyse the circumstances of the 9/11 attacks, reported that the Clinton and Bush administrations had underestimated the threat posed by al-Qaeda and pointed to many insufficiencies of the American government, Congress and army prior and after the 9/11 attacks. However, the 9/11 Commission itself has also been severely criticized. There have been attempts of the White House to block the release of information to the commission, to keep funding low and to posing very short deadlines. The CIA was also impeding the Commission’s inquiry. The 9/11 Commission also refused to hear, ignored or censored testimony about the many pre–September 11 warnings given to the FBI and the CIA. It has also been claimed that the Bush administration established the Commission in a way to ensure that it would fail. The connections between the Bush family and the bin Laden family in Saudi- Arabia have generated conspiracy theories, although evidence of any advance knowledge of 9/11 by George W. Bush was not given. Nevertheless, the link between the families may have led to carelessness for the security warnings.

Although the FBI concluded that there was "clear and irrefutable" evidence for linking al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks, bin Laden initially denied responsibility, but finally claimed responsibility in 2004. In a video bin Laden said he was inspired to destroy the World Trade Centre by the destruction of towers in Lebanon by Israel during the 1982 Lebanon War and "the injustice of the United States-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon". In the same video he also said: "The events that influenced me directly trace back to 1982 and subsequent events, such as when the United States gave permission to the Israelis to invade Lebanon with the aid of the sixth United States fleet".

To remind how inflamed emotions were about the 9/11 attacks, listen to the ‘State of the Union’ speech of President George W. Bush on January 29, 2002: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btkJhAM7hZw

The War in Afghanistan

Less than a month after 9/11, United States and British forces started an aerial bombing campaign in Afghanistan against Taliban (an Islamic fundamentalist political movement in Afghanistan) and al-Qaeda camps and later invaded Afghanistan with ground troops. In August 2003, NATO joined the coalition. The motivation was to remove the Taliban from power and to dismantle al-Qaeda. The Taliban was claimed to have been harbouring al-Qaeda members in training camps. On 20 December 2001, the United Nations Security Council resolution 1386 authorized the establishment of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to help the Afghan Interim Authority in maintain security in the city of Kabul and surrounding areas. The coalition succeeded in removing the Taliban from power and installed military bases near major cities. However, the purpose of the war was not met, as most al-Qaeda and Taliban people were not captured; they escaped to neighbouring Pakistan, rural regions, or areas in remote mountains. In 2004, Hamid Karzai was elected president of the country, now named the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. However, the Taliban started an insurgency with guerrilla attacks, ambushes and suicide bombing against urban targets and Western coalition forces. Insurgents also profited from the high corruption of the Afghan government. In 2006 more allied troops were sent in an attempt to control the insurgency but fighting spread into neighbouring North-West Pakistan. The United States military launched drone attacks in Pakistan to kill insurgent leaders, but this resulted in an insurgency in Waziristan in 2007. After 13 years of war the coalition and Afghan government troops did not succeed in establishing stability. On 28 December 2014, NATO officially ended combat operations and transferred full responsibility for security to the Afghan government. On 27 May 2014, President Obama announced that United States combat operations in Afghanistan would end in December 2014. However, a bilateral security agreement between the United States and the Afghan government allowed coalition troops to remain with an advisory and counterterrorism role after the withdrawal date.

Unexploded mines from American and NATO troops are left in the country. These mines continue to kill or mutilate playing kids. Insurgencies did not stop and the United States forces have now secretly increased direct raids beyond a counterterrorism mission against "Islamist militants".

Approximately 13,000 troops including 9,800 Americans are still fighting in Afghanistan. In reality the war is not over yet and, for sure, was never won by NATO. The Taliban is not rooted out. For what purpose was this war intended? A revenge for 9/11? The authority of NATO in Muslim countries was eroded and terrorist attacks did further increase. The continuous presence of aggressive Western troops causes ever-increasing hatred among the Muslim population. It shows that no problem can be resolved by a proxy war, especially when that proxy war is not legitimate.

Iraq War

Antecedents: Under President George W. Bush the United States, joined by the United Kingdom under Tony Blair and several coalition Allies, but without France, Germany and Turkey, launched another war against Saddam Hussein (a "shock and awe" surprise attack) on 20 March 2003, without declaring war and without authority from the United Nations Security Council. The invasion was 'justified' by the Western Allies on the pretence that 1) Saddam Hussein produced weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - nuclear, chemical and biological weapons -, 2) that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the United States and/or its coalition Allies and 3) that Iraq had ties with al-Qaeda, held responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attack. The real incentive, however, was oil and power, labelling others as terrorists while in reality the United States coalition members were the real terrorists. The incentive and planning for the invasion was strongly influenced by the neoconservatives (neocons) in the United States, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, Rudy Giuliani and Paul Bremer. An extremely dangerous ideology was developing, known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine, drafted in a document that leaked to the New York Times on March 7, 1992, but was hastily re-written and finally released in April, 1992. It contained the following points:

 Following the collapse of the Soviet Union the United States is the World’s only remaining superpower.  The United States has a leadership role within the new World order.  The United States has the right to intervene when and where it believes necessary.

100

 There is a possible threat posed by a resurgent Russia.  In the Middle East and Southwest Asia the United States remains the predominant outside power and preserves Western access to the region's oil.  The United States can engage in pre-emptive military action to suppress potential threats from other nations and prevent any other nation from becoming a superpower.

The doctrine was widely criticized for its unilateralist and imperialistic nature and even was terrorism-based itself. A myriad of national and international protests arose from many sides in the World against a new war in Iraq and persisted during the subsequent occupation, but these were disregarded by the Bush administration and United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair. Actually, 63% of Americans wanted a diplomatic solution to the Iraq situation. Between 3 January and 12 April 2003, 36 million people throughout the globe participated in almost 3,000 protests against the war but the will and opinion of the people was of no value. Importantly, all the rationales of the war later turned out to be false and the Bush administration was alleged of lies and manipulations of intelligence reports. In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had not found any evidence that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program to produce them. 90-95% of Iraq's chemical weapons had been verifiably eliminated by Saddam Hussein in the 1990s, with the remainder being unusable and of little strategic importance. The only WMD that were found had previously been made with the help of the United States! Furthermore, if Iraq still did not destroy some of its nerve gas stocks, they would have been inactive by 2003, due to their short shelve life. Moreover, from mid-1990s, weapons inspectors from the United Nations were desperately chasing hypothetical mobile labs that were claimed to move anthrax bacteria by night to new locations each day, but no such labs were found. Two trailers spotted by satellite surveillance were interpreted as mobile laboratories producing biological weapons and played a major role in legitimizing the war, but were later found by an expert group to be unsuited for such purpose and were "almost certainly intended" for manufacturing hydrogen to be used in weather balloons! The expert report was transmitted to President Bush. Two days later, on May 29, 2003, President Bush declared "We have found the weapons of mass destruction." The official report of the expert group remained secret on the

101 shelves for a year and administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories. A complete falsification. How can a reasonable citizen still have trust in the government of the United States?

Course of events: Saddam Hussein's regime was overthrown within a few weeks. Saddam was found and captured in December 2003 and was found guilty for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide and convicted to the death penalty by an Iraqi Special Tribunal three years later. The trial was criticized by Amnesty International, who stated that it was "unfair", and by Human Rights Watch, who noted that Saddam's execution "follows a flawed trial and marks a significant step away from the rule of law in Iraq”. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Anan expressed similar concerns over the fairness of the trial. Political interference from United States officials undermined the independence and impartiality of the court.

Aftermath: On May 1, 2003 Bush declared victory in Iraq ("Mission Accomplished") on United States national television. But shortly thereafter, a gradually increasing series of attacks on United States troops arose in various regions of Iraq. Initially they came from Fedayeen and Saddam loyalists, but soon also from religious radicals (Shiites and Sunni) and Iraqis increasingly irritated by the presence of United States forces. The insurgents used mortars, missiles, suicide bombs, snipers, self-made explosive devices, car bombs, small arms fire and rocket propelled grenades. There was also sabotage against the petroleum, water and electrical infrastructure. As a reaction, coalition troops resumed to use air strikes and artillery. A transitional government was installed and presided by an American neocon, Paul Bremer, who excluded any member of former Saddam's Ba'ath party. This rule made 85,000-100,000 Iraqi people unemployed, including 40,000 school teachers who had joined the Ba'ath Party simply to keep their jobs. A fatal stupidity of the so called United States “guide to freedom and democracy”. In 2004 the insurgency grew to an organized Sunni insurrection, targeting also the new Iraqi Security Forces. The United States occupation forces retaliated against the insurgents, sometimes using white phosphorus to augment fire.

On January 31, 2005, Iraqis elected a Transitional Government in order to draft a permanent constitution. May 2005 became Iraq's bloodiest month since the invasion. Suicide bombers (Iraqi Sunni Arabs, Syrians and

102

Saudis) hit through Iraq. A national assembly was voted in 2005 but the country had to endure 34,131 recorded incidents. Sectarian violence (between Shiites and Sunnis) expanded to a new level of intensity in 2006, averaging about 960 attacks per week. In May 2006, a permanent Iraqi government was formed under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The Bush administration increased the number of troops in 2007, but this did not convincingly reduce the insurgence attacks. Moreover, the Iraqi constitution was violated by extending the presence of United States troops without consulting the Iraqi parliament. A decrease in attacks was seen during 2008. Both the coalition troops and insurgents often committed war crimes and violated human rights. The United States also adopted the method of targeted killing of insurgents, which not only killed the target but also civilians in the target's neighbourhood. The coalition also recruited Iraqi Sunnis (often former insurgents) for the formation of ‘Guardian’ militias. Furthermore, the Bush administration claimed that Iran was supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents, with the consequence that coalition forces also attacked Iranian Quds forces operating in Iraq and arrested or killed suspected members. Clearly, the United States engaged in many illegitimate actions.

From 2009 the coalition forces started to withdraw and by December 2011 United States forces had left the country, except for a staff of 20,000 including United States Marine Embassy Guards, and between 4,000 and 5,000 private military contractors, used for the protection of the United States embassy and consulates. The number of attacks significantly decreased but did not disappear. Prime minister al-Maliki had an army engaged in corruption and was too concerned with Iraq's Shiite majority and not enough with national reconciliation with Sunnis. His government was sectarian by favouring Shiites. In August 2014, he was replaced as prime minister by Haidar al-Abadi.

Conclusion: The war in Iraq was illegitimate as it was based on lies, not supported by a United Nations mandate and opposed by many people in the World. The Bush administration was driven by neocons, who were not seeking peace but in quest of United States imperialism at the service of World capitalism. Insurgency is still present in Iraq today and is superfluously higher than during Saddam Hussein. Saddam was killed but the new government was very weak and lost a large part of the country to Islamic State (IS) (see p. 113). What did the United States and some of its

103

Allies reach? Nothing, again. On the contrary, they made the situation worse with worldwide establishment of ever-increasing terrorism, perpetrated by al-Qaeda-related groups. The United States were also involved in many profiteering war actions. Moreover, they massively re- armed Iraq. The country has become one of the top current purchasers of United States military equipment (up to $20 billion between 2005 and 2008). According to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard public finance professor Linda Bilmes, the costs of the Iraq war and occupation was $720 million a day, including the long-term health care for veterans, interest on debt and replacement of military hardware, totalling $3-6 trillion. But capitalism was well served once more. The more weapons sold, the more profit obtained. The rich weapon lobby became richer, while the costs of the war were paid by the people’s taxes. The behaviour of powerful states is deplorable. They are losing all credibility and authority.

Arab Spring

In 2011 spontaneous uprisings arose, first in Tunisia and then in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and Bahrein, known as the Arab Spring. These uprisings were originally a deeply rooted protest against the local autocrats and dictators, who had been established and maintained in power for decades with the help and approval of the West, including the secret actions of the CIA. In several countries the uprising degenerated into civil wars, evoked and aggravated by the proxy wars of powerful countries.

In Tunisia: Following the self-sacrifice of Mohamed Bouazizi in Sidi Bouzid, violent street demonstrations followed through December 2010 and led to the ousting of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in January 2011. A progressive constitution was adopted, that brought increases in human rights, gender equality and government support toward people, and gave Tunisia a new parliamentary system, a decentralized and open government and a transition to a democratic state. Today, Tunisia is relatively stable. However, the recent terrorist attacks on civilians in tourist resorts threaten to end this success. Unemployment in Tunisia is 32% today, whereas it was 23% before the revolution and police is highly repressive. The situation can only improve if also socio-economic deficits are tackled.

104

In Egypt: In 1953, the Egyptian Republic was declared independent with General Muhammad Naguib as President. Naguib was forced to resign in 1954 by Gamal Abdel Nasser, who assumed power as President in June 1956 and remained an autocratic ruler up to his death in 1970. His successor was Anwar Sadat, who expelled Soviet advisors in 1972, to establish friendly relationships with the United States. In 1981, Sadat was murdered while assisting a military parade. He was succeeded by Hosni Mubarak, who reigned as a dictator. In 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, terrorist attacks in Egypt became numerous and severe, targeting Christian Copts, foreign tourists and government officials. In January 2011, widespread protests began and the Egyptian military took control of the nation's affairs. In November 2011, Egypt held parliamentary elections and Presidential election was held in May 2012. In June 2012 Mohamed Morsi, backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, had won the election. An Islamic rule was established with Morsi as President and a constitution was signed by Morsi in December 2012. However, in June 2013, millions of protesters across Egypt demanded the immediate resignation of Morsi. In July, a coup by General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi removed Morsi from power, the constitution was suspended and a new presidential and Shura Council was elected, with Adly Mansour named as acting president. In March 2014, 529 Morsi supporters were sentenced to death, while the trial of Morsi himself is still ongoing. Another mass trial took place with 683 Morsi supporters sentenced to death for killing 1 police officer. That the West does not care about democracy in Egypt and prefers a dictatorship is clearly shown by the fact that the World leaders were all present in Egypt on the occasion of the dredging of the second Suez Canal in August 2015. A flagrant 'let’s close our eyes' attitude of these 'leaders'.

In Yemen: Protests, starting in mid-January 2011, occurred in many towns of Yemen against governmental proposals to modify the constitution and against unemployment, economic conditions and corruption. After many large protests, Saleh resigned in November 2011 with election of the previous vice-President Abd al-Rab Mansur al-Hadi, as President. In January 2015 the replacement government was overthrown by Houthi rebels (Shiites). Houthis took control of a significant part of Yemen and are currently resisting the Saudi Arabian-led (Sunnis) military intervention in Yemen trying to restore al-Hadi in power. Both the Houthis and the Saudi Arabian-led coalition are being attacked by Islamic State (see p. 115). The Houthis have anti-American and anti-Jewish feelings. In their flag it is

105 written: "God Is Great, death to America, death to Israel, curse on the Jews and victory to Islam", by which they mean to strongly oppose foreign political meddling.

In Bahrein: The protests in Bahrain started on February14, 2011 and were initially aimed at achieving greater political freedom and respect for human rights. The major cause was the domination of the Shiite majority by a Sunni governmental minority. However, upon deadly incidents of police brutality, the protesters called to end the monarchy of Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. Protesters camped for days at the Pearl Roundabout. After a month, the government requested police aid from the Gulf Cooperation Council. Some 1,000 troops from Saudi Arabia and 500 troops from United Arab Emirates (both Sunni) entered Bahrain and crushed the uprising. A day later, King Hamad declared martial law and a three-month state of emergency. In March 2012, over 100,000 attended a protest meeting and on August 31 another protest meeting attracted tens of thousands of protesters. By April 2012, more than 80 people had died from brutal police assaults on peaceful protesters. The police carried out midnight house raids in Shiite neighbourhoods, were beating at checkpoints and denied medical care to arrested people that had been wounded. The government systematically tortured prisoners and committed other human rights violations. The Bahrain Centre for Human Rights said that Bahraini authorities were blocking a Facebook group being used for planned protests. The government repression included the arrests of Shiite Muslims, with more than 300 detained and dozens missing. The publishing of Al-Wasat, the country's main opposition newspaper, was prevented to publish and its website blocked. Police raided girls schools, detaining, beating and threatening to rape girls as young as 12. Up to 28 mosques and Shia religious buildings were destroyed by the Bahraini authorities. Some 20 Bahraini medical professionals were arrested for treating protesters at the Salmaniya Medical Complex and were sentenced up to twenty years jail on charges of anti-government activity. More than 60% of the detainees reported being tortured. CNN and the United States government (befriended with the Bahraini government) helped to suppress some journalists’ reports. Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya coverage of Bahrain insurgency was incomprehensive. Severe press restrictions made news coverage extremely difficult. The United States and the United Kingdom have condemned the use of violence by Bahraini authorities, but did not call for regime change, evidently because of their good relationship with

106

Bahrein. The United Kingdom delivered weapons to Bahrein during the uprising.

In Libya:

Antecedents: In December 1951, Libya became independent. From 1951 to 1969, it was a constitution-based Kingdom, which was strongly influenced by the United Kingdom and United States oil companies. The King was very westernized, but Libya had a very low literacy rate (10%), a low life expectancy and 40% of the population was living in shanties, tents, or caves. After his coup in 1969, Muammar Gaddafi drastically improved prosperity and education over the years. Libya's Human Development Index in 2010 was the highest in Africa and greater than that of Saudi Arabia. However, economic prosperity was seriously damaged, particularly by the United States. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan called Gaddafi "Public Enemy No. 1" and started a hard line approach, erroneously considering Gaddafi a puppet of the Soviet Union. Gaddafi's ideology was anti-imperialistic, which was obviously an eyesore for the United States, a baseless archenemy of communism and socialism. In August 1981, the United States shot down two Libyan Su-22 planes in the Libyan sea, during a United States military exercise in the Gulf of Sirte – an area that Libya claimed as a part of its territorial waters. In March 1982, the United States implemented an embargo of Libyan oil. In January 1986, Reagan ordered all United States companies to cease operating in the country, although several hundred workers remained. In April 1986, the United States air force bombed military installations and what the United States claimed to be ''terrorist centres'' in various parts of Libya, killing around 100 Libyans, including civilians. Although the United States were condemned internationally, Reagan received a popularity boost at home. These United States violations of international law remained unpunished, because of the anti-communist and the "war on terror" rhetoric of the West. Again, the real terrorist was the United States government, but the Western World turned a blind eye to the situation and, thus, was complicit with Reagan.

However, from the early 2000s, the United States and the European Union again had good relationships with Gaddafi, despite the alleged human rights abuses under Gaddafi's responsibility. Apparently, as soon as the West saw again profit for big-business, Gaddafi was again "Friend Number

107

1". In 2003, the oil industry (previously nationalized) was largely sold to private corporations and by 2004, there was $40 billion of direct foreign investment in Libya, clearly as a consequence of the neoliberal doctrine. Most surprisingly, in January 2011, shortly before the beginning of the insurgency in February, the United Nations Human Rights Council published a report about the Libyan human rights record. Most countries (including many European and most Asian, African and South American nations) generally praised the country's progressive efforts in human rights respect, though some (particularly Australia, France and the United States) raised concerns about cases of disappearance and torture and restrictions on free press.

Course of events: In Libya, an Arab spring insurgency arose against the Gaddafi administration, beginning in February 2011 as a protest against corruption and the high unemployment rate (30%). Both Gaddafi loyalists and the rebels were alleged to have committed human rights violations, with Gaddafi fighters having opened fire on protesting civilians in Benghazi, killing hundreds. It was followed on 26 February by the United Nations Security Council resolution 1970, which condemned the killings and violations of human rights, imposed international sanctions and referred Libya to the International Criminal Court. The resolution was criticized as double-standard, as numerous similar human right abuses in Bahrain, Yemen or elsewhere generated no action at all. In March, the Security Council resolution 1973 was voted, declaring a no fly zone to protect civilians from aerial bombardments, demanding immediate ceasefire, a complete end to violence and authorizing all necessary means to protect civilians. The resolution prohibited the presence of a foreign occupation force, but a military intervention by the United States, United Kingdom and France, followed in March 2011. The participation of the United States was without United States Congressional support and countries, such as Brazil, India, Germany, China and Russia did not support the military intervention. Lies and exaggerations concerning the insurgency events had been spread by Western officials and media. In June 2011, a detailed investigation carried out by Amnesty International claimed that many of the allegations against Gaddafi and the Libyan government were either false or lacked any credible evidence, that the number of casualties was heavily exaggerated, that there was no proof of mass killing of civilians on the scale of Syria or Yemen, that there was no evidence that aircraft or heavy anti-aircraft machine guns were used

108 against people and that rebels at times appeared to have knowingly made false claims, or manufactured evidence. Moreover, France, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates provided heavy weapons to the rebels in April 2011, an action in violation of the United Nations Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973 that had banned exporting weapons to or out of Libya. All these data at least suggest manipulation by states and/or media and a hidden agenda why Gaddafi had to disappear. Later on, human right violations were documented, but were committed by all sides, including NATO, anti-Gaddafi forces and pro-Gaddafi forces.

Gaddafi was killed on 20 October 2011 after he was captured by a Misratan militia and beaten - although the circumstances of his death remain uncertain. His death was welcomed in the West, without any questioning on the circumstances of his death and some welcomed his death with almost sadistic delight. The then United States Secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, upon initially hearing of Gaddafi’s death laughed and jubilantly stated: "We Came, We Saw, He Died" while appearing on CBS television. Latin-American countries (including Cuba) and several African countries condemned the fact that Gaddafi was killed instead of being arrested and Russian foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the killing of Gaddafi was a violation of the Geneva Conventions prohibiting execution of prisoners of war. United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron stated that he was "proud" of his country's role in overthrowing "this brutal dictator". In contrast, Fidel Castro commented that Gaddafi would "enter history as one of the great figures of the Arab nations", while Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez considered Gaddafi as "a great fighter, a revolutionary and a martyr." Nelson Mandela expressed sadness at the news, praising Gaddafi for his anti-apartheid attitude and his backing of the African National Congress.

Aftermath. The death of Gaddafi was viewed as a "rare clear-cut victory" for NATO, but that can no longer be said today, since Western public opinion was falsified and Libya was left in chaos with a civil war between the Libyan authorities, Gaddafi loyalists and various militias, totalling more than 100 rival groups. Today there are two rival governments, one in Tripoli and one in Tobruk, none being capable to control the country. The Tobruk government is approved by the Western Allies, even though it committed war crimes in South-Libya. Although the NATO intervention was ended after Gaddafi's death, the United States continued secret

109 operations in Libya and recently carried out an air strike killing the militant Mokhtar Belmokhtar, blamed for a deadly attack on a gas plant in Algeria in 2013. The United States military secretly helped NATO with munitions and surveillance aircraft. Libya is also infiltrated by jihadi's allied with al-Qaeda and Islamic State (see p. 113). Suicide bombings, kidnapping of Western oil workers and beheadings of soldiers and civil activists plague the country. Enormous stock piles of weapons in Libya have been plundered. Weapons smuggled out of Libya have been used by insurgents in Mali, by Boko Haram terrorists in Nigeria and by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip. These weapons come from the West. Ironically, immediately after the death of Gaddafi, the United States, United Kingdom and France celebrated their own rightness and declared Libya a model for future Western interventions! What a hypocrisy! History showed how wrong all these Western governments were. Perhaps one sign of hope: on 17 December 2015, members of the Council of Deputies from both governments (in Tobruk and Tripoli) and the New General National Congress signed a political agreement, supported by the United Nations, to hold new elections within two years and form a single democratic government. This represents a spark of hope, but nothing is settled yet.

In Syria:

Antecedents: Since 1971, Syria was a secular state with virtually one party, the Ba'ath party, and controlled first by Hafez al-Assad and, since 2000, by Bashar al-Assad. Bashar was not expected to reign, but the death of his brother in a car accident changed his future. Assad’s family belongs to an Alawite religion, a minority Shiite branch. The majority (60%) of the Syrian population adheres the Sunni religion. The autocratic ruling of Assad and the introduction of the neoliberal market led to a growing discontent of the population. The economy benefited only a minority of the population, mostly people who had connections with the government (crony capitalism). By 2011, the standard of living had much deteriorated, with steep rises in the prices and huge youth unemployment. The Assad regime harassed and imprisoned human rights activists and critics of the government, often detaining them indefinitely in poor prison conditions and torturing them. Women and Kurds were discriminated. This led to the uprising in early spring 2011. The protesters demanded democratic reforms, release of political prisoners, freedom, abolition of emergency law and an end to corruption.

110

However, the true basis of the Syrian conflict has to be sought in the geopolitical role of the location of a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey. Qatar (Sunnis) and Iran (Shiites) have access to the largest gas field in the World, South Pars/North Dome. Already in 2000, Qatar (America’s closest ally in the Arab World) proposed to construct a $10 billion pipeline through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey. This idea was rejected in 2009 by Assad, who wanted the pipeline start in Iran to suit the Russians who saw the Qatar pipeline as a NATO plot against his country and an attempt to deprive Russia of its only foothold in the Middle East. The Islamic pipeline would end Russian delivery of gas to Europe, which would strangle the Russian economy, and would make Shiite Iran, not Sunni Qatar, the principal gas supplier to Europe. According to WikiLeaks documents, the CIA began funding insurgency groups in Syria soon after Bashar al-Assad rejected the Qatar pipeline (2009), in an attempt to lift Bashar from power. By 2012, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia were arming, training and funding radical jihadist Sunni fighters from Syria and Iraq to overthrow the Shiite-friendly regime of Assad. The United States was covertly funding the invasion by Islamic State (IS, see p. 113) fighters from Iraq into Syria. Thus, a Shiite-Sunni sectarian conflict erupted 'thanks to' support by the CIA and Western Arab allies to get rid of Bashar al-Assad. The incentive of Western political interference in Syria was not a reaction against Assad’s 'crimes' against humanity, but an attempt to eliminate Assad as an obstacle for gas delivery to the West by Qatar, a Sunni state (and a friend of the West). The conflict remains unsettled but, as always, United States political leaders led Americans to believe that the Syrian intervention is a war against tyranny, terrorism and religious fanaticism, in this way further eroding the moral credibility of the West.

Course of events: Insurgencies were immediately crashed by Assad with deadly violence, first by police, then by tanks and artillery and in less than a year with bombing. The insurgency rapidly evolved to a complex civil war. Assad also used Scud ballistic missiles and chemical weapons. However, under pressure of the United States Assad eventually agreed to destroy its chemical weapons stock. The Syrian army also used Shabiha, unofficial pro-Assad militias and Christian militias. In 2013, Hezbollah (a Shiite Islamist militant group based in Lebanon) joined the war in support of Assad. Since the beginning of the uprisings, Iran (Shiites) provided financial, technical and military support to Assad, including troops. Assad

111 was also supported by arms provided by Russia and since the end of 2015 by Russian air strikes, giving a change in the military equilibrium in favour of Assad. The Syrian town of Madaya became besieged by the Assad regime and Lebanon’s Hezbollah since July 2015, causing a barbarian Middle-Age- like starvation war and a humanitarian catastrophe. Pictures were seen of children dying of hunger and lacking medical treatment as a consequence of deliberate bombardments of hospitals. The anti-Assad opposition consisted originally of the Free Syrian Army and then the Islamic Front (2013). Various Sunni-dominated rebel groups and Kurds (mostly Sunni) got also involved, as well as al-Qaeda and the related al-Nusra Front, al- Nusra being among the most aggressive and violent. Also in 2013, the jihadist militant group from the self-proclaimed Islamic State in Iraq (IS, see p. 113) came in, eventually fighting against anti-Assad rebel groups. Also fighting against Assad in the Islamic Front is the Ahrar al-Sham group, a relatively moderate Sunni and Salafi Islamist militant force, planning to replace the Assad regime with an Islamic government. Recently also Turkey got involved, supporting the Islamic front against Assad. At the same time, the Turkish government is also helping IS by turning a blind eye to illegal transfers of weapons, fighters, oil and pillaged antiquities across its southern border. Turkey bombs Kurds across its southern border with Syria, complicating the conflict. The al-Sham group is in conflict with IS and some Kurdish groups and opposes Russian help to Assad. The anti-Assad opposition also gets logistic and military support from the United States, United Kingdom and France. War crimes, including chemical weapons use, massacres and attacks of journalists being detained, tortured and killed, plague the country. As of March 2015, the war hit 290 heritage sites, severely damaged 104 and completely destroyed 24. Five of the six UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Syria have been damaged.

The Syrian war saw a wave of criminal activities, such as looting, rape, kidnappings and organized crime, and many police stations stopped functioning. Even the Syrian government relied on criminal organizations to smuggle goods and money in and out the country. According to the World Health Organization, 35% of the hospitals are out of service and, depending upon the region, up to 70% of health care professionals have fled. Humanitarian help is strongly impeded, as is shown by the fact that in January 2015 only 304 of the estimated 212,000 people who were besieged by government or opposition forces, were reached with food. By

112 the end of 2013, economic damage of the Syrian civil war has been estimated at $143 billion. Estimated deaths range from 140,200 to 470,000, more than 1 million civilians were injured, while more than 4.5 million civilians fled to surrounding countries and Europe. As of March 2015, 10.9 million Syrians, almost half the population, have been forced to leave their homes. Millions are left in poor living conditions in refugee camps, with shortages of food and drinking water.

The Syrian civil war is an example of a proxy war where more than 10 parties are involved and no one seems stronger than the other. Clearly, there is a hidden agenda why the conflict is not resolved yet, the fate of the country only depending on three big powers, the United States, Russia and Iran. The first wants a government without Assad, while the second wants Assad to stay. Obstinate Sunni-Shiite religious fighting is exploited by the big powers. They use double standards to safe guard their profit from oil and gas. The United States has exploited the existence of IS as part of a wider drive to maintain Western control.

Radicalization by the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS) in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Nigeria.

After American troops left Iraq in December 2011, some 1,000 people were killed by insurgents within the first two months after the withdrawal. By mid-2014 the country was in chaos with a new government yet to be formed and insurgency against Western targets reaching new heights. In early June 2014, a Salafi jihadi terrorist group (developed from Sunni al- Qaeda and based on a belief in violent jihadism), the 'Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant') (ISIL, ISIS, IS), took over the cities of Mosul and Tikrit, while Iraqi Kurdish forces controlled the major oil city of Kirkuk in Northern-Iraq. The influence of IS and its territory grew rapidly. Since March 2015 IS controls a territory of 10 million people in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Nigeria. A caliphate was proclaimed under the leadership of Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi, but not recognized by any country. IS exerts extreme terrorist attacks on local as well as Western civilians, violates human rights, persecutes people of other religions, is committing war crimes (beheadings of soldiers, civilians, journalists and aid workers), ethnic cleansing and deliberate destruction of cultural heritage sites. IS’s 'ideology' is that any person without religion or with a religion other than Islamic Salafism has no right to live and should be killed in the name of

113

Allah. It is not a real religion, but a free assembly of certain extremist beliefs, a phenomenon of (religious) fundamentalism (irrational and incoherent religiosity) seen today in all of the World's great religions, but also in non-religious and atheist groups. Salafism exerts a strange attraction on young Muslims who are frustrated by the discrimination and alienation they experience in their societies all over the World. Over 2015 an increasing number of common law criminals joined, suggesting that IS is not a homogenous group and that it includes non-religious criminals. According to a United Nations report (October 2015) 30,000 "foreign terrorist fighters" from 100 different countries had joined Islamist groups, many of them working for IS or al-Qaeda-related groups. IS is well organized and uses social media on the internet to spread its ideas and make anti-Western propaganda. Their relatively high fund raising is based on selling of stolen oil, robberies and other criminal activities and support from Islamic States. The successes of IS gave rise to new air strikes in Iraq by a coalition of the United States, 12 NATO countries (including Belgium) and a number of Islamic countries, but so far with indecisive success for the coalition. Even stronger retaliation by IS followed, such as beheadings of foreign journalists and the terrorist attack by 'al-Qaeda members in Yemen' on Charlie Hebdo in Paris in January 2015. A Russian passenger flight with 224 people was shut down over the Sinai in October 2015 and in November 2015 a coordinated attack occurred in Paris on several restaurants, Stade de France and the Bataclan music theatre, killing 136 people and wounding hundreds, again demonstrating that 'war on terror' does not resolve anything but activates hatred and revenge. In reaction to the Paris Attacks, the leaders of the West couldn't find other words than those of war, whereas their real concern should be stopping discrimination of Muslims and taking care of them and of their jobs and stopping instead of enhancing bombing of Iraq and Syria. United Kingdom Prime Minister Cameron and France President Hollande claimed that their countries were in war with IS and that IS had to be completely destroyed. How this will be done remains unclear. Molenbeek, a borough of Brussels, was suddenly considered 'the hotspot' of terrorism in Europe, because accidentally the Paris attacks were organized by people living in Molenbeek, Belgium. Belgium was even claimed to be a failed state, while less than a year ago Belgium was applauded because a raid of security police in a safe house in Verviers thwarted a terrorist attack. Belgium put the highest-level threat alert on the city of Brussels (lockdown of subway transportation, closing of schools, abolishing public happenings and

114 deploying heavily armed police and military in the streets). But, despite these draconic measures for several days, the police and security services were incapable to crack down the terrorist network in Belgium. Within one month after the Paris attack, more than 2500 police raids were carried out in France. The great majority was not at all related to terrorism, or was later found to be erroneous. People also alert police when they mistakenly see Muslims 'behave strangely'. On 22 March 2016, two terrorist attacks, claimed by IS, co-ordinately hit Brussels airport and a subway station in Brussels, making 35 deaths, more than 300 people wounded and important damage to infrastructure. Three suicide bombers died, while two perpetrators were fleeing, but were recently captured. The identity of the perpetrators was rapidly revealed and several also were involved in the Paris attacks. IS shows that it can hurt the real heart of Europe: the capital of Belgium, the capital of Europe and the home land of NATO. The last terrorist attack again hit France. On July 14, 2016 a truck drove into the crowd that was assisting the Fireworks display of the National Day in Nice, making 84 deaths and many more wounded. Again, the only words from the French government was that the bombings of Iraq and Syria, to which France participates, will not be stopped.

The international support in Syria at both sides of the conflict is too limited and too comparable to have the effect of winning the war and President Obama refuses to send ground troops. NATO ground troops into Syria would be required, but this is not done because of the bad consequences of the Middle-East wars in the past. The consequence is that the conflicts in the Middle-East never end and that an increasing number of citizens in the region are fleeing to Europe, causing a refugee crisis. However, during the first months of 2016, IS-controlled territory seems in decline in Iraq and in Syria.

That Islamic terrorism is spreading over the Western World since the 1990s is shown underneath by the list of terrorist attacks in Europe and the United States or against Western tourists in Asia and Africa. The number of these terrorist attacks is steeply increasing since the last two years and most are claimed by al-Qaeda and IS. This evolution is extremely frightening.

1993, World Trade Centre, New York, 1995, Metro Saint Michel, Paris,

115

1997, Luxor, Egypt, 1998, United States embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, 2001, USS Cole battle ship attack, Yemen, September 11 2001, World Trade Centre and Pentagon, United States, October 12, 2002, Bali, March 11, 2004, Madrid, Spain, May 7, 2004, Nick Berg decapitation, Iraq, November 2, 2004, murder of Theo Van Gogh, Amsterdam July 7, 2005, public transport, London, March 11-19, 2012, Toulouse, France, April 15, 2013, Boston Marathon, United States, May 22 2013, Woolwich, United Kingdom, May 24, 2014, Jewish Museum, Brussels, January 7-9, 2015, Charlie Hebdo and Porte de Vincennes, Paris, March 18, 2015, Bardo Museum, Tunisia, June 26, 2015, Saint-Quentin Fallavier, France, June 26, 2015, Sousse, Tunisia, August 21 2015, Thalys, Belgium-France, October 10, 2015, Ankara, Turkey, November 13, 2015, Paris, France, December 2, 2015, San Bernardino, United States, January 12, 2016, Istanbul, Turkey, February 17, 2016, Ankara, Turkey, March 13, 2016, Ankara, Turkey, March 19, 2016, Istanbul, Turkey, March 22, 2016, Brussels, Belgium, June 7, 2016, Istanbul, Turkey, June 28, 2016, Ataturk airport, Istanbul, Turkey, July 14, 2016, Nice, France, July 18, 2016, Wuerzburg, Germany, July 24, 2016, Ansbach, Germany, July 26, 2016, Rouen, France.

Targeted killing

The decline in moral standards is also found in targeted killing by bomb drones or air strikes. Bomb drones are unmanned planes, often directed by the CIA to the target by telecommunication, with the aim of killing suspected terrorists, without being oneself in danger. Drone attacks are

116 particularly frequent in Pakistan and Yemen and conducted on the premise that the country harbours al-Qaeda terrorists. Some United States politicians and academics have condemned the drone strikes as they violate international law by carrying out strikes against countries (Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia) that never attacked the United States. Furthermore, the drone operators at the CIA are civilians directly engaged in armed conflict, which makes them "unlawful combatants". According to the United States government the lack of military and governmental control in the targeted countries, gives the United States the right of self- defence according to Article 51 in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. However, targeted killing is often uncontrollable, performed covertly and victims often remain unidentified. In 2013, President Obama stated in a speech “we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat”. It is undefined what “continuing and imminent” means. Furthermore, such attacks come totally by surprise so that the 'enemy' cannot defend himself and nobody controls the legitimacy of targeted killing. Drones often also kill innocent civilians and children or they fail to hit the target. At least, they are morally controversial. The question is are the ‘terrorists’ really threatening the United States citizen? Leaked military documents reveal that most people killed were not the intended targets, with 81% being other militants (not al-Qaeda), and 6% being civilians. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has estimated the following cumulative statistics about United States drone strikes in Pakistan (up to February 2016): total killed: 2,497 - 3,999; civilians killed: 423 – 965; children killed: 172 – 207; injured: 1,161 - 1,744; only 84 of the 2,379 dead have been identified as members of al- Qaeda. The number of strikes were 51 under Bush and steeply increased to 372 under Obama. The strikes are strongly unpopular in Pakistan. Pakistan's Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, demanded an end to the strikes, stating: "The use of drones is not only a continual violation of our territorial integrity but also detrimental to our resolve and efforts at eliminating terrorism from our country". A detailed study by the United Nations found that the attacks are a violation of the sovereignty of Pakistan. Also Amnesty International made a study of the drone attacks and condemned the strikes. These anti-terrorist actions can escalate, making them even more difficult to justify. On 11/12 April 2016, two United States airstrikes against Al-Shabaab (al-Qaeda branch in Somalia) killed about a dozen suspected militants, because they were considered a

117

"imminent threat" to American troops in the country. But is the presence of United States troops in Somalia justifiable on such a weak ground? If so, the United States may easily become involved in other African countries as well. The United States interferes everywhere they can just by referring that the people they target are terrorists and, if the United Nations Security Council condemns their actions, they just go about their business by submitting a veto against the resolution. As soon as someone is on a terrorist list he can be targeted. More than 125 United States drone attacks were noticed in Yemen since 2002; 1 in 2002, 1 in 2010, 9 in 2011, 47 in 2012, 24 in 2013, 17 in 2014, 24 in 2015, and 4 in 2016, despite the Yemeni government did not allow the United States to conduct random attacks in the country. The recent top terrorist killed in Yemen was Nasir al-Wahishi, the second in command of al-Qaeda. Also in Syria the United States conduct targeted killing. Mustafa al-Qaduli was killed in May 2015. Several key leaders of IS, including its finance minister Abd al-Rahman, were killed in an airstrike in Syria in March 2016. What is the efficacy of targeted killing? The killed terrorists will be replaced by others.

One of the most spectacular targeted attacks was the raid by CIA assisted American Navy SEALS on Osama bin Laden, who was suspect number one for having organized (not performed) the 9/11 attack. The raid occurred on May 2, 2011 during the Obama administration, almost 10 years after the 9/11 attack. The Special Forces flew unannounced into Pakistan from Afghanistan, hereby violating international laws and committing an act of war. Bin Laden was shot in his residency without any armed resistance from his side. Osama’s body was buried within 24 hours according to Islamic tradition. The raid was widely acclaimed in the Western World but was condemned by others, including Amnesty International, for its illegal and unethical aspects (the fact of not being taken alive despite being unarmed and not being judged in court). No DNA evidence of bin Laden's death was given to the public, removing absolute certainty about his death and leaving doubts about the circumstances of his death. Killing bin Laden gave only a feeling of revenge to the American people, as killing him was of little strategic importance 10 years after the facts and under the geopolitical circumstances of that time. Bin Laden was no longer “a continuing and imminent threat to the American people”. Let us furthermore remember: in 1945, Nazi top leaders that committed many more crimes were executed after being proven guilty in the Nuremberg

118 trials. In fact the targeted killing of bin Laden was an assassination and an ineffective and too late act, as he was already replaced by other terrorists.

Saudi-Arabia and other Sunni states, friends of the West

Saudi-Arabia is a 75-90% Sunni state with an absolute monarchy. Because it is the World's largest oil producer and exporter and controls the World's second largest oil reserves, the country is fostered by the West. It is discriminating women and is the only country where women are not permitted to drive a car. Religion is a Salafist radical variant of Sunni religion (Wahhabism). Its teachings purify the Islam of innovations or practices that deviate from the original teachings of Muhammad. Saudis have "religious police", who patrols the streets, imposing good and forbidding wrong and enforcing dress codes, strict separation of men and women, attendance at prayer five times each day, ban on alcohol and other aspects of Sharia (Islamic law). A minority of Shiites in the country faces systematic discrimination in employment, education and the justice system. Conversion to another religion is illegal. Atheists are legally designated as terrorists. Over the last 50 years, 300 historic sites linked to Muhammad, his family or companions have been demolished. Wahhabi fundamentalism discourages artistic development inconsistent with its religious teaching. The Saudi public school religious curriculum propagates an ideology of hate toward the 'unbelievers', that is, Christians, Jews, Shiites, Sufis, Sunni Muslims who do not follow Wahhabi doctrine, Hindus, atheists and others. Saudi-Arabia supports the building of mosques all over the World. Through these mosques hatred towards non- Muslim and non-Wahhabis is propagated. It finances terrorism by Sunni jihadist groups such as the Taliban, IS, al-Qaeda and the al-Nusra Front. Support of terrorism is centred on Bandar bin Sultan, who has strong ties to high level United States political and military officials. Over the last 50 years, more than 1500 mosques were built and paid for by public Saudi funds. Also Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates finance terrorism.

Despite all these obvious human right violations, the West is hypocritical in its attitude towards these Sunni countries, for it fears losing its local sphere of interest. Again, this attitude erodes the authority of Western leaders in their own countries.

119

Conclusion

We have been raised with the illusion that we are more civilized today than 50-60 years ago. That is partially true as far as emancipation of youngsters, civil rights, women’s rights, environmental protection, resistance against oppression and violence, formal dressing and sexual freedom are concerned, but capitalist power structures have increased, clearly distorting equality and opportunity of people. Since the end of World War II, Western military coalition forces, led by the United States, have been interfering for long periods of time with local affairs in Latin-America, South-East Asia, Indonesia, the Middle-East and North-Africa, with the false justification of bringing freedom and democracy to the local people. The real justification was self-interest and imperialism. None of their interventions have given any fundamental support to democracy and freedom in the World. United States Vice President Cheney was completely wrong in predicting that the United States forces would be "greeted as liberators" in Iraq, following the coalition invasion in 2003. The Iraq war and subsequent occupations by the coalition killed hundred thousands of Muslims and caused displacement of millions of citizens and children. Most military actions were lost or became stalemates, completely destabilized the region of operation and resulted in extreme terrorist reactions both within the region and against targets throughout the Western World. Moreover, it erodes trust in Western government, as it proved to be impossible to counter terrorism. Today there are 65 million refugees trying to escape war and oppression in Libya, Syria, Egypt, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Soudan, Niger, Senegal and Mali. Many refugees are held in detention centres on the sole charge of fleeing violence, with as sole alternative to die in the Saharan desert or drown in the Mediterranean Sea. The number of terrorist attacks does not decrease, they increase and now are hitting Paris, London, Brussels and many other countries, including the United States. All this is the consequence of Western meddling that is spreading 'fear for terror' and uses 'war on terror' as an excuse for its interference. Terrorism and Counterterrorism form a vicious circle that undermines the survival of Civilization. The United States want only one thing: domination over the World. The real terrorists reside in Western governments, particularly in the governments of the United States.

Like every war, proxy-wars are good for Western capitalism. That is the reason why hostilities become so felonious. In proxy-wars different

120 countries compete for power without investing too many resources. Yet, the real enemy acts in secrecy. IS could be destroyed by blocking its bank accounts, but nothing is done in that direction. Jean Jaurès once said: “Capitalism carries within itself war the way clouds carry rain”. The weapon industry profits, but it brings death, misery and despair for human beings. All this illustrates the complete discord between the people and the 'leading officials'. Democracy should be run with a concern for the many, not for the few.

121

References and Reading

Cuban revolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Revolution Bay of pigs invasion: http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/The-Bay-of- Pigs.aspx The Cuba-United States deal: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe- 32679290 United States influence in Latin-America: http://xpatnation.com/the-cia- operations-that-undermined-latin-american-democracy/ The Korean War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War Vietnam War: http://www.historynet.com/vietnam-war Agent Orange: http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/agent-orange Zionism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism American involvement in the Middle-East: http://www.politico.eu/article/why- the-arabs-dont-want-us-in-syria-mideast-conflict-oil-intervention/ The SAVAK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK Iran-Contra scandale: http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1889.html Enhanced interrogation techniques: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us- canada-11723189 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques The Gulf War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders: https://fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm The 9/11 attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Military_operations The War in Afghanistan: http://www.insightonconflict.org/conflicts/afghanistan/conflict-profile/ The Iraq War: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil- juhasz/ Patriot Act: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/22/politics/patriot-act-debate- explainer-nsa/ Wolfowitz Doctrine: http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm Arab spring: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Arab_Spring Islamic State: https://web.stanford.edu/group/mappingmilitants/cgi- bin/groups/view/1 Salafi jihadism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_jihadism John McHugo : Syria, a history of the last hundred years, The New Press. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22750275-syria

122

Chapter 7

Demise of capitalism

“We must have perseverance and above all confidence in ourselves. We must believe that we are gifted for something and that this thing must be attained” — Marie Curie

The three principles of the Enlightenment are 'liberty, equality and fraternity' and freedom of religion. They form the basis of the Western value system, but in reality the Western World does not live according to these values. It lives according to the 'values' of capitalism, a dominating economic system that proclaims liberty but does not respect equality and fraternity. Although laws in Western countries proclaim freedom of religion, in real life there is rising discrimination and racism towards Muslims, blacks, other people with coloured skin and women. Capitalism has been very successful in generating wealth during the developmental stage of a society, but there is no anthropological evidence that it is the economic system of choice for a developed society. In this chapter we bring evidence that further capitalist expansion may not survive in its present form.

1. Stagnation in the capitalist economic system

Proponents of capitalism consider free trade to be the basis of its success, but history has shown that during long periods of time free trade by the West was rather the exception than the rule. During colonialization, countries like Great-Britain and The Netherlands, protected their own capitalist economy from competition by other countries by raising high tariffs on imported goods. Even the free Trade Agreements, NAFTA, TTP and TTIP, are not free and not trade, they are imposed on people and have built in mechanisms protecting or facilitating the export of own products. On the other hand, making the free market deregulated during the neoliberal era and globalizing it also did not result in a stable economy. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 initiated a booming confidence in

123 the Western neoliberal market and the superiority sentiments of Western countries. But this has now come to an end.

The following symptoms indicate a stagnation in the present capitalist economic system:

Growth in gross domestic product (GDP) remains weak or absent in Western countries

Economic growth is estimated from GDP growth. GDP follows cycles. In capitalism a temporary growth phase is always alternating with a period of crisis. However, when averaged over a prolonged time span (1980s- 2008), average global GDP did not increase in Western countries, as compared to that in the 1960s. In 2008 a massive financial crisis appeared and today economic recovery has barely started in Western countries. Growth in financial assets has stalled and cross-border flows of capital in 2012 were more than 60% below their 2007 peak. Global GDP growth was negative (fell to -4 %). In the European Union, GDP growth was near zero in 2012 and 2013 and was still weak in other Western countries. Developing economies such as in China and India still had a growth rate of 7.7 and 6.9%, respectively in 2013, but it was also lower than before the crisis and was further declining in 2015. The stock market is going down in China, which has impacts on that of the whole World. George Soros, George Osborn and Marc Faber seriously warned for a new financial crisis, when a new economic bubble on the stock market was developing in China. When the bubble will burst, it can induce an unstoppable domino effect on financial markets and cause a deep crash of the World economy. In January 2016, the Royal Bank of Scotland warned its clients for a 20% drop in stock market values, although others opposed these warnings.

Ineffectiveness of Central Banks

Crisis in capitalism can be attenuated by several means. Short-term measures are stimulus measures, such as monetary and fiscal policies. Fiscal stimuli include increasing government expenditure by public lending (creating public debt) and lowering taxes, through which it is hoped that more investments will be made by citizens. Monetary stimuli by the central bank (the Fed in the United States, European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of England) consist of lowering overnight interest rates

124 for the banks, which makes additional investments profitable. When this becomes insufficient (interest rates near zero), 'quantitative easing' (QE) is tried. In QE the central bank buys public debt bonds from banks with electronic money (money created out of nothing). This increases the amount of cash in the financial system, encouraging commercial banks to lend more to businesses, who in turn are hoped to invest and spend more, restoring economic growth. In the United States QE by the Fed caused an increase in money in circulation from less than $1 trillion in 2007 to more than $4 trillion in March 2015. To give an idea of the magnitude, the yearly GDP in the United States over that period was $17 trillion. However, there is no consensus among economists on the effectiveness of these economic stimuli and long term effects of QE on economic growth are not convincing. Some critics worry that the created cash would encourage reckless financial behaviour. Others fear that central banks may not be capable of keeping inflation in check, if more money begins circulating. There is a mala fide feature in QE: it causes the interest rates of bonds to fall because a central bank buying bonds in bulk significantly increases demand for them, enabling bond sellers to offer lower interest rates. A large part of QE ends as idle money. And, that gigantic sum of money can make a stock market bubble. QE in Europe has not given any significant improvement of the real economy so far. Money just circulates in the zone of financial speculation.

Since capitalism has no moral content, a long term measure to convincingly resolve crisis has always been moving the capital to another region where wages are lower, regulations or taxation more favourable, social control on working conditions weak and transporting goods and services to the desired place of consumption. Businesses moved to developing countries or previously to colonial territories. Developing economies, however, now also suffer from a decline in growth rate, while wages gradually and significantly rise, making escape routes of capitalism vanish. Today, one sees even reverse moves of capital from China back to the country of origin.

Surplus money from economically proficient countries can also be invested as a loan to economically less performing countries. That was done by Northern European countries who recklessly borrowed money to Southern European countries, which in fact caused the well-known crisis in Greece (see p. 132).

125

It becomes clear that none of the efforts can avoid the return of crisis in capitalism, which suggests the existence of an intrinsic deficit in that system.

Prospects of economic growth look sombre.

The OECD Library recently reported a study predicting the economic scenario for the coming 50 years. Economic growth will decelerate further in developed countries and, after a lag period, also in developing countries. On the other hand, the World will increasingly depend on technology and knowledge, which will tend to favour highly educated people. This will be reflected in a wage rise for people with high skills and in lower wages or unemployment for less educated people. Income inequality is expected to rise by more than 30% by 2060 (to a level found in the United States today). Governments will lose impact to counter the latter evolution due to the tendencies of politicians to choose the side of the elite. Rising inequality will create segregation in social status and increase societal turmoil, further threatening capitalist economies.

The limits of the market: climate change and depletion of resources

In the past capitalism in crisis was rescued by its adaptability and flexibility. This was possible as long as no limits to its functioning were imposed. Today, however, its further expansion is obliterated by climate change, industrial pollution and the depletion of natural resources as a consequence of over-consumption. Human impacts on Nature are externalities that capitalism has never inculcated in the GDP growth rate. This will inevitably slowdown and even halt or negatively affect growth, as these externalities continuously increase in intensity and diversity over time. It has been estimated that the World's production is responsible for environmental externality costs of $7.3 trillion annually (~10% of World GDP), that will have to be paid for in the future.

Significant amounts of capital will be destroyed by climate change impacts during the present century. Repairs of damage to coastal land and agriculture and adaptation to climate change are estimated to cost up to 2.5% of World GDP. Since also growth rate of GDP is decelerating, economic stability will be threatened as never before. With such an annual

126 invoice, GDP will further decline and will lead to a collapse of the present economic system.

On top of that, there will be a steady rise of migration from less developed to developed countries, as climate impacts are larger in subtropical and tropical regions than in more moderate climate regions. Europe and the United States each will have to absorb 50 million migrants between now and 2060 and the rest of the developed World will have to allocate another 30 million. More droughts by climate change in North-Africa and the Middle-East will further increase migration to European cities and synergize with social turmoil as a consequence of social inequalities and unemployment. This will inevitably create hostile feelings of society against refugees and pressure from the immigrants upon the richer countries. Developed countries will try to halt immigration and be confronted with the dangers of far-right authoritarian governments. In fact this trend is already detectable today with respect to people fleeing war in the Middle-East and North-Africa. Some countries in the European Union (Hungary, United Kingdom, France, Slovak Republic, Czech Republic, Denmark, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria) have recently shown such anti- immigration sentiments. The burden of these accelerating immigrations may become so big that states may economically succumb, even with a capitalist economic system. This will antagonize or even annihilate climate mitigation efforts. Capitalism will either collapse or be forced to be replaced by a new and fair economy that respects human justice and Nature. The sooner that will be done, the better and less costly that will be.

Too much debt

Other economic indicators also show that the World economy remains in a bad shape in the West. There is too much debt and it is rising more than economic growth (with Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy as top examples). Many of the loans are bad loans and will not guarantee paybacks. According to the McKinsey Global Institute, total global debt amounted to 87 trillion in 2000, to 142 trillion in 2007 and further increased after the 2008 crisis to 199 trillion. Debt grew in all sectors - financial, corporate, government and household sectors. The compound annual debt growth rate after the crisis was 5.3%, while the GDP growth rate stagnated around 2% globally. The higher the debt, the more credit rating agencies will decrease the credibility of a country in paying back its debt, which will

127 increase the interest rates for new loans by that country. Rating downgrades can accelerate an economic crisis. On the other hand, austerity measures to alleviate debt and to keep the state budget in balance, antagonize consumption, public investments and services and thus economic prosperity. If this trend continues, World economy risks to become more and more vulnerable, leading to a further decline in economic prosperity.

Too much idle money

Idle money is private money not used for providing necessary products and services. There is a huge amount of money ($5 trillion) that is circulating around in the United States, United Kingdom and the Euro zone for speculative purposes. It is only used to artificially inflate stock markets and bid up house prices, whereas it should be used for releasing the debt, for making public investments, developing human talents, improving lives and investing in sustainable energy facilities and climate change adaptation.

Too low real interest rate

Another economic parameter that is in decline is the real interest rate (the nominal interest rate minus the inflation rate). It is steadily going down from 6% globally in the early 1980s to less than 0.1% gains on savings for the common man today. Thus, the euphoria of the neoliberal era was obvious for the 1% rich, but not for the 99% majority.

Dramatic fall in public investments

Still another negative trend is the steady decrease in public investments. In de United States, net federal non-defence investment increased steeply during the late 1950s-1960s (up to 1% of GDP in the late 1960s), fell to 0.4% in 1980 and to 0.06% of GDP in 2013. In public schools the building systems are in questionable or poor condition, roads and bridges are deficient and the water pipe system is profoundly inefficient and outdated, with roughly two-thirds of all water mains installed prior to the Great Depression (1930). The Environmental Protection Agency estimates the cost to keep up with drinking water infrastructure to be $384 billion over the next 20 years. Furthermore, 32% of major roads in the United States

128 are in poor or mediocre condition and it has been estimated that between $124 and $146 billion annually will be needed for substantial improvement. It should be noted that all these costs will add to the investments needed to control climate change and social unrest. In this context it is frightening to realize that the new natural gas mining by fracking that is booming in the United States, has deleterious impacts on soil stability, causing earth quakes and leaks in methane, a greenhouse gas. Moreover, old facilities are poorly maintained and some release large amounts of methane, endangering global warming even faster than has been predicted by the IPCC.

2. Deception and delusion in political management

A healthy state is based on the credibility and authority of the leaders. As explained in Chapter 6, this credibility is eroding in Western countries, as a consequence of the double moral standards that are used to legitimate interventions in non-Western countries, such as during the Korean War, the wars in Indochina (Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia) and the multiple wars in the Middle-East and North-Africa. All these wars were proxy wars justified by the creation of a non-existing enemy, under the pretence to bring democracy for the people. In reality it did not bring democracy. Western governments in the first place preferred either to dominate these countries for their own interests or put local dictatorships for their economic advantage. The pretence of giving people the 'values' of Western societies never was honest. In fact, democracy is receding and it becomes increasingly more difficult to oppose that evolution.

Several lines of evidence support this view.

Criminalization of social protest

An anti-democratic tendency was already seen in the 1960s-1970s, when the ideology of the ruling 'elites' was targeted against the emancipation of students, who had been protesting for more freedom and participation. These student protests were considered troublesome for the 'establishment' and an opinion was launched that there was 'too much democracy' that drove these people to have ‘unreasonable demands’. The

129 slogan from the establishment was that these youngsters should be curbed.

Another example is the violent police repression of the anti-Vietnam war protests in the United States. The FBI used covert operations against domestic political groups and individuals under the pretext of national security threats, such as communist and socialist organizations, Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, Black Nationalist groups, the American Indian Movement, the "New Left", Students for a Democratic Society, the women's rights movement and people seeking independence for Puerto Rico. Albert Einstein had his mail opened, phone tapped and trash picked through after he criticized the nuclear arms race. Surveillance of black leaders was conducted, with the justification that the movement was infiltrated by communists. FBI's COINTELPRO was to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, or otherwise neutralize" groups that the FBI officials believed were "subversive". Today, government officials break the laws by using security agencies to spy on citizens and to intimidate those speaking out against the arrangements between corporations and the state.

Anti-terrorist laws were used to put protesters against the Keystone pipeline under arrest. In Belgium the right wing government makes cuts in education, social programs and arts, sales tax is increased and energy production costs are raised, while a wealth tax is still prevented for the rich. In France the government pushed to pass a new labour law, giving more power to the employer, and the working times can, upon agreement with the employee, be extended from 10 to 12 hours and to a maximum of 60 hours/week. This law is feared because it endangers labour stability. Moreover, the law was installed without parliamentary voting and without social consultation. It led to massive protests and road blockades, disruption of oil refineries and nuclear power stations and elicited violent police reactions. Governments try to impose restrictive measures by using the undemocratic doctrine of 'there is no alternative', as Margaret Thatcher started doing 30 years ago.

The shock doctrine and the dissemination of fear

In her book "The shock doctrine", Naomi Klein illustrates how the United States free market policies succeeded in dominating the World by taking advantage of people shocked following wars, terrorist attacks or natural

130 disasters, to achieve more control over them. After the great tsunami in Southeast Asia, capitalist enterprises moved in to take profit of the situation. Pinochet’s coup in Chile in 1973, the Falklands War in 1982, the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Asian Financial crisis in 1997, Hurricane Mitch in 1998 and Katrina in 2005, were all deliberately abused to repress resistance and impose economic imperatives. Klein argues that neoliberalism belongs among "the closed, fundamentalist doctrines that cannot co-exist with other belief-systems ... The world as it is must be erased to make way for their purist invention. Rooted in biblical fantasies of great floods and great fires, it is a logic that leads ineluctably towards violence." According to Klein social breakdown during capitalist crises are intrinsic to the free-market. And in the worst case (in 2008), failing banks are bailed out (public payments of their debts) by governments. According to Paul Volcker, chairman of the White House Economic Recovery Advisory Board, bailouts create a moral hazard: they incite banks to take reckless risks and, if the risks are realized, taxpayers pay the losses. In 2000, the World Bank reported that bank bailouts costed an average of 12.8% of GDP, mostly payed by the common taxpayer. After 2008 the banks recovered quickly, while unemployed people stayed unemployed. The banks again were more regulated by the state, but meanwhile they make large profits by operating via shadow banks, with which they can do business without official bank controls. Banks, governments and corporations are a triumvirate that optimize the distribution of the money among each other, by inducing fear in the general population.

Structural adjustment programs (SAPs)

Naomi Klein also criticizes the practices of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which often aggravate capitalist crises instead of alleviating them. The IMF provides loans to countries facing economic crises, but obtains the money only if these countries implement structural adjustment programs (SAPs). SAPs impose neoliberal measures, including privatization and selling of state-owned industries and resources, austerity measures and reduction of trade barriers. Austerity measures include regulations of spending by increasing taxation and/or cutting state expenditure. Decreasing government spending leads to increased unemployment. Raising taxes reduce household disposable income, thus reducing consumption. Countries in despair have no choice but accepting

131 the IMF dictates, otherwise they don’t get the monetary support. SAPs often caused economic stagnation as a consequence of heavy austerity programs that usually cut most often in education, social achievements, and public health care. Selling government property at a too low price is another reason of impoverishment and loss of economic power. SAPs led to deleterious effects in Eastern Europe and Russia. Governments were forced to reduce spending on health care, which resulted in a rise of tuberculosis in these countries. The idea is that public support should be efficient and that this can be reached by privatization, but public support in a democracy is in the first place constructing a social safety net without a profit return. That is often forgotten and even unwanted in a neoliberal program. IMF-led SAPs in the 1990s resulted in the privatization of Egyptian textile industry and significant cuts in its workforce with stagnation of wages. The Argentina government, not long before the economic collapse of 2002, tried in vain to implement an IMF diktat to cut public spending at a time when the economy was already in decline, with the result that the country fell in an economic depression, inducing poverty and social breakdown. The IMF is only concerned with the neoliberal convictions of the money lenders and not with the common man’s fate. Those who profit are the money lenders, not the people. The loan goes mainly to recapitalization of the banks. The latter are private institutions and, thus, they keep a significant part of the money out of the real economy.

The Greek crisis

Perhaps the best example of economic downturn by SAPs is what happened recently to Greece. When Greece joined the Euro group in 2001, confidence in the Greek economy grew and a big economic boom followed, when Northern European countries wanted to invest their surplus money into Southern Europe, including Greece. Lending to the Greeks was reckless (like it was in the United States). Greece enlisted banks like Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase evaded the existing borrowing rules to keep their malpractices under the radar. The lenders were aware (or had to be aware) of the situation in Greece and were therefore at least co- responsible for the resulting debt crisis. The tax raising system in Greece was very inefficient and incomplete and services suffered from clientelism. Tax evasion accounted for half of Greece's 2008 deficit and a third of its 2009 deficit. The usual way of dealing with large debts is currency devaluation, as it increases export, but that was impossible as the currency

132 was the Euro and Greece was in the Euro zone. An alternative would have been a return to the drachma, but the majority of the Greeks was not in favour. Greece had to call for financial aid from Europe. The Troika, a triumvirate of the IMF, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the European commission (EC), was founded in 2010 and, together with the chairman of the Euro group, got the mandate for financial aid to Greece. But this was on the condition of severe austerity measures, structural reforms and privatization of government assets. The first bail-out accounted to a €107.3 billion loan at 6% interest in 2010, €72.8 billion being disbursed by March 2012, when the program was superseded by the second bail-out, comprising the undisbursed amounts of the first bail-out and an additional €130 billion loan for the years 2012–14 at 3.5% interest rate. The main creditors from the Euro group were Germany, France and Italy. The first bail-out resulted in a 25 per cent decline of the country's GDP, associated with a debt mounting to 177 % of GDP. The second bail-out gave an improved outlook, with achievement of a government structural surplus in 2013 and 2014, a decline of the unemployment rate and return of positive economic growth in 2014. However, this was followed by a new recession period in the last quarter of 2014. Importantly, leaked documents showed that the original Troika loan in 2010 was not intended to save Greece but to save the European monetary union and the European banking system at a time when the Euro group had no defence against contagion (the spread of market changes or disturbances from one regional market to others, resulting in financial crises spreading across national borders). The extra loan was imposed on an already bankrupt Greek state to buy time for saving the Euro. Moreover, due to the severe austerity programs imposed by the SAPs, household incomes strongly decreased and the debt/GDP ratio increased steeply, leading Greece into a situation that made it impossible to ever pay back the debts. Urging people into debt is making people dependent and weak, a dirty capitalist trick. The social consequences of the austerity dictate were dramatic. Youth unemployment in mid-2013 was 65%, wages fell by 40%, 800,000 people lived without unemployment benefits and health coverage, 400,000 families were without a single bread winner, suicide rate increased by 40% in 2012, the Greek health budget was cut by almost 40% and state funds for medication had been halved. HIV infection rates had risen 200%. There were shortages in medicines. Was all this morally justified? No. Everybody agrees that Greece needed major reforms, but major reforms

133 cannot be associated with destructive, economy-wrecking austerity measures.

The third rescue program was prepared after the Syriza party (radical left) came to power in February 2015. This party wanted to renegotiate the SAP's with the Troika and continue on a new creditor program, not the bail-out program from the Troika configured by the previous government. Although the IMF warned that a substantial debt cancelation would be necessary in order to save Greece from bankruptcy, the European Union, under pressure of Germany and the chairman of the Euro group, maintained its rigid austerity position and disregarded the serious critics by renowned economists, such as Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz and Paul De Grauwe. In May 2015, an overview of the Greek measures for economic reconstruction was proposed by the Greek Minister of Finance, Yanis Varoufakis, to the Troika. It was rejected. The Troika also systematically rejected the subsequently adapted proposals of the Syriza-led Greek government. The new government had been chosen by the majority (Syriza) because it explicitly denied accepting the imposed austerity program. Prime Minister Tsipras argued that the Greek people had a right to vote for a future that was different from the one dictated by distant bankers and bureaucrats in the Troika. However, the Troika claimed that democratically elected government in Greece did not have the right to interfere with economic regulation implemented on Greece by the previous government (led by Samaras), a blatant attack on democracy. The Troika even threatened with the closure of the Greek banks if the Greek government refused to accept the unchanged Troika conditions. This was clearly an act of terrorism by the Troika on the Greek people. It demonstrated the complicity of the Troika with the capitalist exploitation system. The Troika remained insensitive for the protests of the Greek people against the austerities and for the protests of people in various countries in support of the Greeks. The Troika even denied the United Nations call for solidarity with the Greeks. The Troika diktat remained essentially unchanged: austerity should be fully implemented and the reforms that had already been agreed to by the previous Greek government, should be fully carried out. Piketty proposed to solve the Greek impasse by debt relief, combined with inflation and a tax on private wealth. Piketty reminded that “Great Britain, Germany and France were all once in the situation of today’s Greece and in fact had been far more indebted”. Germany was one of the most reticent for debt cancellation in

134

Greece, because it had lots of cash surplus that it had invested in Greece. The richer a country, the less solidary it is, again showing the selfishness and lack of moral content of capitalism. Moreover, Piketty noticed “that Germany is the best example of a country that, throughout its history, has never repaid its external debt”. Bernie Sanders, a candidate for the nomination by the Democratic party in the United States Presidential election, said “In a World of massive wealth and income inequality Europe must support Greece's efforts to build an economy which creates more jobs and income, not more unemployment and suffering” and President Obama said "You cannot keep on squeezing countries that are in the midst of depression”. Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman noticed that “Europe is acting like medieval doctors bleeding their patients”.

The inhumane attitude and rigidity of the Troika and the Euro group are shocking. It furthermore showed that the Troika's executive power is not based on democratic practices. The heads of these institutions are not elected and their decision making is hegemonic with no accountability to be given to the European parliament. It is also shocking that European Union autocrats even tried to block the IMF report that pleaded for debt cancellation. In reality, the Troika only wanted to save the creditors' money, not the wellbeing of the Greek citizens. Today the European Union shows its real face: it deliberately failed in negotiating with the Greeks on a humane basis, hereby leaping into a reputational damage. It pretended the Greek debt problem is crucial but, in reality, according to some scholars, it wanted to sway out the radical left government in Greece and to punish the population for its previous (before 2008) reckless behaviour and the country's clientelism. A horrible and senseless reasoning, but a perfect capitalist behaviour.

In the streets the common man was demonstrating in favour of Greece throughout Europe and the Greek people voted a massive NO! (OXI) in a referendum about the European Union austerity dictate on Sunday 5 July 2015. The majority had condemned the austerity program again. The voice of the people had spoken again and that is supposed to set decision making in a true democracy, but the Troika was unrelenting. Tsipras ultimately signed the very strong austerity conditions a few weeks later, e.g. pension cuts, increases of consumption tax, obligation to have a budget surplus of +3.5% of GDP by 2018 and privatizations of €50 billion state assets to be

135 agreed on for getting the third bail-out of €85 billion loan from the creditors.

Today, more than €100 billion capital has left Greek banks since the start of the crisis, apart from the capital that was already transferred to foreign countries by the rich. Pensions had 12 cuts already! Implementation of the reforms will cause even more discontent and despair. The Greek citizen will not see any improvement in its everyday life in the near future. Only the creditors and the banks will profit. Recapitalization of Greek banks takes a large part (almost one third) of the third bail-out program and is given priority. There are still bank controls so that the citizens are not allowed to take large amounts of cash from their bank accounts. Another problem is that €45 billion cash is kept by Greek people at home (25% of GDP) and that 40% of the loans are bad non-productive (toxic) loans (people unwilling or unable to pay back their debts). All that cash has to be brought back to the banks in order to feed the investments of the country. Some positive prospects for the banks have been given most recently, but this was the opinion of a banker. Let us not forget: once the money is back in the bank, it is in private hands and escapes to speculation and not to the real economy, nor to the common man. The Greek crisis is far from resolved. Today, even the IMF is convinced that the Greek debt cannot be paid off. The IMF refuses to further pay the bail-out if there is no partial reduction of the debt. Scholars even say that the Greek debt should be written off just like the German debt was written off in 1953, just eight years after the end of World War II. Will the European creditors do that? Most likely not. This is the true nature of capitalism: no morality, no compassion and no justice for people who are not responsible for the debacle! Ultimately only the lenders (the ‘few’) will have profit out of these operations. They are obsessed by profit seeking of their surplus money. Moreover, the European Union is hypocritical, as the rich countries of Northern Europe are refusing to pay back African, Asian and Latin American countries. European solidarity counts for naught when push comes to shove. Money has no soul. The European Union has no soul. And this is not the only existential problem for Europe.

136

Crisis in Ireland and other European countries

SAPs were also imposed on Ireland and other European countries (Portugal, Cyprus and Spain) after the 2008 crisis. Before the onset of the crisis, Ireland suffered an enormous housing bubble supported by a surge in bank lending. The balance sheets of the banks grew disproportionately large relative to the size of the economy, and increasingly risky lending practices were seen. A fifth of Irish workers were in the construction industry and the average price of a home in Dublin had increased 1200% from 1994 to 2006. The country was the second to ask the European Union, the ECB and the IMF for a bail-out. €85 billion was provided in return of strict austerity measures: deep cuts in spending and public-sector jobs, a lower minimum wage and higher taxes. Unlike Greece, Ireland rapidly recovered after its banks were bailed-out. Unemployment went from 14 % in 2011 to 8.5 % in 2015. Health expenses decreased with 9%. Ireland has a large export, which helped. However, today wages are still below the 2008 level and taxes have increased. Child poverty has doubled, from 6.8% in 2008 to 11.7% now. Some 138,000 children live in permanent poverty.

Importantly, economic recovery benefited mainly the wealthy in the Dublin region. For example, no provision for a tax on asset wealth was made, while the common man lost income and got higher taxes to pay. The difference between rich and poor increased like in many other countries. Ireland is another example of how the neoliberal economy works. It makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. The Irish example again shows the nature of capitalism. It is amoral and in practice immoral.

Refugee crisis in Europe

During 2015 Europe experienced a sudden influx of more than 1.2 million refugees fleeing the desperate war in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, all caused by unnecessary Western meddling. These refugees lived for years in Turkey (2.8 million), Jordan (1.4 million) and Lebanon (1 million). Many have inferior jobs there and let their children work illegally in factories. Others live in camps with limited access to basic services, education and healthcare. Overcrowding of the camps made refugees to flee. Since these refugees had no visa for the European Union, they called on smugglers, to whom they payed thousands of Euros to arrange transfer. Entries into Europe were mostly over sea via Greece, Bulgaria, Italy, Spain, Malta and

137

Cyprus and these routes were dangerous. Boats were overcrowded and some capsized, making thousands to drown in the Mediterranean Sea. On a per capita basis, the largest influx was into Hungary, Sweden, Austria and Germany. In 2015 1,799 refugees per 100,000 inhabitants arrived in Hungary, 1,667 in Sweden, 1,027 in Austria, while the figure for Germany was 587 and for Belgium 397. The United Kingdom accepted only 60 refugees for every 100,000 residents over the same period. Greece is overwhelmed by refugee influx from Syria over Turkey, because coast boundaries are very large due to the many Greek islands in the Aegean Sea. The country let refugees just travel through to other European countries as a consequence of lack of funds.

The European Union desperately tried to get the necessary solidarity for spreading the refugee over the different European counties, but decisions by the European Commission were not followed up by most member states. Instead, fences were built in Hungary, Austria, Slovenia, Macedonia and Turkey to keep refugees out. Border controls have also been re- established in France, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Austria and Belgium, endangering the Schengen agreement that allows free circulation of people through Europe. The convention of Geneva on refugees is being questioned, also in Belgium by the New Flemish Alliance party. Since early March 2016, the Macedonian and Austrian borders are completely closed for people without visa, forcing them to stay in large numbers in Greece. To decrease the refugee influx over Turkey, €3 billion have been promised to Turkey for assistance in keeping the refugees out but the European Union could not agree on how to fund the price tag. Turkey also demanded an additional €3 billion as compensation for its efforts by 2018 (totalling the support to €6 billion). In fact, the negotiations with Turkey were held by a ‘solo slim’ action of Angela Merkel and not by the European Union, not a very good solution for the confidence of the member states. United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron has been speaking scornfully of the refugees and refused to accept Europe-imposed quota. The United Kingdom committed to limit influx to only 20,000 refugees from Syria over the next five years. Denmark also refused the quota imposed by the European Union and, on the basis of an urgently voted law, confiscated personal cash and valuables from refugees to 'help' pay their influx. In October 2015 Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia refused taking up Muslims. Although in the beginning, refugees were quite welcome in Germany and Sweden, the influx in 2015 was so large (>1

138 million in Germany) that it fed anti-immigration feelings. Hate speech against Muslims increased in the streets and on Facebook, leading to tougher attitudes of authorities against hate speech. German police reported 906 attacks against refugee homes in 2015, ranging from arson to physical assaults.

On 17-18 march 2016, an agreement was finally made between Turkey and the European Union that all refugees arriving in the Greek islands will be registered in Greece and then sent back to Turkey and that Turkey in turn will allow the same number of Syrian refugees, now residing in existing camps, to be sent by legal vehicles towards Europe, but not more than 72,000 for this year (2016). The fate of other refugees present in Turkey is unclear. In addition, the deal includes Turkish citizens to travel to Europe without visa and considers the possibility that Turkey would join the European Union in the future, provided a number of obstacles are overcome but so far this is not done yet. The United Nations and Human Right Organizations have questioned the legality of the deal with Turkey: sending people back in group and to countries that are not considered safe, i.e. that do not fully implement the respect of human rights and freedom, is violating international law and the charter of the European Union. Sending people back to Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan has been fiercely criticized by human rights groups on ethical grounds. The European Union closes eyes for deportation to unsafe countries. Furthermore, refugees who are deported to Turkey will be sent to the back of the queue for their final resettlement, which is unfair. That the refugees on the Greek islands payed the smugglers for bringing them there is of no value under the agreement. Refugees will prefer to seek new flee ways and smugglers even at risk of downing. In fact, the number of refugees fleeing to Europe from Libya over Italy is already increasing. In Libya some 400,000 refugees are waiting for transport via the Mediterranean Sea to Italy. In addition, Greece needs many more asylum officials and court judges to deal with possible appeals by refugees against the decision of the Greek authorities – a tough claim, given that the European Union has sent much smaller numbers and far less aid in the past. The more than 40,000 refugees trapped in terrible conditions at the Macedonian border in Greece will not be returned to Turkey under the terms of the deal, but will be shared between the member states of the European Union. However, this never worked in the past, making this part of the agreement very implausible.

139

Turkey cannot be considered a safe country, nor a country respecting all human rights. The country did not sign the United Nations refugee convention and, up to today, the European Union also did never consider Turkey safe in these terms. Turkey has already been accused to send refugees back to Syria, is even shooting at refugees at the border and has closed the border with Syria, making refugees accumulate in harsh conditions in camps near the border. Recently, Turkey seized the largest newspaper Zaman and the Cihan news agency under dramatic and brutal circumstances and replaced it by a propaganda machine for the government. Journalists were fired and arrested simply because they defended the central values of their profession: freedom and independence. No protests from the European Union concerning this blatant violation of human rights by Turkey! President Erdogan is certainly not a trustworthy person as far as human rights is concerned. Recently, a failed coup by the army on July 15/16, 2016 initiated a ruthless elimination of alleged adversaries by Erdogan. In a few days Erdogan ordered to arrest or fire some 60,000 people, including military, judges, teachers, university professors, clergymen, preachers, religious teachers, employees of several Ministries and many media people, all suspected by Erdogan to have played a role in the coup. Often rude treatment of the detainees was observed and Amnesty International already found that detainees are tortured. Erdogan is leading a real counter-coup against civilians. On July 20, 2016, he proclaimed the state of emergency, which was confirmed by the parliament, allowing longer arrests and the introduction of laws without parliamentary control. The signing of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights was suspended. European and American politicians warned Erdogan not to use the coup attempt as a Blanc cheque to ban the rule of law but Erdogan disregarded these warnings. Erdogan also inculpated Fethullah Gülen, an Islamist cleric who lives in self-imposed exile in the United States and leads a movement of a technology-friendly moderate form of Islam with a broad national and international network in education, interfaith dialogue, humanitarian aid, media promoting tolerance and mutual respect, professional associations and business. Erdogan even requested an extradition order for Gülen, without any evidence for his participation in the coup was given. Erdogan’s reaction is blatantly authoritarian and reprehensible and may seriously damage the ongoing European deal concerning the refugee crisis. Erdogan‘s actions begin to remind us how fascism evolved in the 1930s.

140

His actions are consistent with several features of fascism (see next section). He unduly sees his political adversaries as terrorists and disseminates fear. Furthermore, Turkey is involved in an open conflict with Kurdish insurgents since 1978 and, since 2011, the conflict has become increasingly violent with resumption of large-scale hostilities.

The deal between Europe and Turkey already led to excessive manifestations of power. Greece urgently voted a law recognizing that Turkey is a safe country and, thus, that refugees could be sent back to Turkey by Greece. This decision seems to be driven by the fear of Greece for lack of funds to deal with the refugees, which is an understandable reaction in view of the attitude of the Troika and Germany in the Greek crisis in 2015. On the Greek island of Lesbos, police even prevented volunteers from offering emergency aid to the refugees. A baby was not making any noise, and when a doctor asked to examine the baby, police said "these people are prisoners”. In June 2016 the ‘claimed’ success of the deal with Turkey encouraged the European Union to prepare a plan of collaboration with several African countries in an attempt to avoid migration to Europe. Eritrea and Sudan, which have dictatorial regimes and use torture to maintain their power, are included in the planned deal.

The deals of Europe with Turkey and African countries are by no means democratic or humanitarian deals, they are arbitrary and illegal deals, said to open legal roads to Europe and avoid drowning in the Mediterranean Sea but, in reality, to keep the refugees out of Europe. It is a shameful sign of European weakness and a violation of the European charter. The truth is that the European Union just turns a blind eye to international law and the reality of human suffering. Typical for Right Wing preferences. The European Union is scornfully called ‘fortress Europe’. Hypocrisy is reigning. European Union delegates have been allowed to visit a camp in Turkey to evaluate the situation in these camps. Reasonable conditions for the refugees were found in that particular camp but the delegates were not allowed in many other camps. There is a lack of solidarity, the very important ideal of the European Union. The European Union is losing its credibility. Xenophobic (extreme) right parties all over Europe exploit the refugee crisis to gain political power and influence.

Shouldn’t we realize that we ourselves, in the West, have a long history of emigration and that we even colonized the whole World during hundreds

141 of years, took land from North- and South-American Indians, destroyed their culture and exploited many local populations? It is not only Erdogan’s actions that are dangerous. For more than 70 years the United States interfered with foreign countries all over the World for own profit. United States Presidents unduly saw communist, leftist and Muslim adversaries in the World as terrorists. Apparently, those in power always see political dissidents as terrorists when, in their mind, their interests are at stake. In the face of 4 realities we should realize that, so far, the refugee crisis is a relatively mild crisis: 1) The number of people fleeing their homes at the global level was 65 million in 2015, the largest number since World War II, 2) the European Union is much richer than Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Libya together and, thus, has larger resources to deal with the problem, 3) in the latter Arabic countries the number of refugees is much higher than that in the European Union (5 million vs 1.2 million), 4) at present, the proportional number of refugees asking asylum in Europe is only 0.26 % on a per capita basis. Thus, that people are anxious for the ever increasing Muslim influx is a silly overstatement and is due to a lack of solidarity and anti-Muslim hatred. We should accept migration as an inevitable fact that always existed, instead of looking for jerky, unjust and ineffective measures that we organize today. And most importantly, we should not forget that immigration in Europe will be further driven up by climate change impacts and the large population growth in developing African countries. The alternative of pushing back migrants will surely become totally ineffective over time, when more and more people will be determined to enter Europe as their last chance opportunity. The more we oppose, the more we will eventually be overrun.

A disintegration threat for the European Union

On top of all this, there are other major problems lurking in Europe. 1) There are the European sanctions against Russia for its occupation of Crimea, which damage the economy in Europe. The economic costs are around $114 billion and up to 2 million jobs were lost. 2) the United Kingdom is coming up with another threat: a referendum, to be held in June 2016, to leave the European Union (‘Brexit’). Prime Minister Cameron was pleading for a stay in the Union, but the referendum gave 52 % of British citizens opting to leave. Cameron submitted his resignation, but a period of negotiations concerning the exit is now further threatening the European Union. 3) Catalonia wants to become independent by

142 referendum in Spain. 4) Nobody talks anymore about the Greek crisis but this crisis is far from resolved. 5) On 7 April, 2016, a referendum was held in the Netherlands on the ratification of a European treaty on closer economic and political ties with Ukraine. The referendum outcome was rejection of this treaty, putting pressure on the Dutch relationship with Europe (‘Nexit’).

3. Slipping into political fascism?

The present political evolution in Europe is revealing a slumbering trend towards fascism. Characteristics of fascism include elimination of democratic rule, centralization of power, state/corporate control over production, plunder of natural resources through industrialization, call for a ‘spiritual revolution’ against (imaginary) signs of moral decay, purging ‘alien’ forces and groups that threaten the organic community, protecting the wealth of the powerful, social exclusion, terrorizing the public through surveillance and secret police, aggression, violence, militarism, nationalism, racism, appeal to a mythical higher power or cause and violent crackdown on organized labour and social movements.

Numerous fascist developments were established as dominating systems in the early and mid-20th century: Italian fascism of Benito Mussolini (1922-1943), being the first example, Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler (1933-1945), the Falange in Spain under Francisco Franco (1937-1977), the Austro-fascism in Austria under Engelbert Dollfuß (1933-1938), the 4th of August Regime in Greece under Ioannis Metaxas (1936-1941), the Sanation in Poland under Józef Piłsudski (1928-1935), the National Legionary State in Romania under Ion Antonescu (1940-1941), the Vichy regime of Philippe Pétain in France (1940-1945), collaborating with the German Nazi's, the Ustaše in Croatia under Ante Pavelic (1929-1945), the Estado Novo in Portugal under António de Oliveira Salazar (1933-1974), military cliques, dominating the national government in Japan (1930s- 1945), the Integralist Party in Brazil (1937-1945), the National Socialist Movement in Chile (1932-1938), Chiang Kai-shek in China (1932–1938 and 1941-1945), the Capua Movement in Finland (1929–1932), the military dictatorship of Colonel George Papadopoulos (1967-1974) in Greece, the regime of Miklós Horthy in Hungary (1932–1945), the Slovak People's Party (1939–1944), the D.F. Malan support of German Nazis

143

(1930s -1940s) and the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (1970s-1980s) in South-Africa. Furthermore, several countries saw smaller developments, such as the 'New Guard' in Australia, the 'Parti National Social Chrétien' in Canada, the 'Rex' movement and the 'Vlaamsch Nationaal Verbond' party in Belgium, the 'Blueshirts' in Ireland and the 'Acción Revolucionaria Mexicana' in Mexico. In 1923-1945 several fascist movements were noticed in the Netherlands: the 'Verbond van Actualisten' followed by the 'Vereeniging De Bezem' with the aim to clean Dutch politics and the 'Nationaal-Socialistische Beweginging Nederland', the 'Algemeene Nederlandsche Fascisten Bond', 'Zwart Front'. Many other smaller fascist groups exist: the 'Kataeb Party' in Lebanon, the 'Black Legion', 'Silver Legion of America', 'German American Bund' and many small neo-fascist groups in the United States between the 1950s and 1980s and the ' British Union of Fascists' in the United Kingdom.

Most of these movements disappeared, but since the 1990s a progression to fascism is flaring up again. Neo-Nazi groups and far-right parties have developed in at least 19 European countries today, although not yet reaching a majority: the 'Freedom Party of Austria' (FPO) of Jörg Haider in Austria, who obtained 22% of the votes in the 1994 elections, the Lega Nord in Italy (at the 2014–2015 regional elections 40.9% of the votes were counted in Veneto, 20.3% in Liguria, 19.4% in Emilia-Romagna, 16.2% in Tuscany, 14.0% in Umbria and 13.0% in Marche), 'Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw' in Belgium, the 'Bosnian Movement of National Pride' in Bosnia Herzegovina, the 'Social-National Party of Ukraine', founded in 1991 and renamed 13 years later as 'All-Ukrainian Association Svoboda'. In Croatia, the Ustase still exists with headquarters in Zagreb. Several neo-Nazi gangs appeared in Brazil in the 1990s. In the United States presidential candidate Donald Trump (republicans) has been accused of fascism for proposals such as requiring Muslims to carry identification cards, creating a national registry of Muslims and banning Muslims to enter the country. But even when a movement is not being labelled 'neo-fascist' or 'neo-Nazi', characteristics of fascism are developing in many European countries today. Several countries have seen the development of far-right parties that gained significant votes: The Front National in France (25 %), Golden Dawn in Greece (10 %), the Danish People’s Party in Denmark (27 %), Party for Freedom in the Netherlands (PVV) (12 %), Jobbik in Hungary (15 %) and Vlaams Belang in Belgium (Flanders) (5 %, but increasing again recently). The xenophobic, Islamophobic, homophobic and, most

144 obviously, the anti-immigrant rhetoric has ramped up everywhere and has been adopted by the political mainstream. Several striking examples are the 'Patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of the Occident' (Pegida), an anti-Islamic movement founded in October 2014 by Lutz Bachmann in Dresden, Germany, 'Alternative für Deutschland' (AfD) and the recent success of the FPO in the presidential election in Austria. There is no 'Kristallnacht' but there are neo-Nazis in Greece attacking the shops and houses of migrants in the middle of the night.

Today, we come close to a condition in which Muslim refugees and migrants are viewed as the Jews in the 1930s. Although there is political reaction against far-right movements by direct or indirect 'cordon sanitaire' measures, it is not guaranteed that fascist development will be halted. Those who have not joined ultra-right neo-fascist trends, do join right-wing parties, sometimes in large numbers (such as the recent success of the New Flemish Alliance in Belgium, the Law and Justice party (PiS) in Poland, the authoritarian discourse of Orban, who claims to be defending Christian Europe against the ‘Muslim horde’ and the Swiss People’s party (SVP). There is a general trend in Europe of a swing to the Right and a failure of the Left to come with a credible alternative solution. This will play into the hands of fascism or at least of authoritarian regimes. A today’s example of a drift towards fascism is the present regime in Turkey, where President Tayyip Erdogan increasingly bans freedom of press, orders arrests of journalists, teachers, members of the Gülen movement, artists and politicians and installed a procedure of denunciations by citizens of people suspected of terrorism or anti-government critics. Erdogan even tries to punish people criticizing him throughout Europe. His extraordinary cleansing in response to the failed coup of the army in July 2016 is a dangerous and frightening digression in that direction. Erdogan encourages and instigates people in the streets to act against the members of the Gülen movement and manipulates the parliament through dissemination of fear. The danger is that the European Union and the United States do not firmly react against this progression to fascism, just like what happened in the 1930s.

The fight against fascism should not wait for the appearance of a picture similar to full-blown fascism that existed in the past. One should be conscious that fascism was often not recognized by main stream consciousness in its beginning stages and was established through a

145 democratic process. This is what is going on today: relatively weak protest against Erdogan and Erdogan referring to the democratic control by a frightened parliament.

In Noam Chomsky’s view we live already in a fascist economy. He said: "Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level – there’s a little bargaining, a little give and take, but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward".

146

References and Readings

The 2008 crisis: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/feb/03/who- caused-financial-crisis-great-recession The shock doctrine: Naomi Klein: http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine The Greek crisis: http://www.greekcrisis.net/ The refugee crisis: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911 The refugee crisis (2): http://www.therefugeeproject.org/#/2014 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees: http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c2.html

147

148

Chapter 8

Towards a social system centred on voluntary human cooperativity, ecosystems and the environment: green anarchism

“As citizens, we all have an obligation to intervene and become involved – it’s the citizen who changes things” – José Saramago

The greatest threat to human existence on this Planet is the interaction of three phenomena that have never been present together in the past: global climate change, shortage of natural resources and social injury by capitalism. The capitalist system requires growth for survival but it always ends in crisis, which at present is difficult, maybe impossible, to reverse. While capitalist output continued to rise up to the present time, the feeling of happiness already stagnated in the late-1970s. It did not improve at all during the subsequent neoliberal era. Not happiness but wealth was further increasing. Capitalist crisis will worsen all efforts to mitigate climate change and shortage of natural resources will make further capitalist expansion impossible. It is, thus, urgent to find a way out of this vicious circle.

The present chapter shows that a system where humans and Nature are central, not profit and greed, is getting increasing attraction. That system is built on free associations and cooperative interactions between humans far from the sphere of influence and authoritarian domination of the state and rich individuals. It is making genuine human ties and community feeling. It is small-scale in size but becomes large by the summation of the many small cooperative actions.

149

1. Anarchism, a social organization focusing on human non- hierarchical free associations already existed in the past but was destroyed by the combined actions of fascism, communism and Western capitalism.

Anarchism sees society as a structure built on non-hierarchical free associations between people. It denies the central authority of the state and other authoritarian institutions, such as religious and capitalist institutions (corporations). Unlike capitalism and the centralized state, anarchism is consistent with all the achievements of the Enlightenment – Liberté, Egalité and Fraternité –, assuring true freedom for all. Anarchism seeks the construction of a self-organizing authority in society. That is: any form of authority and domination has to prove its legitimacy and, when it cannot, it should be dismantled and reconstructed from below. Someone in authority has to provide the arguments of his/her legitimacy, whereas it is the responsibility of the people to challenge that authority. Anarchism is against rulers, not against rules. Rules are conventions decided on by the people. Many of the present states have no solid legitimacy, as they use the language of repression and praise competition that sets up people against each other. One form of anarchism (anarcho-syndicalism) is not against a minimum state that ensures certain basic needs (such as basic income), provided it is fully transparent and just. A second central idea in anarchism is that workers have the natural tendency to organize themselves successfully on the working-floor and by extension on all levels of society. In this way a more decentralized economic system is made based on mutual aid, mutual support and voluntary cooperation. The war between men is replaced by the practice of mutual aid and rivalry by solidarity. The core element is authentic participation. It is about making reflections on how a true democratic society should and would look like. That change can begin in small communities, independent on the state and, if successful, can spread to larger cooperating groups, assisted by a minimum state. Voluntary associations can be formed that control production and services from below, not on the basis of top-down hierarchical structures. Representative decision-making is possible but it should be under effective control and interaction by the working people. It is a form of direct democracy. And if the anarchistic cooperation sees the system does not work, it can be abolished, not by government but directly by the people. Humans fundamentally want to create, to be involved in

150 meaningful activities. Engaging in self-management undoubtedly will satisfy these aspirations and will break down barriers between people.

Bolloten wrote about anarchism:

"In many communities money for internal use was abolished, because, in the opinion of Anarchists, 'money and power are diabolical philtres, which turn a man into a wolf, into a rabid enemy, instead of into a brother.' An article in a Libertarian paper reads as follows: 'Here in Fraga [a small town in Aragon], you can throw banknotes into the street and no one will take any notice'. Rockefeller, if you were to come to Fraga with your entire bank account you would not be able to buy a cup of coffee. Money, your God and your servant, has been abolished here and the people are happy.' In those Libertarian communities where money was suppressed, wages were paid in coupons, the scale being determined by the size of the family. Locally produced goods, if abundant, such as bread, wine and olive oil, were distributed freely, while other articles could be obtained by means of coupons at the communal depot. Surplus goods were exchanged with other Anarchist towns and villages, money being used only for transactions with those communities that had not adopted the new system."

The Israeli kibbutz is an example of a form of anarchist society. The Spanish revolution of 1936 is an example of an anarchist revolution, but it was crushed by the combined actions of fascism, communism and Western capitalism.

2. Today important new movements exist that resemble anarchist thinking

Today there are many examples that true social activity does not necessarily originate in the state or other power institutions but in local self-organized groups. Look at the long term consequences of the 1968 movement, the feminist movement, the environmental movements, the global justice movements, the anti-nuclear weapon movements, the Indignados movement, the Occupy Wall Street and the many oppositions

151 against globalization, the World Economic Forum and international free trade organizations, the anti-war and anti-capitalist movements. Look at Edward Snowden who leaked classified information from the United States National Security Agency to the media. Look at Offshore leaks, Luxemburg leaks, Swiss leaks and the Panama papers. Protesters all over the World increasingly let hear their indignation about the intolerable outgrowths of capitalism. Look at the protests of young people during the Arab spring that focused on corruption, poverty, unemployment and lack of freedom, perceived as the long term consequences of Western colonialism and the many proxy wars the West has waged (and still wage) in Arab countries. Recent heavy protests against Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey have also an anti-capitalist and anti-establishment dimension. The present social turmoil against the new labour law in France is also a movement against the attacks of the government on democracy. And look at the covenant of Mayors in the World that is committed to climate neutrality of cities in 2030/2050, by-passing the state. Look at the grassroots movements such as Syriza (Greece), Permaculture, the anti-coal seam gas movement, Podemos (Spain), Sovereign Union of First Nations Peoples (Australia), Rights of Nature, Food Sovereignty, La Via Campesina, Climate Justice, WeMove.EU and Degrowth. Recently, a grassroots movement Nuit Debout was successful in Paris. Look also at the initiatives of many grassroots movements in Belgium (Hart boven Hard, Zeitgeist Movement, de G1000, Pic Nic the Street, Re-Bel, Pavia group, Klimaatzaak, Ringland, stRaten-generaal, Timelab and Natuurpunt. Grassroots movements use tactics that build power from local and community movements. They utilize collective action from the local level to affect change at the local, regional, national or international level. There are no leaders. Also Muslims have their grassroots movements. The most developed is the Gülen movement that originated in Turkey and has many ramifications in many countries. The Bernie Sanders 2016 campaign of the Democratic Party in the United States Presidential elections has been deemed by some as a grassroots campaign, because of its focus on voluntary small donations and massive rallies. Also in journalism there is an increasing tendency to investigate massive capitalist malpractices, such as by The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. Transition towns is another specific grassroots movement that started in the United Kingdom in 2006 and, in recent years, spread all over the World. All these examples show that the state is not essential in achieving true democratic goals, individual freedom and a

152 sense of security and togetherness in a developed society. In fact, the state often impedes this evolution by its will to maintain power. It is the action of many local initiatives of citizens that is important to motivate people and gradually replace capitalism. All these movements made the World better than 50-60 years ago.

3. An unconditional basic income as a new social organization

In a developed and rich human society initiatives are being developed that puts real freedom of human activity and satisfaction in life as primary goal. One way to realize that goal is the development of an unconditional basic income system, now globally taken to heart by the Basic Income Earth Network. An equal basic allowance of money is provided to every adult without any pre-existing condition. Working is not an obligation but a free decision. Those who want to work can work and will have an income above that basic allowance. Basic income should be low enough to mobilize people to work, but high enough to provide a decent life without the danger of falling into long term unemployment and poverty. Most people want to work and the incentive to work is a human fundamental endeavour. Everyone has the freedom to choose for a job that is attractive and not imposed by the need for subsistence. In the basic income system costs of unemployment, pensions, administration of the social security system and job activation programs disappear. People experiencing more freedom will boost economic activity and increase human capital. Technological innovations allow more and more work to be done by machines, making more time free for everybody to engage in more creative activities. The basic income system resolves the problems that arise today from employers demanding ever increasing efforts from their employees to increase (maintain) profit at a frenzied rate. That induces anxiety, burn- outs and depression. We are 4 times richer than 30 years ago, but we experience more stress and mental injury. An absurd situation. That enormous surplus of money should be used, not to the benefit of the few, but to that of the total population. Although calculations about financing the system are not final yet, the system gets increasing interest. In Switzerland a referendum on the establishment of a basic income was held in June 6, 2016. It was lost but nevertheless can be seen as a great success, as 1/5 of the votes accepted that system. Whether the basic income system is viable in an anarchistic environment remains an open question.

153

4. Other alternatives

Another non-self-interest economy has been suggested by Yanis Varoufakis. Those who work should also own the company. Capital should be built up as you work and, if you move, the part of the capital that you built up should follow you to the new company. That would abolish the concentration of private capital with the owner of the company and decompose the Marxist struggle between the wage workers and the capitalist owners. Varoufakis launched a movement on these themes, called ‘Democracy in Europe Movement 2025’ (DiEM25) in February 2016.

Another important change is replacing the GDP metric by a less competitive metric, in which the primary goal is maximizing human wellbeing, without causing any environmental, moral, educational and cultural damage and in which value creation is not privatized but a public common. The metric of economic gain (GDP) should be replaced by the genuine progress indicator (GPI). GPI includes environmental and social factors, that GDP does not, such as weighted private consumption, non- market services generating welfare, balance of international trade, sustainability, environmental and carbon footprints, resource depletion, pollution and long-term environmental damage. Whereas GDP/capita steadily rose between 1960 and now, GPI/capita stagnated from the late 1970s, consistent with the opinion that average human prosperity did not improve through the period of dominance of the neoliberal economy. GPI is promoted by several groups, such as the Beyond GDP initiative of the European Union, Club of Rome, WWF, OECD, Smart, Green & Growing and 'Redefining Progress'.

A series of economies have been presented that have certain characteristics in common with anarchism. Natural capitalism is a global economy dependent on natural resources and ecosystem services that Nature provides. It creates value by protecting natural resources. Sustainable capitalism pursues long-term value creation instead of profit maximization. Doughnut economics of Kate Raworth is an economy that functions within the 9 boundaries of the Planet. Circular economies are economies taking living systems as a model, where waste of one is the input for others and produce healthy products that are either returned to

154 the soil or flow back to industry. In the Blue economy the waste of one product becomes the input to create a new cash flow. It focuses on gravity as primary energy source. In sharing economies participants share access to products or services, rather than having individual ownership. Similar developments are the Steady-state economy, the New Economic Foundation and the Biomimicry Institute. Other initiatives are the many branches of the Bendigo Community Bank in Australia, which, after the payment of the bank's running costs and its share of the revenue, reinvests the remaining funds back into the community through dividends to shareholders and grants to community groups and projects. Mexico’s Grupo Ecologico is funding impoverished farmers by giving them the economic freedom to preserve and regenerate their own land. The Global Alliance for Banking on Values, founded in 2009, is a network of 28 financial institutions in 31 countries, consisting of banks, credit unions, microfinance and community banks, holding up to $100 billion of combined assets and using finance to deliver sustainable development for communities and people unserved by classical institutions. In Belgium, The Shift brings together companies and non-profit organizations to stimulate partnerships and help co-create sustainable business models. The Degrowth movement promotes a society that operates on downscaling of production and on consumption that increases human well-being and enhances ecological conditions and equity on the Planet. It sees a future where humans live according to their ecological means, with open, localized economies and resources more equally distributed through new forms of democratic institutions. Capitalist efficiency and maximization is substituted by sufficiency. Degrowth aims to create a society where care, solidarity and cooperation is the real focus of economic activity. It rejects the paradigm of ‘faster, higher, further’ that results in stress, mental disorder and unhappiness. John Fullerton, founder of the Capital Institute in the United States, launched the idea of a 'regenerative economy' that uses not only financial but also social, cultural and human capital to realize prosperity in all aspects of life. It is inspired by the regenerative nature of living systems; waste products generated by certain cells are converted by other cells or other organisms into compounds that can be reused, making existence of living systems sustainable over long time periods with minimal use of energy. Inclusive capitalism puts focus not only on profit but also wants to add social responsibility programs, such as better access to education, improved public transport and local facilities to ascertain the liveability of cities. Another direction is capital investment in the form of 'catastrophe

155 bonds', a form of insurance to mitigate the threat of climate change. Such investments are not done for immediate profit, as is the case in the capitalist economy, but for long-term protection against the impacts of climate change. The sooner these investments are made, the less future capital will be destroyed by climate disasters.

5. How to combat global warming and climate change impacts?

Climate change is an absolute necessity to urgently address. As the main cause of global warming is the more than 2000 gigatons CO2 that humans already released in the atmosphere during the industrial era, the direct solution is removing CO2. The global temperature itself could be lowered by ‘solar radiation management’. Theoretical and small scale methods exist but, unfortunately, the efficacy, permanency and safety of these methods at a planetary scale remain insufficiently known. Until climate change can be directly fixed we ought 1) to adapt to climate change by building resilience against climate impacts and 2) to reduce CO2 emissions to dampen the aggressiveness of climate in the future.

Stabilizing CO2 in the atmosphere at a presumptive safe level below 450 ppm is believed (but not proven) to limit global average temperature rise to 2ºC above the preindustrial level by the end of the present century. We are now already over 404 ppm, while the preindustrial level was 280 ppm for more than 10,000 years. It has been calculated that reaching the 450 ppm target would require a ~40-70 % reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 compared to the 2010 level and a near zero emission by 2100. That is possible if renewable energy facilities largely replace fossil fuel energy and fuel-driven transportation is replaced by electric and hydrogen cars by then.

Several independent studies have shown that a mix of wind, solar, geothermal, biofuel and hydroelectric energy resources are able to provide full power to the World without CO2 emissions, even when energy consumption increases several fold over today’s level. In addition, renewable energy deployment will generate many new jobs and investments. Only political will and daring are required.

156

The present U235 nuclear reactors help to limit global warming due to their low CO2 emissions over life cycle. Thus, at least theoretically, there is still a rationale to continue investing in nuclear energy. However, with U235 reactors the nuclear waste problem is too large and U235 reserves too small to keep this type of reactor operational in a further future. On a rational basis these reactors could be replaced by U238 fast breeder reactors or thorium reactors. Although these reactors leave far less radioactive waste, produce much more energy and U238 reserves are available for thousands of years, the few large reactors that exist are very expensive, their costs largely exceed the levels anticipated, various unexpected technical problems were experienced during their development and risks for accidents, terrorism and criminal nuclear weapon development remain. It is therefore questionable that this is a feasible solution for the long-term future. Nevertheless, some climate activists support the use of U238 fast breeder or thorium reactors, particularly those of limited size, and, thus of lower cost.

Furthermore, efforts should be devoted to reduce energy consumption, to increase energy efficiency and energy conservation, and to reuse, recycle and recover materials. We shall have to live a more sober life and drastically reduce capitalist waste and over-consumption and travel less far and less often by air.

More efforts should be devoted to strategies of adaptation to a warmer

World, partly because it is not for granted that stabilizing atmospheric CO2 at 450 ppm is a safe bound for the whole World. Indeed, during the

Pliocene epoch (3 million years ago) CO2 levels were similar to present levels, yet, average global temperature rose 3-4 °C, not 2 °C as anticipated now.

What are the chances of success?

Today, there is still much reticence and inertia of governments and the general public that impedes progress. Progress is also counteracted by right wing politicians and citizens, climate change denial lobbies and the World Free Trade Organizations. The fossil energy lobby is still very powerful. In Belgium subsidies for power generation still go for 70% to fossil and nuclear energy production, only 23% to renewables and only 7% goes to efforts for energy conservation and efficiency. The United States

157 puts strong emphasis on shale gas exploitation, but keeps eyes closed for the large negative impacts on the environment. In many countries, government decisions are dominated by particracy, nationalism, and short-term views. The nationalistic reflex of self-preservation of businesses and the conservative view of the Nation state still prevail over a global cooperative approach. Climate mitigation efforts, such as the Kyoto protocol and a carbon credit system, are often misused. There is malicious misleading by big companies that fund the undermining of climate science for the sake of short-term viewed core business profits. In the United States climate change denials and biased or wrong information about climate by Fox News is seriously misleading public opinion. In the United States a strong polarization around climate change grew between republicans and democrats (most republicans deny climate change or don’t want to invest in mitigation). Why international climate initiatives are so slowly progressing? Evidently, switching to carbon-free energy sources and controlling pollution reduce short term capitalist profits. In addition, the sense of limitlessness and the dogma of permanent economic growth are keeping down attempts to phase out fossil energy use.

But also many citizens remain indifferent to the threat of climate change. They don’t feel responsible, are too conservative, don’t ‘see’ a change yet – and therefore think it is not so urgent – or are locked in their existing consumer habits. Others pretend to have no time for dealing with the problem, or argue that it is not the citizen, but the government, who should solve the issues. Still others pretend to adapt their behaviour but flinch once a measure looks to endanger the established order or their luxurious life style.

The European Union and Norway have been strong examples in the World for the implementation of renewable energy development. In 2012, the European Union reduced greenhouse gas emissions with 17 %, compared to the 1990 level and almost reached the target of 20 % reduction in 2020. The European Union new targets for 2030 compared to 1990 are 40 % reduction in greenhouse gas emission, 27 % renewable energy (both legally binding but not for each individual country) and 27 % energy efficiency gain (not legally binding). Belgium will have to reduce

CO2 emissions by 35% in 2030.

158

6. The Paris UNFCCC meeting in December 2015: an unexpected success.

That meeting was considered the last chance for a timely international agreement on greenhouse gas emission. It has been a first great success for climate regulation. A total of 195 countries unanimously reached for the first time in history an agreement not based on legally binding but on voluntary intentions. The voluntary nature of the agreement enabled the birth of a green form of anarchism:

1. Global temperatures will be kept "well below" 2.0 °C above preindustrial level and "endeavour to limit" them even more, to 1.5 °C above preindustrial level.

2. The emissions of greenhouse gases by human activity will be limited to the same levels that trees, soil and oceans can absorb naturally, beginning at some point between 2050 and 2100.

3. Every five years each country's contribution to cutting emissions will be reviewed and will be scaled up.

4. Rich countries will help poorer nations by providing "climate finance" to adapt to climate change impacts in their country and switch to renewable energy. This will amount to at least $100 billion by 2020 and be scaled up later. Although most of the agreement is not legally binding, some components are, such as the regular review of proposed emission reduction targets that each country submitted to the Paris meeting. The $100 billion fund from developed economies to help developing nations to develop renewable energy and to compensate for the damage by climate change is also binding.

Conclusion: Fossil fuel-based energy production and agriculture caused an enormous production of greenhouse gases. This occurred in a relatively small part of the World but the consequences inevitably affect the whole Planet. Simultaneously, since more than 30 years concentration of wealth and power to the 1% fraction of the population brought only stagnation of human social and economic well-being. Today there is a change emerging all over the World. This change comes from the citizens, the 99%. Many

159 and diverse self-organized groups are standing up. Anarchistic economic systems, grassroots movements and basic income are developing without a participation of the state. They are a new way built on the voluntary participation of the 99%. Capitalist supremacy must disappear if we want to keep the Planet liveable.

160

References and Readings

Quantitative Easing: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/quantitative- easing.asp GDP growth: http://knoema.com/WBWDIGDF2014Sep/world-development- indicators-wdi-september-2014 Predictions from OECD: http://www.oecd- ilibrary.org/docserver/download/5jz18gs5fckf.pdf?expires=1432230801&id=id &accname=guest&checksum=C8AC62BDB47D6A4D6EA98DDD393CB784 Unconditional basic income: http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2016/04/23/qu-est-ce-que-le-revenu- universel-de-base_4907543_3224.html Anarchism: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.ht ml Genuine progress indicator: http://www.demos.org/publication/whats-missing- gdp The Shift: https://theshift.be/en Degrowth: http://www.greattransition.org/publication/the-degrowth- alternative The covenant of Mayors: http://www.covenantofmayors.eu/index_en.html Kyoto protocol: http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php Carbon credits: https://euobserver.com/environment/132045

161

162

Epilogue

“Hope and curiosity about the future seemed better to me than guarantees” — Hedy Lamarr

In search of understanding their physical environment, modern humans discovered carbon-rich energy sources that Nature generated for millions of years and that allowed them to produce and consume goods at intensities far above what is needed to fulfil basic needs for existence and prosperity. Over the last two centuries humans have become the only living organisms acting at this incredible consumption. This is an astonishing paradox as all cultures originally developed intuitive understanding of limitation, the frailty of existence and the sacredness of natural environments. It is along these notions that religions developed. Even if they did not represent the physical and biophysical structure of the cosmos, they brought an intuitive notion on the human condition. In search of prosperity modern civilization has forgotten what intuition had learned and developed an economic system that was primarily concerned with making money and create materialistic wealth in an elitist social environment and founded on the erroneous thinking that individual pursuit of self-interest and free trade unintentionally lead to a collective benefit to society. It alienated humans from their own nature and from natural environments. Today, the tools designed to acquire prosperity have turned against the designer. Nature has given us an ultimatum. Climate change, environmental degradation and social injury by capitalism go hand in hand, as these three forces amplify each other in destabilizing society. Civilization will destroy itself unless a radical economic and political change is realized urgently. Today is a momentum; there is a due date set by climate change. If that due date is not met, we are heading towards a global disaster.

However, human beings have a special gift, that distinguishes them from all other living systems and that is their special relationship to the laws of physics. That relationship enables them to find explanations of the physical and biophysical environment on the basis of these laws (David Deutsch:

163

http://www.ted.com/talks/david_deutsch_on_our_place_in_the_cosmos.h tml). This special gift allows humans to discover the problems that they caused themselves and to find the evidence for resolving those problems. Yet, humans remain vulnerable, not by failing to get a solution, but to get it in time, that is during the life of our children.

In addition, finding a solution has an ethical dimension. It includes the notion of justice and the notion of limits. We cannot limitlessly consume the Earth’s resources above what the Earth can regenerate or above what we can recycle and reuse, neither can we use resources, without there is equity in using them and without securing them for future generations. The question is no longer “How much money can I get”, but “How can I live within the constraints of the Planet”, in “decency, dignity and brotherhood”. A World with soon 10 billion people will collapse if it remains build on possession instead of on sharing. Never before this awareness has been so essential and so urgent as today. There is no time to go slow. We have a unique chance to survive but if we don’t start to take our chance right now – that means today -, it will be too late and we will disappear. We do not stand alone in this endeavour. We have billions to cooperate with and to reach the common goal: our survival on a safe Planet. Evil and power structures have always dominated on this Planet. One can read it in the Bible. These structures never gave a solution. Our choices were wrong but we don’t need the Grace of God or a Saviour for correcting our errors. We dispose of a highly developed brain and we experienced that we can take our destiny in own hands. Therefore, it is crucial to nurture our gifts and to foster a renascence of human existence. We need a new start on the road of anarchist thinking. Call it green anarchism.

164

165

166