$$$2 TRILLION WE EVERYDAY WESTERN NATIONS HAVE DONATED 2 AFRICAS- and just look .... and weep!!!! -and India and Asias.... and then we look at our beloved First Nations of the last 50 PLUS YEARS.... and are broken hearted in Canada...
Back in the 70s and 80s we used 2 donate our paychecks and live on crackers and homemade soup.... dreaming all the kiddies would have food, clothes and girls would go 2 school and be safe and medicine..... WTF??? ...
QUOTE:
While it is undeniable that in the past several decades, the United States and other Western countries have provided developing countries in Africa and elsewhere with massive assistance funds (one estimate put the total sum in the past 50-plus years at 2 trillion dollars), the aid programs involved often fail to meet expectations, with only a few exceptions made in East Asia, observers said.
The conspicuous gap between what the United States promises and what it actually delivers in Africa is partially caused by Washington's lack of will to follow through with the assistance programs, since the continent has only marginal significance for the United States from a historical perspective, John Campbell, an Africa expert with the U.S. think tank Council on Foreign Relations, noted.
Misuse of the fund is another factor contributing to the disappointing outcome of various U.S. assistance programs in Africa.
For example, the United States earmarked 80 million dollars in 2005 to support a UN-initiated project to fight malaria in Africa. A House investigation later found only 5 percent of the 80-million fund was spent on bed nets, 1 percent on drugs, while the rest was mostly paid out in salaries to staff members and advisers.
In addition to the stunning mismanagement of the fund, red tape in Western aid organizations also leaves their local partners in Africa less time and energy to focus on real problems.
-----------------
BLOGGED:
CANADA MILITARY NEWS - CANADA: True Patriot Love ...
nova0000scotia.blogspot.com/.../canada-military-news-canadas-innu.htm...
Jan 26, 2015 - Let's make our First Nations Inuit People feel our love n devotion- lotsoflinks. ... http://nova0000scotia.blogspot.ca/2013/07/canada-nova-scotia-nouvelle ... SHANIA TWAIN- feed your own children first- that is Canada's travesty ...
--------------------
International capital one of the main culprits in Africa’s underdevelopment, says Mbeki
By Peter Fabricius on February 9, 2015 — As an important part of what might be called his life’s work, the African Renaissance, Thabo Mbeki has striven hard to correct what he regards as the negative and even racist stereotypes about his continent and his people
And thereby to more equally distribute the blame for Africa’s misadventures, it would seem. Sometimes that powerful ideological imperative has led him into a cul-de-sac.
His infamous denial of the cause of AIDS was essentially also a denial that Africans themselves were responsible for the epidemic on the continent – with a sideways swipe at Western pharmaceutical companies for exaggerating its impact for profit.
His myopia about the misdemeanours of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe likewise stemmed from a belief that Western powers were denigrating Mugabe and backing the opposition there for their own nefarious ends. You don’t have to look too hard to see the ghost of Mbeki’s larger endeavour between the lines of the Report of the High-Level Panel on Illicit Financial Flows from Africa, which he presented to the African Union (AU) summit in Addis Ababa last weekend, as chair of the panel.
The report estimates that well over US$50 billion of illicit money is flowing out of Africa every year – greater than the money that is flowing in – in the form of official development assistance (ODI) from donor countries and organisations.
Thabo Mbeki’s myopia about the misdemeanours of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe likewise stemmed from a belief that Western powers were denigrating Mugabe and backing the opposition there for their own nefarious ends. Photo: AP
So Africa is, after all, a ‘net creditor to the rest of the world,’ not a net debtor as conventional wisdom would have it. And it is critical that the flow should be reversed at a time when ODI is starting to dry up because of financial difficulties in donor nations, and when the commodity super-cycle that boosted Africa’s average economic growth to above 5% a year all through this century, is waning.
In any case, the report says, that growth has not been enough to really reduce poverty and create jobs to contain the social unrest that threatens to destabilise the continent. The number of people living under US$1,25 a day in Africa has risen from 290 million in 1990 to 414 million in 2010.
Africa is a net creditor to the rest of the world
The reports says therefore that addressing the illicit outflows this year – 2015, the deadline for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to be achieved – is timely, as stopping the outflow and spending it instead on Africa’s development could make a big impact on the MDGs. In the case of the Central African Republic, the MDGs would be reached in 45 years instead of 218 if illicit financial flows (IFFs) were stopped, in Mauritania in 19 years instead of 198, and even in South Africa in 24 instead of 33. (Who would have thought that it’s going to take 33 years for South Africa to attain the MDGs?)
The panel defines IFFs as ‘money illegally earned, transferred or used,’ and says by far the greatest part of this is being transferred by multinational companies – mainly through tax evasion, followed by criminal enterprise and then corrupt officials. The report said that others have estimated the ratio as 65% corporate, 30% criminal and 5% corruption. So, it is the capitalists who are the biggest culprits in IFFs and also significant accomplices, by implication, in Africa’s under-development – though the report recognises, of course, that IFFs are not the only cause of Africa’s development woes.
The in-and-out flows show the unbalanced reality of aid to Africa
The report details how multinationals are avoiding paying vast amounts of tax by various intricate dodges, such as ‘abusive transfer pricing,’ which entails moving their profits through a bewildering series of shell subsidiary companies in low-tax or no-tax countries, leaving an almost invisible money trail.
Mbeki related at a presentation in Addis Ababa, after his report had been adopted by AU leaders, how the Kenyan president had told him of a particular company which had paid no tax for 20 years because it allegedly had never made a profit ‘yet strangely, it has never gone bankrupt.’
Trade misinvoicing – either under- or over-stating the price, quality or quantity of traded goods and services – is another major cause of IFFs. The report details how Mozambique’s records, for example, showed 260 385 cubic metres of logs and sawn timber were exported in 2012, whereas records from China alone showed that 450 000 cubic metres were imported.
Painting a picture of an Africa that would be much better off if it were not for the illicit activities of foreign capitalists has obviously been ideologically satisfying to Mbeki. But in truth there is also a growing consensus around the world, not least in the developed countries where most of the multinationals come from, that these IFFs must be stopped. (Even if not all would necessarily agree with the report’s distribution of blame, perhaps.)
There's growing consensus around the world that these IFFs must be stopped.
The report also dovetails well with the moves in Africa towards financial self-sufficiency, including mobilising greater development resources from domestic sources. It is also in tune with the spirit of the AU’s decision last week to drastically reduce its dependency on foreign donors for financing its own operations, and so to require its own members to produce US$600 million a year from their own sources within five years.
Mbeki suggested it would be a good idea if other countries emulated the US legislation. Photo: Reuters
One of the main thrusts of Mbeki’s report is that these growing international efforts should be joined up rapidly into a global architecture of financial control, preferably under the UN. The other main thrust is that African governments need to improve their own financial controls, as they are simply being outgunned and outsmarted by the multinationals. The report suggests that African governments will need considerable financial assistance to improve these capacities.
Mbeki said there was also an emerging global architecture about how to stop the flows. This includes legislation just adopted by the European Parliament which will require corporations to report on their transactions in every country where they operate – not just in aggregate as they now do – which will expose efforts to disguise the real domicile of their operations.
Mbeki praised similar efforts by the United States (US), mainly through the Dodd-Frank Act and noted, somewhat ironically perhaps, that the Patriot Act (designed to counter global terrorism) had wiped shell banks, which had been used to launder IFFs, off the financial landscape.
He also commended North America’s Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative, among other achievements, for freezing US$458 million stashed in US and other international accounts by the late Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha.
Mbeki suggested it would be a good idea if other countries emulated the US legislation. The report also details other efforts, in the United Nations (UN), G20, G8, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and so on, to make tax and other international financial and economic transactions transparent and stop the flow of IFFs.
But Mbeki also noted that some developed countries were reluctant to open up all such finances, specifically family trusts, because of what they regard as legitimate desires for privacy. And he said he expected that as these governments and institutions closed loopholes, the multinationals armed with highly paid and therefore highly expert lawyers, bankers and other professions, would find new ones.
One of the important implications of Mbeki’s panel’s work appears to be that closing the ‘illicit’ (which actually seems in many cases to mean unethical, rather than illegal) loopholes which otherwise legal multinationals use to evade/avoid taxes, would also block the flow of criminal money.
Because, as Raymond Baker, a member of the panel, said in Addis, these channels are all the same. All the more reason why the recommendations of Mbeki’s report should be taken seriously and implemented fast.
This article was first published by the Institute for Security Studies, and is republished here with their permission.
http://thisisafrica.me/international-capital-one-main-culprits-africas-underdevelopment-says-mbeki/
-----------------
LET'S MAKE EDUCATION - ALL EDUCATION FREE CANADA....
Why Canada Should Have Free University Tuition, and ...
https://www.vice.com/.../why-canada-should-have-free-university-tuition...
Apr 28, 2015 - Why Canada Should Have Free University Tuition, and How it Could ...Yet, as everyone under 40 knows, a university education is no longer ...Germany Scraps Tuition Fees. Should Canada Follow?
www.huffingtonpost.ca/.../tuition-fees-germany-canada_n_5915500.htm...
Oct 1, 2014 - Attention Canadian students: How is your German? If you're tired of fretting ... The CFS takes the position that education should be free. “We are ...Should post-secondary education in Canada be free?
www.therecord.com › Home › Opinion › Columns
Mar 23, 2015 - Should higher education be "free," as the students were demanding ... In CanadaFree post-secondary education in Canada: It's not so radical ...
rabble.ca/news/.../free-post-secondary-education-canada-its-not-so-radica...
Mar 31, 2014 - Free post-secondary education in Canada: It's not so radical. By ... At this rate, tuition fees will cover 100 per cent of university costs by 2061.------------------
it's 2015 who is USA or United Nations 2 judge behaviour and norms when they place war and greed over humanity and education for all- and every damm country abuses their citizens...WTF- and Canada and so called civilized nations- let us fix our own messes first eh/
(Indexing terms: United Nations; poverty; war; Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Charter of United Nations; equal rights; Abraham Lincoln; Dogmas a the quiet past; We must think anew and act anew)
IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN
By John B. Isom
February 2001
Of all sad words of tongue and pen the saddest are
these - it might have been."
- John Greenleaf Whittier
After World War II the leaders of 50 nations got together and agreed to create the United Nations - the primary objective being a world society free of poverty and war. They wrote a charter in which they describe the major things they would have to do to achieve that objective and indicated a number of ways and means by which they could accomplish that noble dream. A few years later they adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, describing, in great detail, basic human rights that belong to every world citizen. The Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights describe, in a remarkable way, the human world of which I have read in the great literature of humanity - some of which is nearly as old as writing itself. I will use two quotations from the Jewish Bible to describe the human world I have found described in the oldest literature and the latest literature of the human race. My translation from the book of Micah -- "Every man shall sit under his vine and every woman under her fig tree and none shall make them afraid." From the book of Isaiah - "Nations shall not lift up swords against nations. They shall beat their swords into plow points and their spears into pruning hooks - neither will they study war any more." Who has not dreamed of such a world? It is the human world the United Nations declared it was their intention to create. Why have we failed so tragically to realize such a world? Here is a list of reasons that strike me as being important.
First! If my memory is not lying to me the United States never signed the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Even though we claim to be the champion of human rights, and criticize other nations for not living up to our standards in that regard, we did not sign. Why? How did the Universal Declaration of Human Rights violate the human rights standards of the United States? I can think of three ways.
1. It violated the unequal standard of human rights by which we judge the rights of black Americans.
2. It violated the unequal standard of human rights by which we judge the rights of Native Americans and other minorities.
3. It violated the unequal standard of human rights by which our courts judge the rights of poor Americans.
Second! I know of no leader of any country, including the United States, who has made a consistent effort to know and understand, or to help their people know and understand the importance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as adopted by the United Nations. It is important that all the peoples of the world be familiar with and embraces as their standard the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, if we are ever to achieve the overall objectives of the United Nations - a world free of poverty and war
There are simple things people of every nation could do to help. For example: Chances are most people today have never seen the flag of the United Nations. It is 99 to 1 that no one has ever seen the United Nation's flag flying above his nation's national symbol. I have never seen the United Nation's flag flying above the stars and strips.
What if the people of every nation decided to make such a display of the United Nation's flag? How would that help people of the world do what has to be done to achieve the objectives of the United Nations? The answer is none, unless it created enough interest to prompt the world community to begin an educational program, for all age groups, using all the modern means of communication, with two primary objectives.
First - to make sure people know and understand what the declared objective of the United Nations is. That knowledge may be found in the Charter of the United Nations and in their Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The knowledge found there makes it clear enough that the primary objectives of the United Nations is nothing less than a society free of poverty and war.
Second - to make the peoples of the world understand why 50 nations felt compelled to join together in such a way in an effort to put an end to war and poverty. A study of world history, leading up to the formation of the United Nations, would reveal that, for the last 5000 years, different groups of people of the world, called nations today, have been fighting one another in ways we call war. The objective of each nation has been to kill or enslave as many people of the other nation as it had the power to do so, and to rob them of their valuables and property or destroy them. The result of those wars has been, to this day, a life of poverty for most people who have ever lived on this earth, and the tragedy of war for all.
How many billions of hours of human labor, and how many billions of tons of natural resources did it take to fight all those wars during the last 5000 years? Had all those hours of labor, and all those tons of natural resources, been used to make peace possible and to provide the essential goods and services needed to feed, cloth, educate and care for all the people of the world - would that have helped to reduce the curse of poverty if not eliminate it? Obviously I do not know the answer to that question, but it is equally obvious that it would have helped.
In a speech given near the end of the Civil War Abraham Lincoln said, "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate for the stormy present. Our present is piled high with difficulties. We must think anew and act anew - then we will save our country." We are now citizens of a world society and it is our world society that must be saved.
Here Lincoln describes what we must do if there is ever to be a human society free of poverty and war. Let me paraphrase a little of what he said. "We must think anew", then we will act in ways to save our country. He called attention to the fact that "our present is piled high with difficulties". I assume he had those difficulties in mind when he said "we must think anew" about those difficulties if we are going to act in new ways to solve them. He did not tell us what those difficulties were, but it is a safe bet that one of the difficulties he had in mind was the old ways white people had been thinking about black people.
About one hundred thirty five years ago the Congress of the United States voted to end the legal institution of slavery. One hundred and thirty five years later the dogmas of our white ancestors still dominate the thinking of many white Americans about black Americans. No doubt the dogmas and mentality of our slave ancestors still influence, to some degree, how many black Americans think about white Americans today. It is those old ways of thinking, about each other, that prevents us from solving, once and for all, what is known as the "race problem."
The legal institution of slavery was abolished by fighting one of the most deadly and destructive wars in human history. It was fought between relatives, neighbors and citizens of the same country. Had our forefathers been ethically and morally prepared to end slavery by peaceful means would the aftermath have been better than the horrible aftermath we have experienced for the last one hundred and thirty five years. It may have taken a little longer to end slavery by peaceful means and probably would have required black Americans to endure slavery a little longer. That would have been a high price for them to have to pay for that time. However, when you balance that cost against what it cost black Americans during the war, and what it cost those who lived through it and the cost to their descendents, a peaceful solution might have saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of black Americans from living in abject poverty, without any protection of the law, for not less than 75 years. Such was the life of most black Americans in the South where I lived.
Every black American had to use all his wits and ingenuity to remember and observe all the rules for staying in his "black place". Any white person could punish a black person for violating one of those unwritten rules in whatever way he chose, including killing him, and never be arrested. White people lived above the law. The human rights of black people had no legal protection. Unless you have been living with your head in the sand you cannot honestly say, even today, that the human rights of black people are protected by law.
On top of the pile of old difficulties there is a new difficulty in our time. If we fail to solve this new difficulty chances are we will never have to opportunity to even try to solve the old ones. That new problem is this - the killing and destructive power of present and future weapons of war. During my life time the United States has been involved in two World Wars, the Korean War, Vietnam, The Oil War (know as Desert Storm), a number of smaller wars, plus 40 years of the Cold War with Russia.
In spite of such wholesale killing and destruction during the last 100 years a small percent of the people of the world still have access to the means to live fairly comfortable, if fearful, lives - a small percent, even if you count all those whose lives are as comfortable and fearful as my own. To make our comfortable and fearful lives possible, how many people must live a terrible life of poverty? I am going to make a guess at what those numbers are. It matters little if they are too many of too small. The total number is more than enough to stagger the sensitivity of anyone who dares to take an honest look at them. My guess is that more people are living in a state of starvation, or in a dreadful state of poverty, today than the total number of people that where alive in 1850.
If your imagination is large enough imagine how many hours of human labor, how many tons of natural resources, were wasted on the hot wars and Cold Wars of the past 100 years. Again let's imagine if all that effort and expense had been used to create peace and eliminate poverty.
Had all those hours of human labor, and all those tons of natural and human resource been used to create essential goods and services so all could live and play without fear of poverty or war, chances are that the number of people living in poverty would be close to zero. However that will continue to be an impossible dream if we, the people, fail to do the new kind of thinking and acting to make the world safe from the use of modern weapons of war. You don't have to take my word for that; ever since 1945 Presidents of the United States, generals in the army, and many other people, far more knowledgeable than I am, have been saying essentially the same thing.
Two years after WW II a number of scientist who helped create the two atomic bombs dropped during WW II toured the country trying to help people understand the enormous killing and destructive power of those two bombs. One team of those scientists came through Spartanburg, South Carolina, where I was living at the time. I did all I could to advertise the event and I assumed everyone else did likewise. I was confident that the auditorium wouldn't hold half the people who would want to hear what these atomic scientists would have to say. I was never more disappointed when it turned out that the auditorium was half full. The killing and destructive power of those two bombs was hardly more than the power of two large firecrackers when compared with the power of today's modern weapons of war. Our present weapons of war confront this generation with the greatest danger ever to the welfare of all life on earth. Add the dangers we are creating by our use of atomic and nuclear energy for peaceful means. Has there ever been a generation facing greater dangers than the dangers with which the present generation is now living. All I know, or think I know, compels me to believe that such a discussion between two or more people would include a lengthy discussion concerning the greatest danger now facing the human world. As I view the world scene from my little peephole, it appears to me that most people prefer not to talk about the greatest problems they live with.
During the peak of the Cold War Frank Miller, cartoonist for the Des Moines Register, drew this cartoon depicting the earth with it's top blown off and nothing left but a shell. This cartoon may have overstated what the earth itself would look like after such a war. More likely than not this picture is a revealing likeness of what would be left of human society after such a war. In the shell of the human society that would be left only small pieces would be found. These small pieces would live at a level below the well being that could be paid for with a minimum wage. Every level of well being above that would be blown away with the top.
The unequal protection of black American's rights, and that of other ethnic groups in this country, and the threat of modern day weapons of war are the unresolved difficulties in our culture. It will continue to be so as long as we permit the dogmas of our master and slave heritage to dominate our sensitivity and mentality. Until that difficulty is resolved our American society cannot be the society "it might have been." We are now citizens of a world society and it is our world society that must be saved.
The unresolved difficulties of our world are nuclear war, poverty, and the lack of equal rights for ALL people. If these difficulties are ever to be resolved we, the people of the world community of the United Nations, will have to do it. Our continued efforts to arm ourselves with the newest and most deadly weapons possible suggest to me that the sensitivity and mentality of most people today is still dominated by the old dogmas of our historic past. We assume there is no way to prevent such poverty or war - and that it is useless to try. If we are ever to free ourselves from those old historic dogmas we will have to act on, and take seriously Abraham Lincoln's suggestion. I believe our human nature is endowed with the conscious sensitivity and the conscious mentality to do the new kind of thinking and acting that would be required to create a world community free of poverty and war. It will require new ways of thinking and acting 180 degrees contrary to our old ways of thinking and acting that have dominated human societies going back to the dawn of civilization.
I don't like ending this essay on such a pessimistic note, but it is the only honest thing I can say. Hopefully it will remind people how important it is for us to "think and act anew" if we are ever to change the course of history. If we fail now to do the kind of thinking and acting that will help us achieve the declared objective of the United Nations, the world society that "might have been" will remain only a noble dream.
http://www.johnbisom.com/ItMightHaveBeen.html
From
Frank Miller Looks At Life
by Frank Miller
Published by the Des Moines Register of Des Moines Iowa
Link Back to "It Might Have Been"
CARTOON
During the peak of the Cold War Frank Miller, cartoonist for the Des Moines Register, drew this cartoon depicting the earth with it's top blown off and nothing left but a shell. This cartoon may have overstated what the earth itself would look like after such a war. More likely than not this picture is a revealing likeness of what would be left of human society after such a war. In the shell of the human society that would be left only small pieces would be found. These small pieces would live at a level below the well being that could be paid for with a minimum wage. Every level of well being above that would be blown away with the top.
-----
BLOGSPOT:
HOW 2 FIX UKRAINE-June 3 2015- USA must stop abusing powers along with Russia and China-Humanity matters- Foreign Affairs Article- excellent - Obama-Putin (Masters of Disaster) /CANADA pls get off the USA's titty wars they and Russia and China create putting their American troops lives at waste...and ours....... come on...imho
http://nova0000scotia.blogspot.ca/2014/07/canada-military-news-july28-2014-truth.html
-----------------
how can any nation bitch about china human rights when they abuse their own people in civilized nations
BLOGGED:
CANADA MILITARY NEWS: we everyday people of western nations have donated over $2 TRILLION in last 50 years 2 Africas, India, Asias/ 50 years whilst our First Peoples of the North suffer in our Canada??? let's change Canada and look after our own and make education free for each and all /IDLE NO MORE- all those missing murdered girls, boys, women- and the sex trafficking... and Amnesty International doesn't have a problem with that??? WTF???? how horrific they are treated -26 million a year girls and boys kidnapped for sex trafficking??? WTF???
http://nova0000scotia.blogspot.ca/2015/08/canada-military-news-we-everyday-people.html
BLOGGED:
CANADA MILITARY NEWS- Innu Peoples Starving in Canada- History of First Nations Inuit Peoples- why have all politicians and UN ignored starving people in Canada and getting us 2 send our money 2 other countries since the 60s??? Why? Let’s feed our own now.... Let’s make our First Nations Inuit People feel our love n devotion- lotsoflinks.-IDLE NO MORE CANADIANS/Canada History of Innu First Peoples of Canada- we love u
http://nova0000scotia.blogspot.ca/2015/01/canada-military-news-canadas-innu.html
CANADA WITHOUT POVERTY-
Canada Without Poverty > Poverty > A Human Rights Violation
Defining Povertyhttp://www.cwp-csp.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.jpg
Poverty is a direct violation of human rights. This is a simple idea with complicated implications, because poverty itself is very hard to understand. It has many causes and factors that lead to it, and everyone experiences poverty differently. Despite these differences, it is important to keep in mind that poverty does not just mean financial insecurity, but rather it refers to the “chronic deprivation of the resources, capabilities, choices, security and power necessary for the enjoyment of an adequate standard of living.”
The idea of an adequate standard of living is fundamental because it sums up both the legal and moral obligation to do something about poverty. It can be surprising to realize that there are legal obligations to take steps to end poverty, but international law has clear requirements about what states (governments) are expected to do.
Poverty and Human Rights
Human rights are a relatively new idea that emerged in international law after WWII; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was the first exclusively “human rights” document at the international level. It has since been followed up with several major legal documents that focus on protecting different areas of human rights.
One of the core aspects of human rights is the principle of non-discrimination, which means that everyone possesses the same rights regardless of who they are, where they are from, their income, or other such factors.
International Human Rights Law
International human rights law dictates quite clearly that poverty is a violation of several human rights, including the right to an adequate standard of living which encompasses the rights to food, clothing, health, housing, medical care and social security.
The International Bill of Human Rights is made up of the UDHR, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Together, they are the most fundamental legal instruments for detailing and protecting human rights at the international level.
Further learning on:
• Economic and Social Rights Education
• International Human Rights Law
• Poverty and International Law
• The Right to Food
http://www.cwp-csp.ca/poverty/a-human-rights-violation/
----
QUOTE:
Putin knows that if he stands aside and lets Ukraine become a part of NATO he will have opened the door to the eventual encirclement of Russia; and that is something that would eventually bring his country to its knees. That’s why he has drawn a red line around Ukraine. So if the U.S./NATO continues to ignore his warnings and make a bold encroachment into that territory then they are truly playing with fire.
U.S./NATO and Russia/China On A Direct Collision Course
by Michael Payne Sep 10, 2014 - 7:32pm
----and..
The question is: why are the U.S. and NATO so hell bent on this highly dangerous objective? Why do they continue their overly aggressive agenda and try to push their way into Russia’s sphere of influence when there is no truly justifiable reason for doing so? Don’t they realize the gravity of this situation? This is like an irresistible force meeting an immovable object.
To try to fully understand what is going on between these two powers is very difficult. So as we try to assess this increasingly tenuous situation here is what we might find:
With the U.S. this form of military hubris is nothing new, it’s all about control of natural resources, primarily oil, as well as protecting its other “national interests.” The majority of Americans continue to buy into the old, worn out reasoning that the U.S. military is so active around the world because it’s all about providing for their safety and security. and while that is certainly true to a considerable degree it is also heavily geared toward protecting the interests of the Corporate America, and especially those interests of its petroleum corporations.
The EU nations’ participation in NATO is very complicated and somewhat conflicted. I think that they are under massive pressure to bend to the dictates of the U.S. government in playing an aggressive role in this planned encirclement of Russia. So these nations can be said to be between a rock and a hard place. They find it difficult to go against the dictates of the U.S. because they are members of NATO and share its objectives but, at the same time, they can’t be reckless and put at risk their great dependency on imports of natural gas, currently 30% and growing, from Russia. Secondly, in addition to natural gas these nations, collectively, also import 15% of their crude oil from Russia and another 8% from Iran, Russia’s close ally.
Now, relative to Russia’s role in this standoff, it’s very likely that if NATO would stop trying to recruit Ukraine (and Georgia) that Putin and his military would just let things cool down. It’s become common knowledge that Russia’s primary objective is to maintain control over Crimea, its massive Russian naval facility in Sebastopol, its access to the Black Sea, the Mediterranean and beyond. And that control over Crimea depends greatly on its ability to also control Ukraine to the degree necessary. It seemingly has no other imperialistic objectives.
So why should U.S./NATO continue to waste critical resources going up against Russia? There is no question but that Russia must be closely watched because it has been very aggressive in past decades. But I think that its leaders probably learned a great lesson when its military was soundly defeated in Afghanistan and expelled from that country in 1989. After that defeat the Soviet Union collapsed and Russia thereafter adopted a defensive posture.
Now let’s turn to China which might not seem to be a major participant in this developing dispute. Actually, whether we realize it or not, China is quite involved because it has become a strong ally and supporter of Russia. It’s true that it is the least aggressive entity among the four powers present since it is largely concentrating on continuing to strengthen the foundations of its rapidly growing economy. So how then does China fit into this matter?
One of China’s major goals is to develop a strong presence in this region of the world, specifically Eurasia. And without a doubt it’s all about sources and delivery of energy. China is following a concrete plan to expand its economic presence in that region. It's building a network of hi-speed railways, highways, pipelines, ports, and fiber-optic networks across huge parts of Eurasia to build a foundation for the future.
Needless to say these highly ambitious plans do not set well with the U.S. government which has similar designs in this region. The problem for the U.S. is that China has the strong backing of Russia. And to further complicate matters, while China moves into Russia’s backyard, the U.S. is implementing plans to greatly increase its military presence in China’s backyard, the Asia-Pacific region. That may turn out to be a pipe dream since the misguided belief that China will allow itself to be encircled in that manner is delusional thinking.
Don’t think that Russia will back off for they will go to the brink of war if necessary. Putin knows he has the Euro nations painted into a corner because of their great dependency on Russian energy. So in the end it’s highly likely that the Euro nations will slowly but surely be forced to draw back from NATO’s agenda of encirclement. They are well aware of the grave consequences that would follow if the Russian bear becomes infuriated by their threats.
The U.S. military, trying to maintain its power and control in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as attempting to stop the advance of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, continuing to launch drone attacks in Yemen and Somalia and Pakistan, will find that it is impossible to control all these troubled areas at the same time. And as this military continues to consume the wealth of America in these many military actions, to think that it can somehow establish a dominating presence in the regions that Russia and China now control is foolhardy at best and an exercise in futility. It can’t be done.
So what then will follow? Quite likely we will see a further strengthening of the relationship between Russia and China. We will see China spend huge sums to continue to increase its presence in Eurasia and the surrounding territories. The Russia/China political duopoly will wield massive power and influence over this entire region.
But putting all this speculation aside, we continue to witness this impending military confrontation between the most powerful nations on earth. The drums of war are loudly beating, the sabers are rattling and any semblance of sit-down diplomacy is nowhere to be found. Cooler and wiser heads should prevail, but they haven’t so far.
The major player and protagonist in this matter is, of course, the United States. It possesses the greatest power and is, by far, the most aggressive. If we had a government and a president at this time that could think in an in-depth, rational manner and objectively assess this situation and the great danger involved; if they could see that this militaristic agenda against both Russia and China will never work and they should reverse course, then that would be a truly historic achievement. Stubbornness and doggedness are not virtues.
What we’re witnessing is a grand geopolitical chess game being played right in front of the eyes of the world. Which of the two opposing sides will make the next move, will it be the right move; which will come up with the winning strategy and, lastly, which of these nations, if any, will blink first? Or is this collision inevitable?
Michael Payne
comment:
First of all, Russia and China are most certainly partners and furthering a stronger relationship. They are the two main nations in the BRICS organization, a very powerful consortium of five nations whose main objectives are to develop economic power in the world, to create a new world currency to eventually replace the dollar as the main currency reserve. China and Russia have signed a $400 billion dollar agreement for Russian oil and will use their own currencies in settlement.
Russia and China are partnering in many endeavors involving sources of energy and delivery systems in Eurasia and surrounding areas. China is investing massive sums building many types of infrastructure as my article states.
Secondly there is no evidence of any kind that Russia invaded Ukraine; you are listening to propaganda issued by Ukraine. Did you happen to see the latest evidence that points to the Ukraine government and its military as being responsible for shooting down the Malaysian airliner that so many were blaming Russia for? NATO and the U.S. are making a huge mistake in trying to encircle Russia; that’s a reckless, totally unjustifiable military move that will bring disaster if put into effect.
Now if you want to carry on any further discussion I’d advise you to do so without resorting to put downs because they sure as hell are not going to work with me.
http://writerbeat.com/articles/3773-U-S-NATO-and-Russia-China-On-A-Direct-Collision-Course
----
It’s Nato that’s empire-building, not Putin
Two sides are required for a New Cold War — and there is no obvious need for an adversarial system in post-Soviet Europe
Peter Hitchens 7 March 2015
Just for once, let us try this argument with an open mind, employing arithmetic and geography and going easy on the adjectives. Two great land powers face each other. One of these powers, Russia, has given up control over 700,000 square miles of valuable territory. The other, the European Union, has gained control over 400,000 of those square miles. Which of these powers is expanding?
There remain 300,000 neutral square miles between the two, mostly in Ukraine. From Moscow’s point of view, this is already a grievous, irretrievable loss. As Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the canniest of the old Cold Warriors, wrote back in 1997, ‘Ukraine… is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.’
This diminished Russia feels the spread of the EU and its armed wing, Nato, like a blow on an unhealed bruise. In February 2007, for instance, Vladimir Putin asked sulkily, ‘Against whom is this expansion intended?’
I have never heard a clear answer to that question. The USSR, which Nato was founded to fight, expired in August 1991. So what is Nato’s purpose now? Why does it even still exist?
There is no obvious need for an adversarial system in post-Soviet Europe. Even if Russia wanted to reconquer its lost empire, as some believe (a belief for which there is no serious evidence), it is too weak and too poor to do this. So why not invite Russia to join the great western alliances? Alas, it is obvious to everyone, but never stated, that Russia cannot ever join either Nato or the EU, for if it did so it would unbalance them both by its sheer size. There are many possible ways of dealing with this. One would be an adult recognition of the limits of human power, combined with an understanding of Russia’s repeated experience of invasions and its lack of defensible borders.
But we do not do this. Instead we have a noisy pseudo-moral crusade, which would not withstand five minutes of serious consideration. Mr Putin’s state is, beyond doubt, a sinister tyranny. But so is Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Turkey, which locks up far more journalists than does Russia. Turkey is an officially respectable Nato member, 40 years after seizing northern Cyprus, which it still occupies, in an almost exact precedent for Russia’s seizure of Crimea. If Putin disgusts us so much, then why are we and the USA happy to do business with Erdogan, and also to fawn upon Saudi Arabia and China?
Contrary to myth, the expansion of the EU into the former communist world has not magically brought universal peace, love and prosperity. Croatia’s economy has actually gone backwards since it joined. Corruption still exists in large parts of the EU’s new south-eastern territories, and I am not sure that the rule of law could be said to have been properly established there. So the idea that the recruitment of Ukraine to the ‘West’ will magically turn that troubled nation into a sunny paradise of freedom, probity and wealth is perhaps a little idealistic, not to say mistaken.
It is all so much clearer if we realise that this quarrel is about power and land, not virtue. In truth, much of the eastward expansion of Nato was caused by the EU’s initial unwillingness to take in backward, bankrupt and corrupt refugee states from the old Warsaw Pact. The policy could be summed up as ‘We won’t buy your tomatoes, but if it makes you happy you can shelter under our nuclear umbrella’. The promise was an empty assurance against a nonexistent threat. But an accidental arrangement hardened into a real confrontation. The less supine Russia was, the more its actions were interpreted as aggression in the West. Boris Yeltsin permitted western interests to rape his country, and did little to assert Russian power. So though he bombarded his own parliament, conducted a grisly war in Chechnya, raised corruption to Olympic levels and shamelessly rigged his own re-election, he yet remained a popular guest in western capitals and summits. Vladimir Putin’s similar sins, by contrast, provide a pretext for ostracism and historically illiterate comparisons between him and Hitler.
This is because of his increasing avowal of Russian sovereignty, and of an independent foreign policy. There have been many East-West squabbles and scrimmages, not all of them Russia’s fault. But the New Cold War really began in 2011, after Mr Putin dared to frustrate western — and Saudi — policy in Syria. George Friedman, the noted US intelligence and security expert, thinks Russia badly underestimated the level of American fury this would provoke. As Mr Friedman recently told the Moscow newspaper Kommersant, ‘It was in this situation that the United States took a look at Russia and thought about what it [Russia] wants to see happen least of all: instability in Ukraine.’
Mr Friedman (no Putin stooge) also rather engagingly agrees with Moscow that overthrow last February of Viktor Yanukovych was ‘the most blatant coup in history’. He is of course correct, as anyone unclouded by passion can see. The test of any action by your own side is to ask what you would think of it if the other side did it.
If Russia didn’t grasp how angry Washington would get over Syria, did the West realise how furiously Russia would respond to the EU Association Agreement and to the fall of Yanukovych? Perhaps not. Fearing above all the irrecoverable loss to Nato of its treasured naval station in Sevastopol, Russia reacted. After 23 years of sullenly appeasing the West, Moscow finally said ‘enough’. Since we’re all supposed to be against appeasement, shouldn’t we find this action understandable in a sovereign nation, even if we cannot actually praise it? And can anyone explain to me precisely why Britain, of all countries, should be siding with the expansion of the European Union and Nato into this dangerous and unstable part of the world?
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9459602/its-nato-thats-empire-building-not-putin/
-------------
9 Feb 2015 ... NATO WAS LOOKING 2 DISBAND AFTER AFGHANISTAN.... check der ... http://
nova0000scotia.blogspot.ca/2014/04/nato-caught-in-bullshit- ...
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]-->HOW 2 FIX UKRAINE-Sep 25-Foreign Affairs Article
nova0000scotia.blogspot.com/.../canada-military-news-july28-2014-truth.html - Cached
28 Jul 2014 ... NATO WAS LOOKING 2 DISBAND AFTER AFGHANISTAN.... check der Spiegel
English - we said this... just trying 2 make this a white man's ...
BLOGSPOT:
CANADA MILITARY NEWS: Feb2015- NATO AND PEACEKEEPING- Europes-USA White mans's Nato War against beautiful Ukraine and Russia is a disgrace 2 us all- IMAGAINE A WHITE MANS WAR STARTED BY OBAMA AND PUTIN ARROGANCE- we weep
http://nova0000scotia.blogspot.ca/2015/02/canada-military-news-feb2015-nato-and.html
-------------------
ALL THESE BLOGS... nova0000scotia are about Canada our history and culture....
CANADA'S AGED DESERVE BETTER.... and 18 million with disabilties (visible and invisible) have huge voting power folks
AND CANADA..... we can't even care for our seniors who spent their lives giving Canada all the incredible life we enjoy today.... especially youth...
NOVA SCOTIA- HEALTH CARE FOR SENIORS...the facts
EDITORIAL: Continuing care update falls short
THE CHRONICLE HERALD
Published August 3, 2015 - 5:00am
Last Updated August 3, 2015 - 5:11am
Canada lacks an agency to collect and share information on best practices and has no standardized, computerized records system.
These are areas that could help provinces like Nova Scotia improve both how we deliver continuing care and the ability to analyze what works and what doesn’t.
We know, for example, that programs like the geriatric day hospital at Halifax’s QEII Health Sciences Centre help rehabilitate the at-risk elderly, with focuses on areas like physiotherapy to increase stamina and improve balance, diet counselling for better nutrition and medication monitoring. Elderly patients, sometimes isolated and lacking social support, can make remarkable physical and cognitive progress in the space of a few weeks, improving their functioning so they can stay in their homes longer. Such preventative programs improve people’s quality of life right now and lower costs in the long run.
So it is sound health policy to set up such geriatric programs at the province’s hospitals and health centres to slow demand for both home care and long-term beds. It will help — and it doesn’t need a lot of study.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/editorials/1302618-editorial-continuing-care-update-falls-short
----------------------
Equality and labour.... and keeping jobs in our nations.... take a look at Sweden... jobs for everybody....
LETTER TO EDITOR - SPARTANBURG JOURNAL
By
John B. Isom
No Date Given - Written sometime shortly after December 14, 1946.
Dear Editor:
In your editorial on December 14, 1946, you suggest we need a new approach, if we are to find a formula that will produce economic stability. The loss of income and production due to the many failures of labor and management to agree, without resorting to strikes or shutouts, and the rise of living cost during 1946, should have, by now, convinced all of us of such a need.
In our search for a new approach it would be well for us to study Sweden's labor-management system. According to Charles A. Wells, editor of "Between the Lines", the best analysis of Sweden's system is provided by Ralph Turner, Scripps-Howard's feature writer, who sent a remarkable report to his paper some weeks ago.
It is reported that in Sweden there is only one labor organization. Ninety percent of all industrial workers are organized. Ninety-nine percent of the wage agreements in Sweden are settled without strikes. Labor has an automatic agreement with management for wage increases whenever the cost of living index advances so many points. Extreme great wealth is not permitted in Sweden. There is no poverty, and there are no slums. Attractive homes are available at reasonable rents for all classes of people. The system provides as much free enterprise for the Swedish peoples as is enjoyed by American citizens. It seems to me that a study of such a system is necessary spadework in our search for a new approach.
The public, labor and management in the United States have insisted we find an answer to our economic ills by way of free enterprise and collective bargaining. There seems to be agreement from all sides on such basic principles. What seems to be lacking is a democratic procedure by which profits, wages and prices can be determined through free collective action on the part of all parties concerned.
It is suggested here that management, labor and buyer, must have access to all the facts before there can be any intelligent and just collective bargaining, and before enterprise can be free from the domination of one of the three interested parties. The public who buys the finished product must be given a place around the bargaining table with management and labor. The three together, in light of all the facts, must agree on profits, wages and prices. There is no other democratic solution to the problem that I can think of.
Long ago Jesus said, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free". How can labor be just and fair in wage demands unless they know the truth about profits and other expenses of production? How can the buyer know whether or not he is being asked a just price for an article in the store, unless he knows what it cost to make and market the article?
Secret diplomacy is just as undemocratic and disastrous in economic relations as it is in political relations. Let us hope that in our search for a "new wage-price formula, which will produce stability" we do not over look the necessity of fact finding, which was suggested sometime ago by the president of the United States.
Sincerely,
John B. Isom
Pastor, Saxon Baptist Church
---------------------
-----------------------
AND...
EWWWWWWWWW
SERIOUSLY???? We have thousands and thousands of missing and murdered girls, boys, women and men.... many who were well known in the sex traffic world.... and AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL..... 28 million girl and boy children are kidnapped and sold each and every year..... and ur ok with this???? seriously???
Sex Workers From Around the World Tell Hollywood to Mind Its Own Business
Hundreds of human-rights orgs, sex workers, and allies kindly ask Lena Dunham et al. to STFU about prostitution.
Elizabeth Nolan Brown|Jul. 31, 2015 2:30 pm
Sex workers around the world aren't taking lightly to a celebrity campaign against decriminalizing prostitution. Hundreds of sex workers, academics, social workers, and human-rights organizations have signed a letter in support of Amnesty International's position that "consensual sexual conduct between adults ... is entitled to protection from state interference."
Amnesty's position has earned the ire of dozens of activist groups, feminist icons like Gloria Steinhem and Eve Ensler, and Hollywood stars including Meryl Streep, Anne Hathway, Carey Mulligan, Lena Dunham, and Phoebe Cates. On July 22, they released a letter calling Amnesty's Draft Policy on Sex Work "deeply disturbing" and equating the decriminalizaiton of prostitution with "gender apartheid."
In response, the International Committee on the Rights of Sex Workers in Europe (ICRSE) drafted its own letter to Amnesty. "We are aware that Amnesty International will be pressured to back down from this position, but we urge you to show courage and tenacity and to adopt this policy," it states. "Sex workers worldwide are organizing and advocating, often in very precarious and dangerous contexts, for the decriminalization of sex work. Having Amnesty International take this position would make a significant contribution to promoting sex workers’ human rights and protecting them from discrimination and violence."
@stoya/TwitterThe letter was signed by 180 advocacy organizations, including international groups such as the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women, La Strada International, and The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission; American nonprofits such as the Sex Workers Outreach Project, the New York Anti-Trafficking Network, the National Center for Transgender Equality, and St James Infirmary; and an array of sex-worker rights and feminist groups from around the world, including the English Collective of Prostitutes, the Kenya Sex Workers Alliance, the Polish Federation of Women and Family Planning, Lady Mermaid's Bureau (Uganda), EMPOWER (Thailand), the Association of Hungarian Sex Workers, the Collective of Sex Workers and Supporters (Taiwan), the Sex Work Association of Jamaica, the Dutch Union of Sex Workers, and India's massive Durbar Mahila Samanwaya Committee. In addition to these groups, more than 600 individuals signed on to the letter.
Meanwhile, Open Society Foundations—the large, international do-gooder group founded by George Soros—is also urging Amnesty to "hold firm in its support of sex workers," and those who disagree to take another look at the issue. "The first thing that those who disagree with Amnesty’s policy can do is listen to sex workers themselves," wrote Sebastian Kohn on the Open Society blog.
From South Africa to the United Kingdom, sex worker organizations ... say that criminalizing sex workers or their clients serves only to fuel social stigma and to separate them from society, safety, and services. The global refrain from sex workers is clear: "Rights, not rescue."[...] People often conflate sex work with trafficking, but sex work is consensual while trafficking isn’t. Blurring the distinction between the two is a tactic often used to build opposition, with devastating impact on sex workers’ rights.
On social media, too, sex workers and their allies have been speaking out:
http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/31/sex-workers-push-back-against-hollywood
------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.