The New Colonialism: Greece and Ukraine. By Jack Rasmus in CounterPunch.
Can you hear that financial vacuum cleaner gearing up to empty the personal wallets and national wealth of Ukrainians?
In comparison to this experienced, efficient and well-connected international machine, Ukraine's former President Yanunovich was a mere amateur in corruption and wealth extraction.
"A new form of colonialism is emerging in Europe. Not colonialism imposed by military conquest and occupation, as in the 19th century. Not even the more efficient form of economic colonialism pioneered by the U.S. in the post-1945 period, where the costs of direct administration and military occupation were replaced with compliant local elites allowed to share in the wealth extracted in exchange for being allowed to rule on behalf of the colonizers.
...
In the 21st century, it is “colonialism by means of financial asset transfer.” It is colony wealth extraction by colonizing country managers, assigned to directly administer the processes in the colony by which financial assets are to be transferred. This new form of colonialism by direct management plus financial wealth transfer is now emerging in Greece and Ukraine.
...
The new colonialism as financial asset transfer takes several practical forms: as wealth transfer in the form of interest payments on ever rising debt, in firesales of government assets sold directly to the colonizer’s investors and bankers, and in the de facto takeover the colony’s banking system and bank assets in order to transfer wealth to shareholders of the colonizing country’s private bankers and investors.
...
In Ukraine’s case, only once U.S. and Euro bankers were installed as Ministers of Finance and Economics last December 2014, were more loans promised to Ukraine. The U.S. and EU put in another $4 billion in January, and the IMF quickly announced the new $40 billion deal in February. After the $40 billion, Ukraine’s debt rose from $12 billion in 2007 to $100 billion in 2015. The new $100 billion debt will mean a massive increase in financial wealth extraction in the form of interest payments on that $100 billion.
...
Another form of transfer will occur in the accelerating of privatizations. No fewer than 342 former government enterprise companies are slated for sale in 2015, including power plants, mines, 13 ports, and even farms. The sales will likely occur at firesale prices, benefiting U.S. and European “friends” of the new US and European ministers. So too will the sale of Ukraine private companies approved by the new Ministers. One of every five are technically bankrupt and unable to refinance $10 billion in corporate junk bond debt. Many will default, the best scooped up by U.S. and EU shadow bankers and multinational corporations."
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/03/the-new-colonialism-greece-and-ukraine/
Showing posts with label Globalization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Globalization. Show all posts
Saturday, September 5, 2015
Court Ruling Builds a Barrier Against Challenges to NSA Spying on Americans?
Court Ruling Builds a Barrier Against Challenges to NSA Spying on Americans?
Here are Greg Krasovsky's thoughts on this article and its implications:
Should Americans be surprised that U.S. Federal judges -- who are pro-establishment figures that were appointed by the U.S. President for life after being nominated by either the Democratic or Republican parties -- are protecting the U.S. Federal government's unconstitutional spying on U.S. citizens?
If the current political establishment has decided and petitioned (ordered) its representatives in the executive, legislative and judicial branches to have the U.S. Government conduct wide-scale surveillance on Americans (in violation of the U.S. Constitution), then why would U.S. citizens expect federal judges (who represent the same establishment and pursue its agenda within their jurisdiction) to go against the system and protect ordinary citizens from unlawful government surveillance?
As they say, the worst type of tyranny and corruption is the type that's fully "legal", bears the seal of government approval and is protected by the state as lawful activity.
In this case, the Federal Court System has once more created a hurdle that's almost impossible to overcome for plaintiffs -- individuals whose basic and fundamental constitutional rights have been violated -- a demand that the plaintiff must show proof (legally obtained, of course -- i.e. not from Ed Snowden or other whistle-blowers) of unlawful government surveillance before he can have standing to sue the government in order to protect his rights, stop the unconstitutional surveillance and seek compensation.
So if Americans can't rely on the U.S. Federal judiciary to protect their constitutional rights, then where can they seek protection? From the President? From Congress? Does that seem likely if both the executive and the legislative branch are populated and controlled by the same establishment representatives that instituted and supported such illegal surveillance?
Basically, as long as Americans continue to elect the same establishment candidates to Congress and the White House -- candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties -- the system will continue to further and protect the interests of the establishment (the less that 1% of the U.S. population and the financial-industrial groups that they work for, own and represent).
So despite the shocking revelations made by Ed Snowden, the system will continue to do what's necessary to protect its interests on the mass surveillance front through
- Executive Orders (public and secret) issued by an establishment president,
- Laws passed by a Congress controlled by establishment parties and politicians, and
- Federal court decisions written by judges nominated by establishment senators & parties and appointed for life by an establishment President.
In a nutshell, the Judiciary branch of the U.S. government is supposed to be able to police the executive and legislative branches by making sure that executive and legislative action is in full accordance with the supreme law of the land -- the U.S. Constitution.
But if the Judiciary Branch is not elected by the people, but appointed by the Executive Branch, then we don't really have an independent judiciary, especially since federal judges are nominated by (and loyal to!) the same establishment political parties that control the Executive and Legislative branches.
As past State Supreme Court elections have shown (especially in West Virginia), having an elected judiciary isn't a panacea -- elected judges tend to prove their loyalty to those who funded their election campaigns -- money spent mostly on mass election campaign advertising in corporate establishment media to convince the electorate that the establishment candidate will protect the average voter (instead of his establishment paymasters and sponsors).
With all that in mind, if Americans want to see any meaningful change in government policy, including any stoppage in the erosion of their constitutional rights, then we must
1. Stop voting for establishment candidates in municipal, state and federal elections,
2. Reject and stop the duopoly (stranglehold) of the two establishment parties -- Democratic and Republican -- in the American political system and elections in
-- all three branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial)
-- on all three levels (municipal, state and federal);
3. Stop the Justice Department's control by the Executive Branch by having the U.S. Attorney General elected by the people;
4. Have the Federal judiciary be directly elected by the people, including members of the U.S. Supreme Courts, instead of being staffed by and loyal to the President and the nominating actors (political parties and senators).
5. Stop the control of political campaigns by big business -- through PACs and etc. -- by limiting campaign financing (including of political advertising) to individuals with reasonable limits (such as $5,000.00 per individual contributor).
So if we want meaningful change in our state capitals and Washington, then we need to start implementing the above simple and straight-forward five point plan that we can count on the fingers of one hand.
And since the media is often called the 4th branch of government (the fourth estate?), then we need to make sure that corporate establishment media holding companies do not control over 90% of our mass media resources and brainwash our population into supporting the establishment candidates, politicians and status quo.
Sound good?
If not, then let's keep on doing what we've always done and we'll get what we've always gotten, especially recently -- more erosion of our constitutional rights and more government policy that benefits the top 1% -- the Establishment -- at the expense of the rest of America and, thanks to globalization, at the expense of rest of the world.
In this case, even ten more Ed Snowdens won't help us.
**************
"Back in December of 2013, critics of massive government surveillance appeared to have won a victory in challenging the system in a case called Klayman v. Obama. U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon of the District of Columbia stated that the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of metadata from telephones, a clandestine program exposed by Edward Snowden, was probably a violation of the Fourth Amendment."
"However, at the end of August, an appeals court in the D.C. Circuit decided that the plaintiffs did not have adequate evidence that their data had been collected and never should have been allowed to pursue the case. Essentially, that court didn’t state that the NSA program was legal, but it suggested this case shouldn’t challenge the program’s legality."
“I’m not aware of any other situation in law where you have to have the defendant admit what they did before you can even go to court,” Cindy Cohn, executive director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Truthdig.
“It would be as if the police couldn’t arrest somebody unless they admitted they committed the crime first.” Cohn and Vladeck both said that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously stated plaintiffs don’t have this kind of burden of proof to establish a court case and that it seems to be a practice reserved for secret spying programs.
“Given what the government has said about the scope of its program, there is certainly circumstantial evidence that exists,” Cohn said.
“Many people are rotting in jail right now based on circumstantial evidence, and they never admitted their crime. It’s a double standard [being set up] in these cases.”
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/court_ruling_builds_a_barrier_against_challenges_to_nsa_spying_on_americans
Here are Greg Krasovsky's thoughts on this article and its implications:
Should Americans be surprised that U.S. Federal judges -- who are pro-establishment figures that were appointed by the U.S. President for life after being nominated by either the Democratic or Republican parties -- are protecting the U.S. Federal government's unconstitutional spying on U.S. citizens?
If the current political establishment has decided and petitioned (ordered) its representatives in the executive, legislative and judicial branches to have the U.S. Government conduct wide-scale surveillance on Americans (in violation of the U.S. Constitution), then why would U.S. citizens expect federal judges (who represent the same establishment and pursue its agenda within their jurisdiction) to go against the system and protect ordinary citizens from unlawful government surveillance?
As they say, the worst type of tyranny and corruption is the type that's fully "legal", bears the seal of government approval and is protected by the state as lawful activity.
In this case, the Federal Court System has once more created a hurdle that's almost impossible to overcome for plaintiffs -- individuals whose basic and fundamental constitutional rights have been violated -- a demand that the plaintiff must show proof (legally obtained, of course -- i.e. not from Ed Snowden or other whistle-blowers) of unlawful government surveillance before he can have standing to sue the government in order to protect his rights, stop the unconstitutional surveillance and seek compensation.
So if Americans can't rely on the U.S. Federal judiciary to protect their constitutional rights, then where can they seek protection? From the President? From Congress? Does that seem likely if both the executive and the legislative branch are populated and controlled by the same establishment representatives that instituted and supported such illegal surveillance?
Basically, as long as Americans continue to elect the same establishment candidates to Congress and the White House -- candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties -- the system will continue to further and protect the interests of the establishment (the less that 1% of the U.S. population and the financial-industrial groups that they work for, own and represent).
So despite the shocking revelations made by Ed Snowden, the system will continue to do what's necessary to protect its interests on the mass surveillance front through
- Executive Orders (public and secret) issued by an establishment president,
- Laws passed by a Congress controlled by establishment parties and politicians, and
- Federal court decisions written by judges nominated by establishment senators & parties and appointed for life by an establishment President.
In a nutshell, the Judiciary branch of the U.S. government is supposed to be able to police the executive and legislative branches by making sure that executive and legislative action is in full accordance with the supreme law of the land -- the U.S. Constitution.
But if the Judiciary Branch is not elected by the people, but appointed by the Executive Branch, then we don't really have an independent judiciary, especially since federal judges are nominated by (and loyal to!) the same establishment political parties that control the Executive and Legislative branches.
As past State Supreme Court elections have shown (especially in West Virginia), having an elected judiciary isn't a panacea -- elected judges tend to prove their loyalty to those who funded their election campaigns -- money spent mostly on mass election campaign advertising in corporate establishment media to convince the electorate that the establishment candidate will protect the average voter (instead of his establishment paymasters and sponsors).
With all that in mind, if Americans want to see any meaningful change in government policy, including any stoppage in the erosion of their constitutional rights, then we must
1. Stop voting for establishment candidates in municipal, state and federal elections,
2. Reject and stop the duopoly (stranglehold) of the two establishment parties -- Democratic and Republican -- in the American political system and elections in
-- all three branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial)
-- on all three levels (municipal, state and federal);
3. Stop the Justice Department's control by the Executive Branch by having the U.S. Attorney General elected by the people;
4. Have the Federal judiciary be directly elected by the people, including members of the U.S. Supreme Courts, instead of being staffed by and loyal to the President and the nominating actors (political parties and senators).
5. Stop the control of political campaigns by big business -- through PACs and etc. -- by limiting campaign financing (including of political advertising) to individuals with reasonable limits (such as $5,000.00 per individual contributor).
So if we want meaningful change in our state capitals and Washington, then we need to start implementing the above simple and straight-forward five point plan that we can count on the fingers of one hand.
And since the media is often called the 4th branch of government (the fourth estate?), then we need to make sure that corporate establishment media holding companies do not control over 90% of our mass media resources and brainwash our population into supporting the establishment candidates, politicians and status quo.
Sound good?
If not, then let's keep on doing what we've always done and we'll get what we've always gotten, especially recently -- more erosion of our constitutional rights and more government policy that benefits the top 1% -- the Establishment -- at the expense of the rest of America and, thanks to globalization, at the expense of rest of the world.
In this case, even ten more Ed Snowdens won't help us.
**************
"Back in December of 2013, critics of massive government surveillance appeared to have won a victory in challenging the system in a case called Klayman v. Obama. U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon of the District of Columbia stated that the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of metadata from telephones, a clandestine program exposed by Edward Snowden, was probably a violation of the Fourth Amendment."
"However, at the end of August, an appeals court in the D.C. Circuit decided that the plaintiffs did not have adequate evidence that their data had been collected and never should have been allowed to pursue the case. Essentially, that court didn’t state that the NSA program was legal, but it suggested this case shouldn’t challenge the program’s legality."
“I’m not aware of any other situation in law where you have to have the defendant admit what they did before you can even go to court,” Cindy Cohn, executive director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Truthdig.
“It would be as if the police couldn’t arrest somebody unless they admitted they committed the crime first.” Cohn and Vladeck both said that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously stated plaintiffs don’t have this kind of burden of proof to establish a court case and that it seems to be a practice reserved for secret spying programs.
“Given what the government has said about the scope of its program, there is certainly circumstantial evidence that exists,” Cohn said.
“Many people are rotting in jail right now based on circumstantial evidence, and they never admitted their crime. It’s a double standard [being set up] in these cases.”
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/court_ruling_builds_a_barrier_against_challenges_to_nsa_spying_on_americans
Monday, July 6, 2015
Public debt, Greeks bearing gifts and Trojan horses from your international "friends"
Here are Greg Krasovsky's comments on
"The IMF Has Made €2.5 Billion Profit Out of Greece Loans."
Tim Jones, economist at the Jubilee Debt Campaign, said:
“The IMF’s loans to Greece have not only bailed out
banks which lent recklessly in the first place, they have actively taken even
more money out of the country. This usurious interest adds to the unjust debt
forced on the people of Greece .”
This story isn’t just about Greece
and its creditors, but very relevant today for pre-default Ukraine and debt laden United States ($18
trillion dollars of federal debt).
There is a good reason why charging of interest on loans -
usury - was prohibited in the Old Testament (The Hebrew Bible, The Torah) and the
Koran.
Making money on other people's misery and temporary weakness
-- by charging interest on loans made to
people, companies and governments who are in financial trouble (temporary or
permanent) -- is just wrong, especially
when perpetrated by an international financial institution that's supposed to
help countries not for the profit motive, The International Monetary Fund
As a former investment banker, I believe that Greece
accumulated its large debt thanks in part to
1. Greedy investment bankers who were more interested in
getting bonuses for making loans and underwriting Greek government bonds than
in the country's future ability to repay -- bankers, unlike destitute debtors,
don't pay back their bonuses -- and the consequences for the country's
population, including its financially vulnerable segments.
2. Greedy and corrupt politicians (and so called civil
"servants") who irresponsibly organized, received and distributed
loans.
Although I am a staunch believer in the principle of
innocent until proven guilty, I don't deny the occasional accuracy of
"where's smoke, there's fire."
So when it comes to bankers, politicians, civil servants and
public debt finance, especially in the developing world, one always need to be
on the lookout for
a. Bankers who ply politicians with favors (i.e. bribes) to
accept financing, sometimes on unfavorable or non-competitive terms.
b. Politicians and civil servants who take bribes from
bankers to burden their government and electorate with loans.
As you probably know, these bribes range from cash in
envelopes, anonymous bank accounts, subsidized real estate, written-off loans,
jobs (for the politician and/or his family in the present or future),
subsidized stock offerings and generous (often through anonymous and illegal)
campaign contributions.
c. Politicians and civil servants who then spend borrowed
money on pet projects and affiliated government contractors, where overspending
and non-competitive bids can be the norm to the detriment of the constituents.
This is where we see overpriced public works projects,
excessive military spending (always justified by a hyped-up military threat)
and no meaningful measures to curb government spending so that you could have
budget proficits (instead of permanent deficits) to start paying down massive
debt.
Even if the electorate is astute enough to be on the
lookout, bankers and financial institutions love lending money to governments
-- after all, there's no better collateral than public wealth as well as, if
necessary, the ability to raise taxes and reduce social spending &
benefits.
Moreover, there's no better negotiating partner when it
comes accepting and repaying loans than a politician or a civil servant. These
folks bear no personal responsibility and can be influenced to do the bankers'
bidding through all sorts of corrupt incentive schemes.
All of this results in towns, cities, counties, states
and/or countries owing a lot of money with relatively steep interest rates and
very little, if any, ability to repay both the principal and the interest out
often declining or permanently depressed tax revenues.
Now, I'm not saying that any or all of this took place in Greece , but I'm
inclined to suspect that probably a lot of what I've listed above happened.
So when a country like Greece can no longer afford to pay
what you could call sophisticated and fully legalized loan-sharks -- because
paying means cutting pensions, unemployment benefits, public medical care and
education sometimes by more that 20% to people who can barely survive on what
they're receiving now -- I'm not going to be rooting for the wealthy banks and
financial institutions.
The prudent way out of this public debt quagmire -- and not
just for Greece , but for any
country laden with unsustainable levels of public debt, including the United States
-- is for
A. The financial hit to be taken by the party that can
handle it the most, the institutional creditors.
After all, even if these creditors wrote off 50% of the debt
and had to accept a 10-20 year repayment plan on the rest after a several year
moratorium on debt payments, I'm sure no one (on their Boards of Directors or
among their wealthy shareholders) is going to be putting up for sale their
summer homes in Southern France, yachts, private jets or golf/country club
memberships.
But if these creditors and the politicians & political
regimes that advocate and defend their interests, have their way, then poor
Greeks may have to forfeit souvlaki and feta cheese for cheap pasta and
potatoes for a while, not to mention health care, education and acceptable
levels of public services.
This way, in the future, creditors will not be inclined to
offer additional financing at immoral rates or irresponsible terms, knowing
that they can lose not just their expected profits (interest) but principal as
well.
B. Prosecution, firing and kicking out of office corrupt and
reckless politicians and civil servants who created this mess, including
confiscation of all ill-gotten gains.
C. Enactment of laws, creation of independent, competent
government agencies with broad regulatory powers and permanent public oversight
of public finance and public spending to prevent the future accumulation of
public debt on bad terms or at irresponsible levels.
But the first step is the toughest -- an ultimatum for debt
restructuring (that's made, if necessary, by default in payments) through a
public refusal to abide by the draconian terms imposed by the international
public finance vampires and their government cronies.
If you think that I'm sounding too socialist and
anti-capitalist/globalist, then please read John Perkins' "Confessions of
an Economic Hit Man" for comparison
The second step, is as tough on the population as a heroin
addict's withdrawal symptoms the first week -- having to live within a government
budget that may not be augmented by additional public finance for a while.
Yes, it's hard to have an economic recovery without extra
government spending fueled by additional government debt, but sometimes there
is no other choice.
But you’re always better off suffering through painful withdrawal
than agreeing to the drug dealer’s terms for another dose at the expense of selling
your children and homestead.
You just have to make sure that the drug dealer is put in
his place and doesn’t take your home while you’re on your knees in withdrawal.
So here we need to put another spin on “Beware of Greeks
bearing gifts” – Greece, Ukraine and anyone else, beware of the IMF, The World
Bank, other international organizations and bank & creditor cartels/consortia
that bring you a “Trojan” horse – in the form of emergency loans (“bailout” packages)
– to “rescue” you from debt that they helped you accumulate in the first place.
Are there any other options?
You can leave your comments on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/URA.Observer/posts/1143842275629910
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Who Owns Agricultural Land in Ukraine?
Who Owns Agricultural Land in Ukraine?
Transnational agribusinesses, including Monsanto, Cargill and DuPont, are increasingly investing and are taking over all aspects Ukraine’s agricultural system.
Insightful quotes quote: "The quest for Ukraine’s legendary black earth is almost complete. To the dismay of French, Polish, German farmers, the multinational agricultural corporation Monsanto, as well as DuPont Pioneer and John Deere, have all lobbied for access to the largest agricultural market in Eastern Europe. This will soon reshape the market for agricultural products in the EU and spell ruin for Europe’s farmers."
“We must ask ourselves: what impact will these investments have on the 7 million local farmers, especially with the expected lifting of the moratorium on land sales in 2016? And how will these deals affect Ukraine’s ability to control its own food supply and manage its economy in a way that will benefit the Ukrainian people?”
************
I've always been a supporter of a democratic and independent Ukraine -- a country where agricultural land and other important strategic natural resources (coal, shale oil & gas) belong to Ukranian citizens and Ukrainian-owned companies.
Today, I see a Ukrainian government that's more beholden to its foreign sponsors, including transnational carpetbaggers & vulture investors, than to Ukrainian citizens.
Once Ukraine's precious black earth -- a gift from G-d -- is tranferred into foreign hands or polluted with foreign-ownedGMOs, then the prospects for an independent and prosperous Ukraine will wither.
As they say, once you control a people's land, food supply, energy supplies and banking system, then there's no need for a military occupation, legal annexation or former colonization.
So while the current Ukrainian government is busy pumping up patriotism, shelling Eastern Ukrainian separatists & civilians and whipping up more anti-Russian war hysteria, the real war for Ukraine's economic independence is being lost -- on purpose -- in the battle for Ukraine's land and crops.
And that could do more long-term economic damage to Ukraine (its citizenry and not its transnational oligarchs) than the loss of pro-Russian regions like Crimea and the Donetsk Coal Basin.
******************
Some useful articles on what's been happening to Ukrainian agriculture:
US Agribusiness, GMOs and the Plundering of the Planet
April 7, 2015
April 7, 2015
The Corporate Takeover of Ukrainian Agriculture
December 2014
New Fact Sheet Details Western Agribusiness Interests in Ukraine
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Land grab in Ukraine is Monsanto’s backdoor to the EU
Mon, Apr 6, 2015
Monsanto's Land Grab in Ukraine
February 06, 2015
More Evidence For Monsanto’s Role In The Ukrainian Coup?
January 13, 2015 by Sophie McAdam
What They're Not Telling You About Monsanto's Role In Ukraine!
Paul Craig Roberts on Russia, Ukraine, Monsanto, GMOs and more
Agenda-21, Globalist “Darling” Monsanto Finding a Backdoor into Ukraine and the E.U.
September 1, 2014
Monsanto in Ukraine - IMF loan for Ukraine may give GMO giant a backdoor into EU
Published time: August 30, 2014 15:33
Land Grabs in the Black Earth: Ukrainian Oligarchs and International Investors
30. Okt. 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)