Dec 302017
 

By Michael Nevradakis, 99GetSmart

Originally published at MintPressNews

Outgoing Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis is surrounded by media as he tries to leave on his motorcycle, after his resignation in Athens, Monday, July 6, 2015. Greece and its membership in Europe's joint currency faced an uncertain future Monday, with the country under pressure to reach a bailout deal with creditors as soon as possible after Greeks resoundingly rejected the notion of more austerity in exchange for aid. (AP Photo/Petros Karadjias)

Outgoing Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis is surrounded by media as he tries to leave on his motorcycle, after his resignation in Athens, Monday, July 6, 2015. Greece and its membership in Europe’s joint currency faced an uncertain future Monday, with the country under pressure to reach a bailout deal with creditors as soon as possible after Greeks resoundingly rejected the notion of more austerity in exchange for aid. (AP Photo/Petros Karadjias)

SYRIZA gained popular support and came in with a program that was really radical. They said we will socialize or nationalize the Greek banks and put in practice a very radical fiscal policy and increase the taxes on the rich, the Orthodox Church, and the oligarchs. They wound up doing just the opposite.

ATHENS, GREECE – For years, throughout the severe economic crisis that has plagued Greece over much of the past decade, the international media and financial press have held Greece up as a striking example of financial folly and mismanagement. Greece’s debt, we have been told, is the product of fiscal irresponsibility, of “lazy” and “unproductive” Greeks living beyond their means and spending recklessly. Moreover, Greece has been chastised for not emerging out of its economic doldrums despite being the recipient of hundreds of billions of euros worth of “free bailout money.” In short, Greece has been presented as an example for other countries to avoid at all costs.

Éric Toussaint, the spokesman of the Brussels-based Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt (CADTM) and scientific director of the Greek Debt Truth Audit Commission, adopts a radically different view.

In an interview that initially aired on Dialogos Radio in December 2017, Toussaint describes the findings of the commission and describes the legal avenues available to Greece for the repudiation of a significant portion of its debt, which he describes as odious and illegitimate. He also criticizes claims made by economist and former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis in his recent book regarding the supposed lack of options available to Greece in its negotiations with its lenders in 2015.

Toussaint illustrates the capitulation of Varoufakis and current Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, resulting in further harsh austerity measures and no solution for the issue of the Greek public debt.

MPN: You recently wrote a three-part series of articles looking at the actions of, on the one hand, the SYRIZA-led government in Greece under Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and, on the other hand, the actions of Yanis Varoufakis, the well-known economist and Greece’s finance minister under the SYRIZA-led government in the first half of 2015. Your critique comes following the publication of Varoufakis’ recent book, Adults In The Room, in which Varoufakis gives his account of the Greek crisis and his actions in supposedly standing up to the “troika” (the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund). We’ll use this as a starting off point for our discussion. What were your general impressions of the book?

Éric Toussaint: The book really should be read, because it’s a very useful testimony about what happened. I disagree with the orientation of Varoufakis, but it’s a unique presentation of what happened before the Greek parliamentary election of January 2015 and what happened in the first six months thereafter — leading to thecapitulation of the SYRIZA government in July 2015, following its overturning of the result of the July 5 referendum rejecting a new German-backed austerity plan.

MPN: In Adults In The Room, one of the claims apparently made by Varoufakis is that Greece was bankrupt in 2009 and that this set the stage for the so-called “bailouts” and austerity that followed. You dispute this claim, however. What do the facts show?

Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis speaks during a parliamentary session in Athens, Friday, Aug. 14, 2015. (AP/Yannis Liakos)

Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis speaks during a parliamentary session in Athens, Friday, Aug. 14, 2015. (AP/Yannis Liakos)

ET: In reality, the main problem was on the side of the private debt, the debt of the Greek banks, but also other businesses and households. There had been a process of huge growth of the private debt just after the integration of Greece into the Eurozone, because the big French, German, Dutch, and Belgian banks wanted to lend money to Greece, knowing that there was no risk of devaluation because of the monetary union.

They had a surplus of liquidity before the crisis of 2007 – 08, and after the crisis because, as you will remember, the Federal Reserve of the U.S. and the European Central Bank injected a huge amount of liquidity into the banks. These banks used that money to lend where they were having the better profits, and the countries of the “periphery” — like Greece but also Portugal, Ireland, and Spain — were more profitable than countries like Germany, France, Benelux, the U.K. or the U.S.

So the main issue was the problem of the bubble of private credit, but the main problem of the Greek government of George Papandreou in 2009, and the problem of the French government of Nicolas Sarkozy and the government of Angela Merkel in Germany, was that it was impossible to tell voters that we have to once more bail out the private banks. Therefore, it was necessary for them to build a fake narrative of what was happening in Greece, telling the public that the main problem was the huge level of public debt and the incapacity of the Greek government to keep on financing its public and external debt. In reality, they created this fake narrative to convince public opinion about the need to give money to the Greek government to “bail out” the Greek private banks and the French and German and Dutch and Belgian private sector, mainly the banks.

So, I disagree with the dominant narrative and I disagree with Varoufakis, who wrote in his book that the Greek government was bankrupt. I think the main problem was the banks, and the Greek government had the choice to either bail out the private sector or to “bail in” and socialize the banks (forcing the banks to take losses). It ultimately decided not to socialize or to expropriate the private banks. It was an error of the Greek government, and the other European governments were accomplices, along with big financial capital.

In summary, there is a difference between what Varoufakis is saying and what I am saying, and the conclusions are also different. I would say that what the Greek government should have done would have been to suspend the payment of the external debt, including the public debt. Varoufakis is saying the Greek state should have recognized itself that it was bankrupt and should have sold public assets to the foreign private sector, including selling to the other European countries and investors, and to the Greek banks. Do you see the difference?

MPN: Much has been said about Greece falsifying economic figures to enter the Eurozone, but you point out in your articles that Greece’s debt and deficit statistics were falsified by the Papandreou government in 2009 and 2010 and by IMF employee Andreas Georgiou, who was placed in charge of the Greek Statistical Authority (ELSTAT) by the Papandreou government. How were the Greek debt and deficit figures falsified, and is this something that Varoufakis addresses in his book?

International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde, right, arrives at the special Paris court, France. (AP/Thibault Camus)

International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde, right, arrives at the special Paris court, France. (AP/Thibault Camus)

ET: No, he says absolutely nothing about this falsification. But this falsification is evident. There is the case of Andreas Georgiou, the director of ELSTAT, who was sued, and at the beginning of August 2017 was found guilty of falsification by the Greek courts.

What happened? Papandreou met with the leaders of the European Central Bank — at that time it was Jean-Claude Trichet, very linked to the French banks — and the IMF, whose general director at that time, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, was also very linked to the French banks. The Papandreou government asked the director of ELSTAT to add some debt to the official public debt. At the first step, Eurostat, the European organization of statistics, told ELSTAT that it was an error to add this debt, but Eurostat was afterward also convinced by Trichet and by José Manuel Barroso, then the president of the European Commission, to be part of the falsification of the Greek public debt.

I would estimate they increased the debt more or less 15 to 20 percent in relation to the Greek GDP, so that the official figure reached the huge ratio of 125 percent of GDP for the public debt, and the budgetary fiscal deficit reached something like 13 percent. So with these figures, the troika could say there is an emergency, we have to intervene to “help” the Greek government, with 110 billion euros of loans to Greece. So in this case, I would say that it was a conspiracy. I am not a conspiracist, but in this case we really now have the proof of a huge level of falsification and of the building of the fake narrative to misrepresent what was the real situation.

MPN: You point out that Yanis Varoufakis, despite his radical and leftist profile, maintained friendships and close contact with such figures as the head of the Greek conservative party, Antonis Samaras, who was prime minister of Greece between 2012 and 2014; Yannis Stournaras, who was the finance minister under the Samaras government during that period and who is the current governor of the Bank of Greece; and George Papandreou, who led Greece into the austerity and memorandum regime in 2009 and 2010. Describe the nature of Varoufakis’ relationships with these figures.

ET: You know, Varoufakis is very happy to share that he has developed and maintains many relations with the traditional political class in Greece. In some ways, when you read his book you see that he is trying to convince world leaders that what he was proposing was a better solution for everybody, including for the leaders of the world. And so he insisted on stating that [then-leader of the Greek opposition] Antonis Samaras called him one evening after [Varoufakis] publicly criticized what Papandreou was doing, with Samaras telling Varoufakis “I don’t know you but I like very much what you said on Greek television and to Greek public opinion.”

It shows that Varoufakis has a very complicated personality, because he says he wants to be at the side of the oppressed people, and he’s promised to his voters not to betray them, but at the same time he wanted to convince world leaders and to maintain very good relations with everybody — with Stournaras, with Samaras, with Papandreou, with Christine Lagarde, with [then-German finance minister Wolfgang] Schäuble, with [German Chancellor] Merkel. And in the U.S., if you read the book, he says he was very happy to maintain a very good relationship with Larry Summers and Jeffrey Sachs.

People in the U.S. should know who these guys are. Larry Summers was in charge of the U.S. Treasury in the Clinton administration at the end of the 1990s and he was responsible for the revocation of the Glass-Steagall Act [that had been a way of protecting the economy from unduly risky behavior by banks]. After that he was the president of Harvard University and was totally [chauvinistic] in his declaration of the difference between men and women. He can be fairly described as a right-wing Democrat. Sachs, who was also a friend of Varoufakis, was responsible for the first economic “shock therapy” [harsh and sudden economic austerity policies] imposed on Bolivia in 1995, and the “shock therapy” imposed on Russia and Poland in the early 1990s. So it’s really problematic to see this contradictory posture of Varoufakis.

MPN: In his book, Varoufakis goes on to say that he convinced SYRIZA to depart from its policy platform of 2012 and the Thessaloniki platform of 2014. Instead, Varoufakis convinced SYRIZA to adopt his own set of economic proposals. For instance, Varoufakis seems to have proposed advocating for a debt restructuring instead of a debt reduction. What was SYRIZA originally proposing; what were Varoufakis’ proposals which were ultimately adopted; and why were Varoufakis’ proposals, in your words, doomed to fail?

FILE - In this Sunday, Oct. 18, 2015 file photo, a man walks past street art depicting Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Athens, Greece. Tsipras' decision to sign off on a bailout led to many in his left-wing Syriza party to quit in protest.

A man walks past street art depicting Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Athens, Greece. Tsipras’ decision to sign off on a bailout led to many in his left-wing Syriza party to quit in protest.

ET: In the electoral campaign of 2012, SYRIZA succeeded in increasing its popular support. In the election of 2009 SYRIZA received 4 percent of the vote, and in June 2012 26.5 percent of the vote. So it was very clear with the election of June 2012 that sometime in the future SYRIZA would become the government of Greece. And they gained such popular support in 2012 with a program that was very radical.

They were saying that if you elect us as government, we will suspend the payment of the debt and we will audit the debt to identify the illegitimate part of the Greek debt. They also said we will socialize or nationalize the Greek banks. And they said that they would put in practice a very radical fiscal policy and increase the taxes on the rich, the Orthodox Church, and the oligarchs who are active in the shipping industry. So it was a radical program, and they also said that we will not make any more sacrifices for the euro.

Varoufakis was opposed to this orientation, and in his book he explains how he succeeded in convincing Alexis Tsipras and his inner circle to moderate, to soften the program and to say that it was not necessary to suspend the payment of the debt — that it was possible to convince the creditors to restructure the debt without reducing the debt and without a suspension of payments. Varoufakis also wrote that he convinced Tsipras that it was important not to increase the taxes paid by the private sector, the Greek corporations and financial industry, and foreign corporations based in Greece.

What I can say as a comment on Varoufakis’ book is that Tsipras, after the election of June 2012, was also looking for people like Varoufakis, who could help Tsipras to soften the program of SYRIZA while not openly confronting the rest of SYRIZA’s leadership. So I would say Tsipras and Varoufakis organized something like a shadow cabinet within SYRIZA to prepare another official platform. Varoufakis explains that actually they did this against the official line of SYRIZA. For me, at this level, Varoufakis has a huge responsibility for the capitulation that happened at the beginning of July 2015.

MPN: One of Varoufakis’ proposals to the leaders of SYRIZA was to accept a primary budget surplus of up to 1.5 percent of GDP. For those unfamiliar with economics, what is a primary budget surplus and why is it harmful for a country whose economy is in a depressed state, as is the case in Greece?

ET: To achieve a primary budget surplus, you need to cut expenses, and it is clear that the type of expenses to be cut are social expenses and infrastructure investment. A primary surplus is achieved prior to paying the debt. When you say that I will guarantee as a government a primary surplus, it is to use this surplus to pay the debt. You will not question the payment of the debt when you guarantee a primary surplus.

The alternative would have been to say, as a legitimate leftist government, we should have a fiscal deficit, because we should use the money of the government to stimulate the recovery of the economic activity and we should improve the quality of life of the population — and to accomplish this we need more money for health, for education, to create jobs. And so, the proposal of Varoufakis was at odds with a truly radical negotiating position on the part of the Greek government.

MPN: Yanis Varoufakis and Alexis Tsipras have spoken, for instance, at the Brookings Institution, the well-known neoliberal Washington think tank. Can such actions, in your opinion, be reconciled with their supposedly leftist and radical image?

ET: I would say it is not really shocking. Personally I don’t like to do such things, but we can understand that certain people want to be in government and are therefore willing to give some speeches to different publics. But at the same time it is absolutely clear that Tsipras prioritized his being invited by institutional authorities who are neoliberal, and he did that and he has kept on doing that because he wants absolutely to be recognized as a political leader, one who is very responsible to the markets and to the stability of the financial system.

In the case of Varoufakis, he wanted to create, I would say, a more complex image — in some way provoking but in some way saying yes, we need to reach a compromise, an agreement. And he also gave an absolute priority to invitations from right-wing or systemic institutions. It’s very clear, for instance, that he liked very much the conservative leadership in the U.K. and accepted several invitations from them; and he also accepted, precisely at the beginning of his tenure as finance minister, an invitation to go to London to give a speech to foreign investors. It showed, in this way, that he and Tsipras were the main interlocutors with creditors and capitalists. In Varoufakis’ book, he also writes a lot about the good relations he tried to build with China and Chinese authorities investing in Greece.

MPN: You have been the scientific coordinator of the Greek Debt Truth Commission since it was established in 2015. Has the SYRIZA-led government shown any intention of adopting the findings of the commission, and was there any point during your participation on the commission when you realized that perhaps the SYRIZA government’s policies were going in a different direction from the work that you were doing?

Members of left wing parties shout slogans behind a burning European Union flag during an anti-EU protest in the northern Greek port city of Thessaloniki. (AP/Giannis Papanikos)

Members of left wing parties shout slogans behind a burning European Union flag during an anti-EU protest in the northern Greek port city of Thessaloniki. (AP/Giannis Papanikos)

ET: I would say that frankly, since the beginning, when I spoke with the then-president of the Hellenic Parliament Zoe Konstantopoulou on February 16, 2015, I told her that I came to you, came to the parliament to make a proposal to you to launch an audit commission, and I can convince people from 10 different countries to work with no payment in favor of the Greek people and in favor of the truth about the debt. Telling that to Zoe [Konstantopoulou], I added that I was convinced that Alexis Tsipras would not be enthusiastic about that proposal. She told me, “No problem, I will do that, I will call Alexis and I will convince him.” She immediately issued a press release regarding our meeting on February 16, 2015. She also called Tsipras, and Tsipras officially told her “do it, it’s part of our program in 2012; do it and do it with Eric Toussaint.

We held the first meeting of the commission on April 4, 2015 in the Greek parliament. Alexis Tsipras came at the beginning of the inaugural session. The president of the Hellenic Republic, Prokopis Pavlopoulos, came also, and so officially they showed their support. Almost all the members of the government also attended, including Varoufakis. But it was clear to me that Varoufakis was not in favor of freely supporting the commission, and the same from Tsipras. Zoe Konstantopoulou was convinced, because she was a political friend and a friend of Tsipras, that he was sincere when he was telling her that he wanted to support our work.

Several weeks later, it was very clear that neither Tsipras or Varoufakis were open to publicly, in front of the media, mentioning the work of the commission. They never — you know, they traveled a lot to Brussels and Varoufakis traveled a lot to Washington to meet Christine Lagarde, the general director of the IMF — and they never questioned the legitimacy of the debt. So for me it was very clear that they were in some way forced by the president of the Greek parliament to express official support, but at the same time it was very clear that they didn’t want to radicalize their position.

I performed this work with the 13 members of the commission. The work done by the commission, I would say, consists of more than 1500 or 2000 hours of work performed over eight weeks among 13 persons. We worked day and night to produce a very efficient and rigorous report, and my expectation was that there was some possibility that several ministers of the SYRIZA-led government — ministers of the then-SYRIZA faction “Left Platform,” jointly with Zoe Konstantopoulou and the pressure from the streets and from the other radical-left groups and the trade-union left — could pressure the government to use our work. But I was not really very optimistic because I was very well informed about what Varoufakis was doing with his team of advisers. I was receiving clear information about the concessions that he was ready to give to the creditors.

But I don’t regret having done this work, and people who participated in the commission — people from France, Spain, Greece, Ecuador, Brazil, the U.K., Belgium — these people are very proud to have done this work. They are convinced that because we have done very serious work, it will be useful in the future — in Greece but also in other parts of the world, because in Spain, in Portugal, in Italy, in Slovenia, in other countries, people are reading our report, are asking us a lot of questions, trying to implement the same methodology to the specific case in their own country. I’m sure it will be useful.

MPN: Describe the findings and conclusions that were published in your report, and also the recommendations made by the Debt Truth Audit Commission.

ET: In the first two chapters, we analyze the building of the Greek public and private debt before the crisis. We explain what happened in the 1990s and in the first decade of the 21st century. We showed that the accumulation of debt was linked to huge amounts of military expenses encouraged by the U.S. government and the French and German governments, which are the main sellers of weapons to Greece. We showed also that interest rates paid by Greece at the end of the 20th century increased the debt, as also happened with the peripheral countries.

Additionally we showed the responsibility of the previous PASOK and New Democracy governments in giving tax gifts to the rich that reduced the government revenue and forced the government to finance its budget by debt. And we showed also that the debt increased after the addition of the Greece to the Eurozone, because a lot of money came from the German and French investors.

Following that, in chapters 3 and 4, we showed the transformation of the debt from the troika’s first memorandum, when the private lenders were replaced by public lenders — the troika, the European Commission, 14 different states of the Eurozone, the IMF and the European Central Bank. We showed that they did that to bail out the private banks — foreign and national — and not in the interest of the people. We demonstrated that the lenders added conditions to the new loans, conditions that violated international treaties on economic, social, cultural, civil, and political rights.

In other words, we demonstrated that the debt to the troika was an odious debt, meaning a debt accumulated against the interests of the people, and that the creditors or lenders knew that they were giving loans against the interests of the people. And, in the case of the troika, this was absolutely evident, because the troika was dictating to the Greek government the terms of the loans — which laws to change, which new laws to adopt, what wage and pension reductions and privatizations to enact. The troika were not only accomplices but they were direct commanders — they were the initiators of these violations.

After that in the report we demonstrated the clear impact on the quality of life of the Greek population. In chapter 5, we named concrete international treaties and which article is being violated by the conditions imposed by the troika. And in the last two chapters we explained in legal terms why the Greek debt to the troika should be rejected as illegitimate, odious, illegal, and unsustainable.

Our conclusion was that the Greek government fully has the right to suspend the payment of the debt, to question the debt, and also to repudiate the part of the debt identified as odious. Notable lawyers helped us, as members of the commission, to write the conclusion based on international law and Greek domestic law. It is clear that should Varoufakis and Tsipras have used this report, they would have had very strong arguments against the creditors, instead of capitulating in front of them in July 2015.

MPN: Is the Greek Debt Truth Audit Commission still active today? And, by extension, how is the CADTM active today on the issue of the Greek debt?

A pedestrian passes anti-austerity graffiti in front of Athens Academy. (AP/Thanassis Stavrakis)

A pedestrian passes anti-austerity graffiti in front of Athens Academy. (AP/Thanassis Stavrakis)

ET: The Debt Truth Commission was dissolved by the new president of the Greek parliament, Nikos Voutsis, in October 2015. We were opposed to its dissolution, and so we decided collectively to transform ourselves into an independent organization with the same name. We are active now as the Debt Truth Committee, recognized by Greek law, and we have met several times in the past two years.

We met once in the European Parliament, invited by several members of the European Parliament — French, Greek, German and Spanish European MPs who are supporting our work. We held several meetings in Greece, not in the parliament because we are no longer invited, but in the office of the Greek Association of Lawyers. There were many Greek citizens who attended the public part of our meetings.

Several of us have published different articles. I published a book in Greek last July with new material about the Greek debt. We also produced several videos and a documentary, “Audit,” a 26 minute film. It is very interesting, I recommend to you to view it. I have to check, but I think that very soon it will be available with English subtitles. So we are keeping on with our work. It is clear that we are not supported by the government. And the right-wing press maintains silence about our work — but we enjoy significant support in the Greek social movements and radical-left organizations.

MPN: In looking at Greece over the years of the economic crisis, we’ve often heard that Greece has been given all this money by the troika, insinuating that the money was simply given away to Greece. In reality though, where have most of the so-called “bailout” funds ended up?

ET: It’s absolutely clear that more than 90 percent of the loans given to Greece went back outside of Greece to pay back the private banks and public creditors, or to bail out the Greek banks. Less than 10 percent has been used by the regular government as an input to the budget, but they used even that to promote the neoliberal policies! So this money also was used against the interests of the Greek people, because it was used to finance privatizations, to finance the layoffs of thousands of public servants, et cetera.

MPN: What options does Greece have available to it under domestic law, European law, and international law today — with regards to the public debt, and also with regards to the potential abolition or overturning of the austerity measures and memorandum-related policies, such as privatizations, that have followed?

Riot police clashes with protesting farmers outside the greek Agriculture Ministry, in Athens, Wednesday, March 8, 2017. Police fired tear gas to prevent farmers from forcing their way into the ministry building, while protesters responded by throwing stones. No injuries or arrests were reported. Protesters are angry at increases in their tax and social security contributions, part of the income and spending cuts Greece's left-led government has implemented to meet bailout creditor-demanded budget targets.(AP/Thanassis Stavrakis)

Riot police clashes with protesting farmers outside the greek Agriculture Ministry, in Athens, Wednesday, March 8, 2017. Police fired tear gas to prevent farmers from forcing their way into the ministry building, while protesters responded by throwing stones. No injuries or arrests were reported. Protesters are angry at increases in their tax and social security contributions, part of the income and spending cuts Greece’s left-led government has implemented to meet bailout creditor-demanded budget targets.(AP/Thanassis Stavrakis)

ET: There is something very concrete that could be done with the Greek bonds owned by the European Central Bank. The ECB bought Greek bonds in 2010, 2011, and 2012 at a discount price, a discount of 30 percent. After that, after the “haircut” [downward revaluation of Greek bonds] of 2012, the ECB refused to be part of the “haircut.” Now the ECB is demanding that Greece repay the full amount of the Greek bonds the ECB bought at a discount price. It is demanding the full nominal value of the bonds — and with a very high interest rate, 6.5 percent — at the same time that the ECB is lending money to the private banks at zero interest.

What the Greek government could do is to change the legal status of the Greek bonds, because they are still covered under the legal jurisdiction of Greece. The Greek government could say we are enacting a haircut of 50 or 80 percent on these bonds, to reduce the payments, because we want to use the money in favor of the Greek people’s interests. It would be possible to do that. Tsipras can do that or a future Greek government can do that.

What should complement this, what a government that would like to really help the Greek people’s interests could do would be to, on the basis of our audit, enact another unilateral, sovereign action of repudiation of other parts of the debt. It is clear that this would provoke a huge verbal reaction. But for the past seven years, since the first memorandum of 2010, the creditors have criticized the Greek government and the Greek population, shown the Greek population as “lazy” and as “delinquent” at the level of tax payments. I think that they cannot, as creditors, inflict more pain on the Greek people than they already have.

A legitimate government can affirm the popular sovereignty in the interests of the Greek population, can resolve an issue in favor of the general interest of the population — and not only the Greek people’s interests, but humanity, I would say. We need justice, and if there is no justice for the Greek people, there will be no justice for all the people in Europe and the rest of the world. We have to launch and to expand the struggle to oppose illegitimate and odious debt all over the world.

MPN: Debt, as you say, is not just a Greek or European problem. Total world debt is said to surpass $230 trillion dollars. Is the current global economic model sustainable under such conditions, in your view?

ET: No, it’s not sustainable. As you certainly know, recently the IMF but also the Bank of International Settlements — it is a bank of the big central banks based in Basel, Switzerland — have been saying there are new financial bubbles. These bubbles have been provoked by an inflation of the price of assets, with a massive injection of liquidity decided by the big central banks like the U.S. Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, and the Bank of England.

In the next months or years this will provoke a new financial crisis. Exactly when it will happen we don’t know. It can happen in one week or in six months or in one year. Certainly it will happen with a stock exchange crash, and a crash on the market of obligations emitted by private corporations and also sovereign debt. Where it will explode — Wall Street, Paris, Frankfurt — we don’t know. Maybe Beijing. But it will explode in the near future.

This model of huge global debt, which is accumulated in favor of speculative activities and to enrich the richest, will end via a new general crisis. Not a terminal crisis of capitalism, because the structure of capitalism has survived such financial crises since the beginning of the 19th century.

But these types of crises generally deliver a huge amount of pain to the majority of the population, so we should be conscious of what capitalism is preparing for the population of the world. We have to combine a struggle against illegitimate debt with other demands about private banks, about taxes, against climate change, in favor of social justice. We need to chart a radical turn opposing the capitalist model.

Mar 202013
 

By Renaud Vivien and Cécile Lamarque, CADTM

2012-10-10_debt_03

There are several legal arguments on which a suspension, or even a cancellation, of repayment of public debts can be based. In order to establish the invalidity of a loan agreement it is necessary to take into account not only the dispositions of the agreement but also the circumstances in which it was signed and the actual use of the borrowed money |1|. It will obviously be necessary to audit the debt to shed light on those various elements. Governments that wish to reduce their debts can use arguments from public international law, among which are those appearing below, in order to find legal grounds for cancellation/repudiation of part of their public debt |2|.
Defects of consent

The 1969 Vienna Convention on the law of treaties and the 1989 Vienna Convention on the law of treaties between States and International Organizations point to various defects of consent that can result in the loan agreement being void, among which are included:

absence of competence in a contracting party |3|. For instance, this violation was the legal motivation for Paraguay repudiating a debt amounting to USD 85 million in 2005. Indeed the Consul of Paraguay in Geneva who had signed the loan in the name of its government had no legal power to contract a loan with the private bank Overland Trust Bank |4| ;

direct or indirect corruption of a contracting party during negotiations |5|. An example could be contracts signed between Greece and the TNC Siemens, which has been charged by the German and Greek justice with paying Greek political, military and administrative officers commissions and bribes amounting to about one billion euro ;

coercion |6| through acts or threats of a contracting party. Coercion was used by the French in 1824 to force Haiti to pay a colossal ransom for the recognition of its independence. To this end thirteen French vessels with 494 cannons surrounded the island’s coasts with clear instructions: in case of refusal ports were to be closed by force. Coercion also raises the issue of a political balance of power that is favourable to creditors. Indeed when there is a lack of balance beteween the contracting parties, debtors’ freedom to negotiate is restrained, while creditors can have their way. This is how in 2010 the Greek government was under the pressure of the French and German authorities that wanted to guarantee their arms exports. The military-industria lobby managed to maintain an almost intact defence budget while the PASOK government agreed to major cuts in social expenditure ;

fraud |7|. If a State was led to contract a loan through the fraudulent conduct of another State or of an international organization that participated in the negotiations, it can point to fraud as invalidating its consent to be bound by the said contract. We can describe as fraudulent the acts of the IMF and of the World Bank considering the abyssal gap between their discourse and reality. Indeed in article 1 of its statutes the IMF defines one of its main purposes as to facilitate the expansion and balanced growth of international trade, and to contribute thereby to the promotion and maintenance of high levels of employment and real income and to the development of the productive resources of all members as primary objectives of economic policy |8|. In fact this institution, in coordination with the WB, does exactly the opposite and thus violates its own statutes. Unemployment steadily increases as a consequence of implementing measures that were recommended by the IMF and/or the WB. We can also notice a frequent diminution in the incomes of wage earners, small producers and the lower middle class. Not to mention widening social discrepencies in most countries where these institutions have been active |9|.

Illicit or immoral cause of the contract

This legal ground can be found in the civil or commercial national law of several countries. Among the illicit or immoral causes invalidating a loan contract we find:

the acquisition of military equipment. Article 26 of the 1945 Charter of the United Nations specifies that States have to regulate arms trade and limit to a minimum the resources they dedicate to military expenditure. Now we know that military expenditure increases globally year after year in violation of the UN Charter;

tied aid. Confronted as they were with massive recession and unemployment in the 1970s, rich countries decided to give purchasing power to the countries of the South so as to prompt them to buy goods produced in the North by granting them state to state loans, often in the form of export credits: this is called tied aid. For the borrowing countries it results in a significant increase in the cost of purchased goods and services and higher levels of indebtedness. According to a survey by the WB, from 1962 to 1987 African countries paid more for imported steel products than industrialized countries (up to 23 % more in the case of France ). This practice is all the more illegitimate as in most cases those tied loans do not meet the actual needs of the country but the commercial interests of the creditor. This motivated Norway to unilaterally and unconditionally cancel the debts of five countries, namely Ecuador, Egypt, Jamaica, Peru, and Sierra Leone in 2006 ;

The example of Norway

On 2 October 2006, during a press conference in Oslo, the Norwegian minister for international development, Erik Solheim, announced the unilateral and unconditional cancellation of debts owed by the five following countries: Ecuador, Egypt, Jamaica, Peru, and Sierra Leone, thus ackowledging Norway’s responsibility in their illegitimate debt. These cancellations amounted to about USD 80 million |10|. The decision was motivated by the fact that ‘the claims derived from a failed development project – the Ship Export Campaign of the late 70’s’: This campaign represented a development policy failure. As a creditor country Norway has a shared responsibility for the debts that followed. In cancelling these claims Norway takes the responsibility for allowing these five countries to terminate their remaining repayments on these debts |11|. For the first time in history, a country of the North admitted to being responsible for inadequate loan policy and took measures to remedy what had occurred. The decision represented a break with today’s tacit consensus within the Paris Club. Norway’s move is a significant step towards the recognition of creditors’ responsibility in the process of illegitimate debts. │

financing conditioned to structural adjustment. As claimed by special rapporteur Mohammed Bedjaoui in his draft article on succession in respect of State debts for the 1983 Vienna Convention: From the standpoint of the international community, an odious debt could be taken to mean any debt contracted for purposes that are not in conformity with contemporary international law and, in particular, the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations |12|. In this respect multilateral debts contracted in the context of structural adjustments are odious and therefore illicit debts since the damaging nature of such policies has been abundantly shown, notably by UN bodies. Conditionalities atached to these debts manifestly violate various texts on protection of human rights. Surrender of the sovereignty of States is further aggravated by dispositions in most international loan contracts that stipulate that jurisdictions in the North are competent and that rules favourable to creditors have to be applied in case of dispute among contracting parties. In Ecuador the Commission of integral audit of public debt (CAIC) highlighted that the enforcement of policies by the World Bank and other multilateral institutions via programmes they have financed and conditionalities attached to loans means denying state soveneighty and interfering into its internal affairs. Many multilateral loans also violate economic, social and cultural rights. In its recommendations the CAIC proposes to stop paying several debts cliamed by multilateral institutions ;

projects that are either unprofitable or detrimental to populations or to the environment. Included amongst these projects are « white elephants », such as the Inga dam in the DRC (ex-Zaïre) which has been of no benefit to the population whatsoever: to date, less than 10 % of the Congolese population has access to electricity. Examples of debt generating projects are equally common in the north. We can cite the scandal of the 2004 Olympic games in Greece, to name but one. Although the Hellenic authorities foresaw expenditure in the range of 1.3 billion dollars, the cost of these games in fact exceeded 20 billion dollars ;

private debt transformed into public debt. The financial crises which occured during the 90s in south east Asia, Equador, Argentina, Brazil and Russia originated from measures extolled by the World Bank and the IMF, who impose the deregulation of the financial system and the prohibition of State control of the movement of capital. The result is that as a consequence of the reduction in the profits perspective, foreign capital has fled from these countries, causing a chain reaction of bankruptcy of banks. The debts of these private banks then became the public debts of States under the impetus of those responsible for these crises: the World Bank and the IMF. The world crisis, which erupted in 2007, aggravated the situation with regard to public finances and accrued the level of public debt (mainly in the north), so that banks in the north intervened in order to save the banks that had gone into bankruptcy. The cause of this public indebtedness in the south and in the north (linked to the nationalisation of debts in the financial sector) is, at the very least, immoral, given that those directly responsible for these crises are international financial institutions and private banks. The staggering increase of this public debt is also the result of neoliberal politics practiced during the 80s and 90s, the main characteristics of which were to reduce the taxes of the rich and of large companies. The State revenue was no longer sufficient and it was necessary to resort to public debt in order to finance the State’s expenditure. In Equador the CAIC condemned the transfer of private debts to the State, which occured in 1983 and 1984 under pressure from the IMF and the World Bank, while the country was crippled by a severe financial crisis. After this operation, which was extremely damaging to the nation, was made public, the new Constitution of Equador, adopted in September 2008, expressly forbade the transformation of private debts into State debts ;

the repayment of old illegal loans. According to the judicial argument regarding continuity of an offence, an illicit debt does not cease to be illegal following a renegotiation or restructuration process. To this effect, it retains its original vice and the offence lasts through time. Consequently, all public loans aimed at repaying old illegal debts are themselves illicit. The debt audit will allow light to be shed on the original illegal debt. For example, the argument of continuity of an offence has been used by the Audit commission in Equador (CAIC) to denounce the numerous irregularities (since the socialisation of private debts, of the Brady Plan |13| and of the restructuration of debts… |14|) which has led to the issuing of bonds for the commercial debt. Based on the audit results, the Equadorian authorities refused to pay this commercial debt to private international banks (« Global 2012 and 2030 » bonds). In June 2009, after a showdown with the bankers who held the titles of the Equadorian debt, the holders of 91% of the bonds in question accepted their repurchase by Equador at a reduction of 65% of the nominal value;

the repayment of debts already paid. The obligation of a state to honor its debts is notably limited by broad legal principles, such as equity, good faith, abuse of rights or the accumulation of wealth without cause. Yet the debts of developing countries have been repaid several times over: according to the statistics provided by the World Bank, the governments of developing countries have already repaid the equivalent of 98 times of what they owed in 1970, but in the meantime their debt has been multiplied 32 times. This implies that developing countries have the right to repudiate their debt and reclaim what has been unduly taken by their debtors, on the basis that they have been accumulating wealth without cause. This is also the stance taken by several national civil codes: the Argentinian civil code in articles 784 and those following, the Spanish civil code in articles 1895 and those following, the French civil code in articles 1376 and those following. Developing countries, but also countries in the north, are trapped in a vicious circle in which they borrow each year in order to be able to meet their repayments. This situation is namely the consequence of the brutal and unilateral increase in interest rates by the United States in 1979, the application of usurious interest rates or of the capitalisation of interest (anatocism), which is moreover prohibited or strictly controlled in several national judicial orders, for example in Équador, France, Italy, Germany…

Illicit use of lent money

The destination of borrowed funds is a determining factor when it comes to deciding on the legality of a debt. For this it is necessary to examine the nature of the lending regime, its behavior in terms of human rights, as well as the actual allocation of these funds. To this effect the following cases are deemed to be illegal:

 debt born of colonialisation. During the 50s and 60s the World Bank granted several loans to colonial metropolis nations, such as Belgium, France, Portugal and Great Britain, for projects that permitted them to maximize the exploitation of their colonies. The majority of these debts of colonial power issued by the World Bank were subsequently transferred to the ex colonies at the moment of their independence in the 60s, without their consent. Yet these debts arising from colonialization are void in the eyes of international public law. The Treaty of Versailles of 1919 states in article 255 that Poland is exonerated from paying « the fraction of the debt of which the Reparation Commission attributes the origin to measures taken by the German and Prussian governments for German colonialization of Poland ». A similar stance was taken in the 1947 peace treaty between Italy and France, which declares « inconceivable that Ethiopia should take on the burden of debts contracted by Italy in order to assure her domination of the Ethiopian territory ». Article 16 of the Vienna Convention of 1978 which governs the law of the Treaties does not say anything different : « A newly independent state is not under obligation to maintain a valid treaty nor to be party to it merely because on the date of succession of States the treaty was valid with regard to territory referred to in the succession of States» ;

 loans granted to dictatorships. The dictatorial nature of a regime under which a debt has been contracted allows its repayment to be challenged, even if the State representative who has concluded the loan had the competence to do so, by virtue of internal state law. In effect, in international law, debts contracted under dictatorships take on the qualification « odious debt », according to the doctrine of the same name written by Alexander Sack in 1927 : « If a despotic power contracts a debt not for the needs and in the interests of the State, but in order to strengthen his despotic regime, to repress the population combatting it, etc, that debt is odious for the population of the entire state […]. This debt is not obligatory for the nation, it is a regime debt, a personal debt of the power that has contracted it, consequently it falls along with the fall of this power ». Alexander Sack adds that when the creditors of such debts are aware of the cause they are lending for, they « have committed a hostile act towards the people ; they cannot therefore assume that a nation liberated from a despotic power will take on the « odious » debts that are the personal debts of this power |15| ». The doctrine of the odious debt therefore gives scope for invalidating several loans such as those contracted by dictatorships in Latin America from the 60s to the 80s, in Africa, with the emblematic case of Mobuto’s Zaire (1965-1997), by former Soviet bloc regimes such as the dictatorship of Nicolae Ceaucescu in Roumania, the dictatorships of South East Asia and the Far East (Ferdinand Marcos from 1972 to 1986 in the Philippines, Mohamed Suharto from 1965 to 1998 in Indonesia, dictatorial regimes in South Korea between 1961 and 1981, in Thailand between 1966 and 1988), the military junta in Greece from 1967 to 1974, the dictatorships in North Africa which fell at the beginning of 2011, such as that of Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia (1987-2011) and Hosni Moubarak in Egypt (1981-2011). Commenting on this doctrine of odious debt, legal counsellors of the First National Bank of Chicago point out that « the consequences for the loan agreements of a change of sovereignty partly depend on the use of the funds by the former State. If the predecessor’s debt has been qualified as « odious », in other words, if the funds have been used against the population, the successor cannot be made responsible for the debt » and adds that « commercial banks have to be on their guard about this doctrine […] because succeeding governments have invoked doctrines based on the « odious » or « hostile » use of funds. The lenders should describe in detail the use to which the lent funds shall be put and, as far as possible, involve the beneficiary in the representation, guarantee and surveillance of the use of said funds |16| » ;

 loans to supposedly “democratic” regimes which violate jus cogens . All debt contracted by governments violating the imperative norms of international law as per jus cogens are also null and void, without it being necessary to prove that the creditors intended to become complicit in the exactions of these regimes. This assertion is upheld by the Vienna Convention on the 1969 Law of Treaties, which, in its Article 53, provides for the nullity of acts contravening jus cogens, bringing together, amongst others, the following norms: the prohibition of waging aggressive war, the prohibition of practicing torture, the prohibition of committing crimes against humanity, and the right of peoples to self-determination. As such, any loan granted to a regime that does not respect the fundamental principles of international law, whether democratically elected or not, is null. For example, we can cite the regime of Apartheid in South Africa or the Israeli Government. In this case, the destination of the loan is not requisite in classifying the debt;

loans misused with the complicity of the creditors. The Odious Debt Doctrine also touches on this category: “loans incurred by members of the government or by persons or groups associated with the government to serve interests manifestly personal — interests that are unrelated to the interests of the State.” Indeed, “debts must be contracted and the ensuing funds must be used for the needs and in the interests of the State.” In order to illustrate this aspect of the doctrine, we can cite the arbitral award handed down in 1923 in a case between the United Kingdom and Costa Rica. In 1922, Costa Rica enacted a law annulling all contracts passed by the former dictator Federico Tinoco between 1917 and 1919, and thus refused to honor the debt that it had contracted from the Royal Bank of Canada. This was therefore a case in which the doctrine was applied to a commercial debt. The ensuing dispute between the UK and Costa Rica was arbitrated by the President of the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice William Howard Taft, who declared that the decision of the Government of Costa Rica was valid, highlighting: “The case of the Royal Bank depends not on the mere form of the transaction but upon the good faith of the bank in the payment of money for the real use of the Costa Rican Government under the Tinoco regime. It must make out its case of actual furnishing of money to the government for its legitimate use. It has not done so. More recently, the CAIC in Ecuador demonstrated that certain loans had been deviated from their original “development” aims. Indeed, three loans from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), which were supposedly intended to benefit the agricultural, financial and transport sectors, were partially used to purchase Brady Bonds.

For unilateral action against illegitimate debt

There is no absolute obligation to repay debts under international law. By contrast, international law does require state authorities to protect human rights as a priority. Given the burden of sovereign debt and the impact of austerity measures on the populations of the Global North and South, governments must use their right to unilaterally suspend the repayment of their national debt, following the example of Argentina (in 2001), and Ecuador (in 2008); the latter having done so partially. During this period of debt-payment suspension (with a freeze on interest rates), it would be in the interest of these governments to audit their sovereign debt, both internally and externally, in order to identify any irregularities tarnishing loan contracts. They can then call upon the provisions of public international law (amongst others) in order to unilaterally declare the nullity of any illicit debts, as Paraguay did recently, in 2005. This example is not an isolated case. Throughout history, many governments have refused to repay debts inherited from preceding regimes, arguing that this debt was only bound to the regime in question, and not to the State |17|.

These unilateral actions do not contravene international law, as the sovereign decision to annul/repudiate debt does, indeed, come under the category of unilateral actions, which are sources of international law and can be used against creditors |18|. The CADTM is, of course, in favour of this type of unilateral action to protect human rights.

In this respect, initiating international arbitration on debt is not desirable. Indeed, this mechanism can only be fair and effective if human rights take precedent over creditors and if the people are not confined to the simple role of “witness”. However, the current political balance of power in favour of creditors threatens being detrimental to the peoples of the Global South and North. The rules of procedure underpinning arbitration and subsequent rulings are the result of negotiations between creditors and debtors. In this context, the legal notions that we have put forward would certainly not be accepted by the majority of creditors. We will, of course, recall the hostility of the World Bank toward the Odious Debt Doctrine in its report published in September 2007, entitled “Odious Debt: Some Considerations |19|.” The same is true for other legal arguments such as the unfounded accumulation of wealth, wilful misrepresentation, the misuse of powers, equity, good faith, etc.

Beyond the controversy over the notions of “odious debt” and “illegitimate debt,” the quasi-general hostility of creditors toward establishing a link between debt and human rights should be noted. Here we can refer to an interview with the current UN Independent Expert on Foreign Sovereign Debt, held in 2009: “the States of the North believe that the debt problem is in no way related to human rights, that it is purely economic, and that it should therefore be dealt with outside of the Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly […] The opinions of the officials of the World Bank with whom I have consulted differ on this matter. Some categorically refute a human-rights-based approach in order to only consider the economic aspects of debt |20|.”

Therefore, if an arbitration action were to be initiated, the people would certainly be the losing party. This is because, on the one hand, the ensuing ruling would risk legitimising debts classified as “odious” and “illegitimate” by the social movements or governments that had identified them as such via an audit. The government of the indebted country would then be bound by the ruling and thus have to repay these debts to the detriment of the fundamental needs of its population. On the other hand, these rulings would constitute international jurisprudence, which would serve as a source of inspiration when ruling on future actions. When applied in this way, to the benefit of creditors owing to the current political balance of power, these rules would not favour “responsible” lending policies.

For all of these reasons, it would therefore be in the interest of these governments to take immediate, unilateral action on debt. This aligns with the example of the jurists in attendance at the 1st International Conference of Jurists held in Quito in 2008: “We support the sovereign actions of States which, on legal grounds, declare the nullity of illicit and illegal national debt instruments and with it the suspension of payments. |21|” The classification used (“illicit debt” or “illegitimate debt”) is of little relevance, we call on all borrowing governments, and also lending governments, to repudiate/annul all debts and austerity policies that are not in the interests of the population.

This is why the CADTM is also encouraging legislative initiatives and referendums against laws, regulations or agreements that are contrary to popular sovereignty or the respect of fundamental rights, whether these are currently in force or under negotiation. Public consultations on the non-repayment of a debt, similar to the referendum held in Iceland on the “Icesave” Act , are another example of the mechanisms that must be promoted and of which the results must be heeded by state authorities |22|.

 

Footnotes

|1| The consequences of re paying debts on human rights can be called upon to suspend repaying debts up to declaring some debts void.

|2| We must be aware that States can also use their own (public and private) law, which is not discussed here.

|3| Article 46 of the 1969 and 1986 Vienna Conventions.

|4| See Hugo Ruiz Diaz, ‘La dette du Paraguay auprès des banquiers privés : un cas de dette odieuse,’ 2nd section in ‘L’audit citoyen de la dette : un instrument de démocratisation des relations économiques et de contrôle démocratique des actes des gouvernements,’ http://www.cadtm.org/L-audit-citoye…
Article 50 of the 1969 and 1986 Vienna Conventions.

|5| Article 50 of the 1969 and 1986 Vienna Conventions.

|6| Article 51 of the 1969 and 1986 Vienna Conventions. Article 52

|7| Article 49 of the 1969 and 1986 Vienna Conventions.

|8| See http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft…

|9| Éric Toussaint, The World Bank, a never ending coup d’état, VAK, Mumbai, 2007

|10| Contrary to current practice, this has fortunately not been included in the accounts of the Aid to Public Development (APD).

|11| See article, ‘Why Norway took Creditor Responsibility – the case of the Ship Export campaign’, written by Kjetil G. Abildsnes, March 2007. www.forumfor.no/noop/file.ph…

|12| Mohammed Bedjaoui, Ninth report on succession in matters other than treaties, Definition of an odious debt, 129, http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/document….

|13| In May 1989 the United States renouced the Baker plan (the call to private banks to finance only « well reputed » countries, to the advantage of the Brady plan which consists of reducing the debt, namely by creating parallel guarantees, and by applying tax relief on debts on the secondary market.

|14| These irregularities and illegitimacies have been underlined in the report presented by the sub commission of the commercial debt of the CAIC. See the CAIC website: www.auditoriadeuda.org.ec.

|15| Alexander Nahum Sack, Les Effets des Transformations des États sur leurs dettes publiques et autres obligations financières, Recueil Sirey, 1927.

|16| CAIC, Informe juridico, p. 191, available on the CAIC website
, www.auditoriadeuda.org.ec.

|17| CADTM, “Topicality of the Odious Debt Doctrine”, 2008, http://cadtm.org/Topicality-of-the-…

|18| Hugo Ruiz Diaz, “The Sovereign Decision to Declare Debt Null”, 2008, http://www.cadtm.org/La-decision-so… (Available in French only)

|19| See: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/…. This report, largely botched, biased and condescending toward organisations acting for fair solutions to debt, sparked strong reactions.

|20| Renaud Vivien, “Interview with the UN Independent Expert on Foreign Debt: “I encourage all States to carry out debt audits””, http://www.cadtm.org/Entretien-avec… (Available in French and Spanish only)

|21| Conclusions of the 1st International Conference of Jurists, Quito, 8-9 July 2008, http://www.cadtm.org/Conclusions-de…. (Available in French and Spanish only)

|22| For information on the legal aspects of public consultation, read Alejandro Teitelbaum, “International, Regional, Subregional and Bilateral Free Trade Agreements”, CETIM Report No. 7, 2010, p. 24, http://www.cetim.ch/en/documents/re…

Translation: Christine Pagnoulle, Ümit Hussein and Matt Jenkins

SOURCE @ http://cadtm.org/How-debts-can-legally-be-declared

Jan 022013
 

Posted by greydogg, 99GetSmart

* THERE IS NO AMERICAN LEFT

By Salvatore Babones, Truthout

Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel

Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel

In September 2012 Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel attempted to break the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) with a bid to privatize Chicago’s public schools. The mayor’s proposal was based on a plan to subject teachers (and schools) to performance measurement based on students’ standardized test scores.

Teachers whose students scored poorly would be fired. Schools whose students scored poorly would be closed. The students would then be farmed out to so-called “charter schools” – for the most part, for-profit institutions run by corporations like Edison Schools, Rocketship, Victory Schools, and Educational Services of America.

The CTU went out on strike with the goal of maintaining public education in Chicago, America’s third largest city. Schools in Philadelphia, America’s fifth largest city, have already been largely privatized, and the state of Texas is currently in the process of privatizing its local public school systems.

Under threat of a court injunction that might force them to return to work without a contract, the CTU ended its strike after just six business days. The negotiated settlement terms included a longer working day (for the same pay), teacher evaluations based 30% on student test scores, and complete mayoral discretion over teacher hiring and firing.

As Reuters reported on September 18, “those were major goals for Emanuel and positive outcomes for any Emanuel financial backers associated with the national education reform movement.” The outcome, however, was widely viewed in the United States as a victory for the teachers, since (amazingly, to most Americans) they retained their pre-strike jobs, salaries, and health insurance benefits.

Rahm Emanuel, mayor of Chicago, is a Democrat. […]

READ @ http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13567-there-is-no-american-left

—————————————————————–

* EVERYTHING WE TELL OURSELVES ABOUT AMERICA AND THE WORLD IS WRONG

By Charles Eisenstein, AlterNet

20-lies-every-American-should-know-450x299

[…] We are like children who have grown out of a story that once enthralled us, aware now that it is only a story.

At the same time, a series of new data points has disrupted the story from the outside. The harnessing of fossil fuels, the miracle of chemicals to transform agriculture, the methods of social engineering and political science to create a more rational and just society – each has fallen far short of its promise, and brought unanticipated consequences that threaten civilization. We just cannot believe anymore that the scientists have everything well in hand. Nor can we believe that the onward march of reason will bring on social utopia.

Today we cannot ignore the intensifying degradation of the biosphere, the malaise of the economic system, the decline in health, or the persistence and indeed growth of global poverty and inequality. We once thought economists would fix poverty, political scientists would fix social injustice, chemists and biologists would fix environmental problems, the power of reason would prevail and we would adopt sane policies. I remember looking at maps of rain forest decline in National Geographic in the early 1980s and feeling both alarm and relief – relief because at least the scientists and everyone who reads National Geographic is aware of the problem now, so something surely will be done.

Nothing was done. Rainforest decline accelerated, along with nearly every other environmental threat that we knew about in 1980. Our Story of the People trundled forward under the momentum of centuries, but with each passing decade the hollowing-out of its core, that started perhaps with the industrial-scale slaughter of World War One, extended further. When I was a child, our system of ideology and mass media still protected that story, but in the last thirty years the incursions of reality have punctured its protective shell and have ruptured its essential infrastructure. We no longer believe our storytellers, our elites. We don’t believe the politicians, we don’t believe the doctors, we don’t believe the professors, we don’t believe the bankers, we don’t believe the technologists. All of them imply that everything is under control, and we know that it is not. We have lost the vision of the future we once had; most people have no vision of the future at all. This is new for our society. Fifty or a hundred years ago, most people agreed on the general outlines of the future. We thought we knew where society was going. Even the Marxists and the capitalists agreed on its basic outlines: a paradise of mechanized leisure and scientifically engineered social harmony, with spirituality either abolished entirely or relegated to a materially inconsequential corner of life that happened mostly on Sundays. Of course there were dissenters from this vision, but this was the general consensus. […]

READ @ http://www.alternet.org/visions/everything-we-tell-ourselves-about-america-and-world-wrong?paging=off

—————————————————————–

* MOTHER, SHOULD I TRUST THE GOVERNMENT

Source: Washington’s Blog

Mother should I trust the government

[…] The American people have been participants in their very own Milgram experiment being conducted by their government since 9/11. Since the passage of the Patriot Act, the government continues to demand that its citizens increase the voltage in the name of security. Since 2001, the Orwellian measures have included:

  • Warrantless domestic surveillance.
  • The ability to search telephone calls, emails, financial matters especially involving foreign individuals, and medical records for people who are “suspected” of endangering the country.
  • Color coded risk levels designed to keep citizens fearful of non-existent terrorists.
  • Pre-emptive invasion of foreign countries.
  • Committing U.S. forces to war without a declaration of war by Congress as mandated in the U.S. Constitution.
  • Assassination of people on presidential kill lists.
  • Extermination of “suspected” enemies by predator drones.
  • Camera systems monitoring the movements of Americans in cites and streets across the United States.
  • Torture of detainees in camps outside of the United States.
  • The authority to indefinitely detain America citizens without trial.
  • Executive orders giving the President the ability to unilaterally disregard the U.S. Constitution and take control of private industries.
  • Use of drones to monitor the activities of American citizens.
  • Allowing the very bankers that destroyed the worldwide economic system to blackmail the American taxpayers into handing them $700 billion.
  • Not prosecuting one Wall Street criminal after the largest Ponzi control fraud in the history of the world.
  • Cameras and listening devices on public transit and other public locations.
  • Military exercises conducted in U.S. cities in order to condition the masses.
  • Attempts to control and censor the internet through the introduction of the SOPA bill.
  • The use of tragic mass murders by mentally defective young men on psychotropic drugs to disregard the 2nd Amendment and disarm American citizens.
  • TSA thugs molesting little old ladies and young children to desensitize citizens to gestapo like tactics and treat them like criminals.
  • Government partnering with Facebook, Apple and other corporate entities to monitor, censor, and report the activities of citizens to the authorities.
  • The use of public schools to teach children what to think rather than how to think. Thought control is vital to an agenda of keeping the masses fearful and pliable.
  • Government agencies (FBI, ATF) creating terrorist plots, luring young dupes into the plots, providing fake explosives, and then announcing with great fanfare they have foiled a terrorist plot.
  • “See something, Say something” government media campaign designed to make citizens paranoid and fearful.

Just as Milgram pondered how the German people could follow the orders of those in authority to slaughter millions, one must ponder how the American people have allowed those in power to strip us of our Constitutional freedoms and liberties in the name of safety and security. They have conditioned the masses to passively accept their fate by utilizing fear, authoritarian measures, thought control, and propaganda. Human beings never change. They have been driven by emotions throughout history – fear, greed, love and hate. There will always be psychopathic men who seek wealth, power, glory and control. It happened during the decline of the Roman Empire and it is happening today during the decline of the American Empire.

“A shocking crime was committed on the unscrupulous initiative of few individuals, with the blessing of more, and amid the passive acquiescence of all.”Tacitus[…]

[…] “Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know what no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”George Orwell – 1984[…]

READ @ http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/01/mother-should-i-trust-the-government.html

—————————————————————–

* U.S. CONGRESS APPROVES TRANSFER OF GUIDED MISSLE WARSHIPS TO TURKEY

By Rick Rozoff, StopNATO

USS Halyburton

USS Halyburton

USS Thach

The US House of Representatives has approved a bill seeking permission to give guided missile frigates to Turkey, Thailand and Mexico.

The bill was submitted to and passed by the House of Representatives on Monday. It authorizes President Barack Obama to grant the US military permission to provide guided missile frigates to these three countries.

Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, introduced the bill to the House on Dec. 11, 2012.

The motion requires Senate approval before it will come into effect. If Obama acts on the motion, Turkey will be given two guided missile frigates, the USS Halyburton (FFG-40) and the USS Thach (FFG-43). […]

READ @ http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/u-s-congress-approves-transfer-of-guided-missile-warships-to-turkey/

—————————————————————–

* FRAUD, MONEY LAUNDERING AND NARCOTICS. IMPUNITY OF THE BANKING GIANTS. NO PROSECUTION OF HSBC

By Tom Burghardt , Global Research

In another shameful decision by the US Department of Justice, earlier this month federal prosecutors reached a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with UK banking giant HSBC, Europe’s largest bank.

hsbc-money-laundering

Shameful perhaps, but entirely predictable. After all, in an era characterized by economic collapse owing to gross criminality by leading financial actors, policy decisions and the legal environment framing those decisions have been shaped by oligarchs who quite literally have “captured” the state.

Founded in 1865 by flush-with-cash opium merchants after the British Crown seized Hong Kong from China in the aftermath of the First Opium War, HSBC has been a permanent fixture on the radar of US law enforcement and regulatory agencies for more than a decade.

Not that anything so trifling as terrorist financing or global narco-trafficking mattered much to the Obama administration.

As I previously reported, (hereherehere and here), when the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations issued their mammoth 335-page report, “U.S. Vulnerabilities to Money Laundering, Drugs, and Terrorist Financing: HSBC Case History,” we learned that amongst the “services” offered by HSBC subsidiaries and correspondent banks were sweet deals, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, with financial entities with ties to international terrorism and the grisly drug trade. […]

READ @ http://www.globalresearch.ca/fraud-money-laundering-and-narcotics-impunity-of-the-banking-giants-no-prosecution-of-hsbc/5317406

—————————————————————–

* 8 HUGE CORPORATE HANDOUTS IN THE FISCAL CLIFF BILL

By Matt Stoller, Alternet

Here are the corporate subsidies in the fiscal cliff bill that you may not know about.

screen_shot_2013-01-01_at_9.39.53_pm

Throughout the months of November and December, a steady stream of corporate CEOs flowed in and out of the White House to discuss the impending fiscal cliff. Many of them, such as Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, would then publicly come out and talk about how modest increases of tax rates on the wealthy were reasonable in order to deal with the deficit problem. What wasn’t mentioned is what these leaders wanted, which is what’s known as “tax extenders”, or roughly $205B of tax breaks for corporations. With such a banal name, and boring and difficult to read line items in the bill, few political operatives have bothered to pay attention to this part of the bill. But it is critical to understanding what is going on.

The negotiations over the fiscal cliff involve more than the Democrats, Republicans, the middle class and the wealthy. The corporate sector is here in force as well. One of the core shifts in the Reagan era was the convergence of wealthy individuals who wanted to pay less in taxes – many from the growing South – with corporations that wanted tax breaks. Previously, these groups fought over the pie, because the idea of endless deficits did not make sense. Once Reagan figured out how to finance yawning deficits, the GOP was able to wield the corporate sector and the new sun state wealthy into one force, epitomized today by Grover Norquist. What Obama is (sort of) trying to do is split this coalition, and the extenders are the carrot he’s dangling in front of the corporate sector to do it. […]

READ @ http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/8-huge-corporate-handouts-fiscal-cliff-bill

—————————————————————–

* GREEK DEBT CRISIS ‘FAR FROM OVER’

By Helena Smith, GuardianUK

Greece's finance minister, Yannis Stournaras, has said Greece still faces the possibility of bankruptcy. Photograph: Yorgos Karahalis/Reuters

Greece’s finance minister, Yannis Stournaras, has said Greece still faces the possibility of bankruptcy. Photograph: Yorgos Karahalis/Reuters

Greece’s finance minister, Yannis Stournaras, has said Greece still faces the possibility of bankruptcy. Photograph: Yorgos Karahalis/Reuters

In the three years that Greece has been engulfed by the drama of its debt, crises have come and gone. But the next 12 months are likely to be more critical yet with politicians and pundits predicting that 2013 will ultimately define whether Athens remains in the eurozone. For once, Greeks are in accord with the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, who, adding to the prevailing pessimism, emphasised in her new year address that the worst crisis to ravage Europe since the second world war “is far from over”.

Few doubt that the continent’s most powerful leader had Greece – the country she recently confessed to thinking more about than ever before and not “without a certain inner involvement” – in mind. The uncertainty that has enveloped the nation since the debt drama erupted beneath the Acropolis has not been alleviated by the passage of time.

After five straight years of recession, the eurozone’s weakest link moves into 2013 with an economy set to further contract, unemployment at a record 26%, one in three living on or below the poverty line, and the worst of austerity yet to come. In the runup to Christmas, even the Greek finance minister, Yannis Stournaras, felt fit to admit that despite being the recipient of €240bn in EU and IMF rescue funds – the biggest bailout in global history – Greece could still default on its massive pile of debt, a move that would result automatically in exit from the 17-nation bloc.

“We still face a possible risk of bankruptcy,” he told the FT, adding that Athens’s fate would undoubtedly be determined by the ability of the prime minister, Antonis Samaras’s fragile coalition to survive the unrest that will inevitably erupt with enforcement of cuts worth €9.2bn in the new year alone. […]

READ @ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/02/greek-crisis-far-from-over

Mar 222012
 

 

* FINALLY COMPETITIVE! PART-TIME JOBS IN GREECE FOR JUST 255 EURO GROSS

Source: KeepTalkingGreece

You happen to be in Greece and fortune bless you with a part time job? If you’re under 25 years old… you’d better stay home. All you can earn working 4 hours per day, 20 hours per week, 80 hours per month will give you just 255 euro gross. Net salary it is estimated a little lower than 200 euro. As much as your daddy can give you or your granny before her pension was cut. If you are over 25, you can get the amazing amount of 299 euro per month – gross. This applies to young professionals without previous work experience. And they are many. According to official statistics one out of two young Greeks under 25 are jobless. Unemployment in Greece is estimated at 20+%. The data for 2011 have not been released yet.

In a much better situation are employees with work experience of more than 9 years. A part-time job will give them 380 euro gross per month if they are over 25. If they are under 25 and have 3+ years working experience, they’ll go home with less than 280 euro.

These wages are formed after the decreases of 22% and 32% in the private sector.

The lawmakers (earning more than 5,000 euro per month) have decided so after the Troika’s pressure to increase ‘competitiveness’ in Greece. The wages cuts are valid retrospective from February 14. Employers can cut their employees’ wages even without their consent. […]

READ @ http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2012/03/21/finally-competitive-part-time-jobs-in-greece-for-just-255-eur-gross/

—————————————————————–

* GREEK REGIME’S OFFICIALS ENJOY BIG SALARY INCREASES

Source: StopCartel

At this moment, when the Greek people have been victimized and are experiencing unprecedented conditions of poverty – while salaries of the ordinary citizens are being slashed left, right and centre -ministerial advisors and consultants can expect a pay rises of up to 26 percent, under measures announced on Wednesday!

Under the new pay scale, a minister’s head advisor with a higher degree will see his or her monthly salary increase from 1,691 to 2,271 euros. Overall, the increases will cost the exchequer 2.1m a year.

The above development constitutes a further challenge for the unemployed people,the pensioners, the homeless citizens and the employees in the public and private sector and it is more than certain that this news will trigger further social reaction and turmoil against the leading caste of the country in the coming period. […]

READ @ http://www.stopcartel.net/2012/03/15/POLITICS/Greek_regime’s_officials_enjoy_big_salaries_increases../1139.html

—————————————————————–

* AMERICA’S DECLINE SINCE THE WTO

By James Moreland, Economy In Crisis

On January 1, 1995, the U.S. government joined the World Trade Organization. Unfortunately for our nation’s workforce, the WTO is run by multinationalists. It is a self-serving and undemocratic organization that operates outside of our control. Our constitution states that all treaties made under the authority of the United States become supreme law of the land. When our government signed this treaty, it effectively sold away a piece of our sovereignty. Because we have made this mistake, the bylaws of the WTO now supersede and negate those of our very Constitution.

Our laws, regulations and administrative procedures must now conform to the WTO treaty – making it the highest law and the highest court ruling over the United States, with no input from the American people. This most often ends up in an unjustifiably negative result for our country.

One of the biggest damaging contributors to come about as a direct result of the WTO was the entrance of China in 2001. According to the Economic Policy Institute, trade with China since then has resulted in the loss of over 3.1 million American jobs. Those fortunate enough to retain their jobs witnessed their annual earnings decrease by roughly $1,400. American workers are put in direct competition with one another as more and more employers look to offshore production to nations with lower wage rates.

Jobs losses have affected both white and blue-collar sectors of the economy. Over that time we have lost:

  • Over 600,000 (627,700) jobs in computer and electronic products,
  • Roughly 150,000 (150,200) in apparel and accessories,
  • More than 130,000 (136,900) in miscellaneous manufactured goods,
  • Over 150,000 (153,300) in administrative support services,
  • And nearly 140,000 (139,000) in professional, scientific and technical services. […]

READ @ http://economyincrisis.org/content/wtos-disastrous-effects

—————————————————————–

* THE U.S. AND LATIN AMERICA DRIFT APART OVER CUBA

By Nil Nikandrov, Strategic Cultural Foundation

The slogan of the VI Summit of the Americas which will convene in Cartagena de Indias (Columbia) on April 14-15 – «Connecting the Americas: Partners for Prosperity» – is intended to sound optimistic. At the forum, leaders of 34 countries of the Western Hemisphere plan to discuss an integration and regional cooperation agenda which, as they hope, will help them achieve their loudly stated goals of overcoming poverty and social inequality, maintaining security, and ensuring wide access to advanced technologies.

As before, Washington made sure that no invitation on the occasion was sent to Havana. US President Obama, Vice President J. Biden, and Secretary of State H. Clinton rolled out a standard grievances list – the suppression of free speech and public protests, the communist party’s dictate, and the imprisonment of dissenters in Cuba – to justify shutting the country out of the summit, while a number of US congressmen threatened to boycott it in case Raul Castro shows up. Thus the US diplomacy made a thinly disguised attempt to intimidate the ALBA leaders who felt very strong about their Cuban peer joining them at the forum.

Last February, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez expressed resolute opposition to the policy of isolating Havana and, citing the SELAC summit which condemned the inhumane US blockade of Cuba, warned that the US position prompted outrage across Latin America. In fact, the US pressure led ALBA countries to consider shunning the forum in response. For example, Bolivian president Evo Morales said the US conduct was undemocratic, discriminatory, and even racist as Cuba drives progressive change in the region and just one country – the US – should not be allowed to impose its approaches on the whole Latin America. […]

READ @ http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2012/03/22/the-us-and-latin-america-drift-apart-over-cuba.html

—————————————————————–

* THE DALLAS FED IS CALLING FOR THE IMMEDIATE BREAKUP OF LARGE BANKS

By Joe Weisenthal, Business Insider

[…] Here’s the full letter from Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher, generally known as one of the most hawkish and conservative Fed Presidents.

Letter from the President:

If you are running one of the “too-big- to-fail” (TBTF) banks—alternatively known as “systemically important financial institutions,” or SIFIs—I doubt you are going to like what you read in this annual report essay written by Harvey Rosenblum, the head of the Dallas Fed’s Research Department, a highly regarded Federal Reserve veteran of 40 years and the former president of the National Association for Business Economics.

Memory fades with the passage of time. Yet it is important to recall that it was in recog- nition of the precarious position in which the TBTF banks and SIFIs placed our economy in 2008 that the U.S. Congress passed into law the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd–Frank). While the act established a number of new macroprudential features to help promote financial stability, its overarching purpose, as stated unambiguously in its preamble, is ending TBTF.

However, Dodd–Frank does not eradi- cate TBTF. Indeed, it is our view at the Dallas Fed that it may actually perpetuate an already dangerous trend of increasing banking industry concentration. More than half of banking industry assets are on the books of just five institutions. The top 10 banks now account for 61 percent of commercial banking assets, substantially more than the 26 percent of only 20 years ago; their combined assets equate to half of our nation’s GDP. Further, as Rosenblum argues in his essay, there are signs that Dodd– Frank’s complexity and opaqueness may evenbe working against the economic recovery. In addition to remaining a lingering threat to financial stability, these megabanks signifi- cantly hamper the Federal Reserve’s ability to properly conduct monetary policy. […]

READ @ http://www.businessinsider.com/dallas-fed-calls-for-breakup-of-big-banks-2012-3#ixzz1plgWWQ7l

—————————————————————–

* ANOTHER HIDDEN BAILOUT: HELPING WALL STREET COLLECT YOUR RENT

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

Here’s yet another form of hidden bailout the federal government doles out to our big banks, without the public having much of a clue.

This is from the WSJ this morning:

Some of the biggest names on Wall Street are lining up to become landlords to cash-strapped Americans by bidding on pools of foreclosed properties being sold by Fannie Mae…

While the current approach of selling homes one-by-one has its own high costs and is sometimes inefficient, selling properties in bulk to large investors could require Fannie Mae to sell at a big discount, leading to larger initial costs.

In con artistry parlance, they call this the “reload.” That’s when you hit the same mark twice – typically with a second scam designed to “fix” the damage caused by the first scam. Someone robs your house, then comes by the next day and sells you a fancy alarm system, that’s the reload. […]

READ @ http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/another-hidden-bailout-helping-wall-street-collect-your-rent-20120319

—————————————————————–

* FAULT LINES – HISTORY OF AN OCCUPATION

Source: Aljazeera

VIDEO @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4VLYGfGDZg&feature=player_embedded

—————————————————————–

* MAYOR’S OFFICE BUYS 8513 MORE FACE SHIELDS FOR NATO SUMMIT

By Fran Spielman, Chicago Sun-Times

Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s administration is buying 8,513 more face shields for Chicago Police officers at a cost of $757,657 — and demanding delivery in time for the May 20-21 NATO summit — to give every officer on the street a shield that fits over a gas mask and prevents them from being blinded by liquids thrown by protesters.

The supplemental purchase from Colorado-based Super Seer Corp. brings to $954,118 the amount of money spent to purchase 11,570 face shields twice as thick as the old ones with a larger surface and air-tight seal to keep liquids out.

The new contract was piggybacked onto an existing Fairfax County, Va. award with a third-distributor to expedite delivery. It makes it clear the Chicago Police Department is not scaling back its protest preparations even though President Barack Obama has shifted the G-8 summit from Chicago to Camp David.

“It’s an urgent thing. They want ’em by May 15th. Their intent is to outfit all of the officers Chicago Police have with the new face shield for the NATO summit,” said Super Seer President Steve Smith, who is hiring a dozen employees to “ramp up” production. […]

READ @ http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/11443023-418/mayors-office-buys-8513-more-face-shields-nato-summit.html

—————————————————————–

* ARGUMENT RECAP: NEW POWER FOR SECRET SERVICE

By Lyle Denniston, SCOTUSblog

With almost all of the Supreme Court Justices fretting openly about not fettering the Secret Service as it protects the President and Vice President, the government’s key protective agency appeared Wednesday on its way toward a new shield against being sued when it arrests someone it deems to be a threat.   The only question that seemed to be open in the one-hour argument was whether such a curb on lawsuits would be extended widely to police everywhere, when they are trying to keep control of a situation where people — in a crowd or alone — are saying controversial things that may seem threatening.

The technical issue before the Court was whether the Justices will allow a citizen to file a lawsuit claiming that a Secret Service agent arrested that individual in retaliation for speaking out against government policy, if they had some other reason to make the arrest anyway.  But the hearing quickly centered on the protective work that the Secret Service does for the government’s top officials, and the Justices began expressing concern about forcing those officers to think about whether they might face a damages lawsuit depending upon how they carry out that task.

Although the Court would be told, later in the argument, that this concern was misplaced, because there have not been very many claims in court of “retaliatory arrests” for exercising First Amendment rights, that did not seem to divert the Court from worrying over getting in the way of the White House security detail.  Justice Stephen G. Breyer repeatedly expressed anguish over the risks that confront high officials (himself the recent target of a house invasion by a robber), and told the Secret Service agents early in the argument that “you make a strong case” for legal immunity for agents when they make arrests of protesting individuals. […]

READ @ http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/03/argument-recap-new-power-for-secret-service/#more-141217

—————————————————————–

* DISCUSSING THE MOTIVES OF THE AFGHAN SHOOTER

By Glenn Greenwald, Salon

[…] There is, quite obviously, a desperate need to believe that when an American engages in acts of violence of this type (meaning: as a deviation from formal American policy), there must be some underlying mental or emotional cause that makes it sensible, something other than an act of pure hatred or Evil. When a Muslim engages in acts of violence against Americans, there is an equally desperate need to believe the opposite: that this is yet another manifestation of inscrutable hatred and Evil, and any discussion of any other causes must be prohibited and ignored. […]

READ @ http://www.salon.com/2012/03/19/discussing_the_motives_of_the_afghan_shooter/singleton/