In the 4th century B.C., Herodotus, a Greek philosopher, observed that Egypt was a gift of the Nile River. Egypt is the most prosperous country in the Nile Basin and its existence is almost dependent on the annual floods of the Nile. Egypt’s dependency on the tributary spans centuries, and this has created a situation where Egyptians believe that the Nile belongs them alone. This is despite the fact that the river originates in other countries. The Blue Nile, for example, begins in Ethiopia and contributes more than eighty per cent to the waters that reach Egypt. The rest of the water comes from diverse sources in East and Central Africa. Egypt does not contribute a single drop of water to the Nile, but uses more water than the other states in the basin.
In the Nile Basin, simmering tensions exists between the ten riparian states over the use of the water from the river. Battle lines are drawn between two groups: the lower Nile states namely, the Sudan and Egypt and the upper Nile states, namely, the Democratic Republic of Congo (the DRC), Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda and Burundi as well as the recently founded state of South Sudan. The latter disputes agreements, especially the treaty for the utilisation of the Nile signed in 1959 by Egypt and the Sudan, which divide the entire flow of the Nile between the two countries.
Of these countries, Egypt is heavily dependent on the waters of the Nile. Egypt, as a result, regards the free flow of the river as matter of national security. As a result, there has been a strong belief in Egypt that it should either put Ethiopia under control or neutralise whatever unfriendly regime that might arise in that country, for example. The late Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat, is quoted to have said: “Any action that would endanger the waters of the Blue Nile will be faced with a firm reaction on the part of Egypt, even if that action should lead to war.”
The utilisation of the waters of the Nile for development purposes has become a bone of contention among the states that share its basin. As indicated above, the source of dispute arises from two colonial era agreements that allowed Egypt and Sudan extensive rights over the use of the river. The 1929 Nile Water Agreement and the 1959 Agreement for the Full Utilisation of the Nile entitled the upper Nile countries an unfair advantage over other riparian states on the share of the water resources of the Nile.
These agreements were signed before many of the affected states, with the exception of Ethiopia, gained independence from their European colonisers. These legal instruments are discussed in detail later on.
The Nile status quo is such that the other riparian states are condemned to be onlookers, while Egypt and the Sudan have almost the entire water flow of the Nile to themselves. Additionally, and to make matters worse, they keep on introducing new mega-irrigation projects and do not permit other states to do the same.
The upper stream countries desperately need water to undertake development projects and to feed their fast growing populations. Out of eleven countries, six are among the ten poorest in the world. Seifeselassie Lemma suggests that their “state of poverty, coupled with the alarming population explosion and environmental degradation, necessitate the development of the Nile Water resources by all riparian States.”
These poor states are not pleased with the treatment from Egypt and the Sudan. In recent years, Ethiopia, Uganda, Tanzania and Uganda have intensified their efforts towards cooperation on the Nile, but Egypt appears less interested.
Morrison refers to this credible challenge to Egypt’s 5,000-year reign over the Nile for the first time in history, as an “African Revolt”.
It is extraordinary and cynical that both the Sudan and, especially, Egypt have the hegemony over other riparian states on the share of the water resources of the Nile. The current realities in the basin necessitate a new agreement, involving all riparian states, on the sharing of the Nile waters. As it will be seen later on, many of the world’s biggest tributaries are shared by many states, with or without agreements. Egypt’s stubbornness in dealing with the Nile question slows development potential of other riparian states and has potential to cause war and conflict in the region. The developmental needs of other states also depend on water resources. At present, the countries of the Nile’s upper basin depend mainly on rainwater for agricultural cultivation. It therefore makes sense that the lower riparian would also want to use the water within their sovereign borders developmental purposes, such as irrigation and hydroelectric power projects.
“I think a lot of people see [in the US] a greedy bully, …someone who is prepared to run roughshod over other people’s interests” – Vuyo Mvoko
70% of China’s $3 trillion reserves are in US dollarsThe global political system is said to be unipolar, and the US at its peak. On the other hand, China is mooted to become a global giant in many years to come.
The relationship between these two giants fascinates every international relations scholar and economists alike because of all sorts of antics involved. It looks like the Chinese are ready to turn up the heat on Washington at each an every given opportunity. Obviously, the Americans do not appreciate pesky mosquitoes fooling about in what it considers as its God given right to rule, or, should I say, to bully the world. As modest as Beijing may seem to many, they are stubborn fighters who won’t let Americans to enjoy their apparently unchallenged unipolar status.
The relationship between China and the United States is particularly complex, especially when discussing the economic relationship between the two countries, and even more confusing for many when it comes to the political relations. Three events encouraged me to share my thoughts on the two important countries in the world. First, China’s ally North Korea keeps threatening the US and its allies, and the US has not responded with fire it is known for. Why hasn’t the US crushed the small and poor North Korea? Second, the US accuses China of espionage, which prompts many analysts to argue that “the cyber cold war” was on the horizon. Three, currency wars between the two powers and the China’s quest to end the US dollar hegemony in the global economy have reached new heights in recent years. Since the financial crisis of 2008, China has signed 14 agreements, and still counting, with other sovereign nations for bilateral currency swaps.[1] The Chinese shenanigans worry the United States because Beijing challenges its dominance in the world.
China seems prepared to replace the Soviet Union (read the Russian Federation) as the ‘evil empire’. But, the only difference this time is that there is a love-hate relationship between the world’s two biggest economies.
Sino-American commercial and trade relations
China emerged from being a closed economy to become the biggest and ruthless capitalists in the world, while maintaining that they are communists. China is an offshoot of the prevailing Western neo-liberal economic orthodoxy. Chinese academic Han Deqiang sees the neoliberal path the Chinese economy has taken in the country’s accession to “the WTO, attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), and belief in the market economy.”[2] Under the guise of communism, the dragon is a mean capitalist machine that plays an important role in the current neoliberalist world.
China’s increasing global economic importance cannot be overemphasised. For example, China in 2012 overtook the United States to become the world’s biggest market for grocery shopping. Not only that, it has become largest market of international consumer brands like BMW, Apple, Android devices, Louis Vuitton, Chanel and Gucci.
Nine U.S. metropolitan cities including New York, Detroit, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Portland, St. Louis, Los Angeles, Seattle and Houston reportedly sold most of their goods to China in 2011. Now, China is the largest consumer of American products after Canada and Mexico.[3] US exports to China topped $100 billion for the first time.
But the trade balance still favors the Chinese.
Tsinghua University’s Patrick Chovanec explains, “China’s growth model for the past 30 years relies, in large part, on running a trade surplus (selling more than it buys from abroad) in order to maximize capital accumulation and therefore investment at home.”[4] Chovanec adds,
It [China] encourages inflows of foreign investment into China in order to speed up that process even further, while restricting Chinese money from flowing abroad, in all but a few controlled circumstances. The result is that foreign currency flows into China and piles up, with no outlet to flow back out again. Normally, all those excess dollars that were piling up in China would fall in value relative to the RMB [Renmimbi], until the imbalances corrected themselves. However, in order to keep those imbalances in place, the Chinese government intervenes to buy up all those excess dollars (and euros, and yen) itself, to keep its currency from appreciating, and accumulates them as official reserves. It has to invest those reserves somewhere until it decides to use them to buy U.S. goods or make more direct investments with them abroad.[5]
In 2011, China at $1.9 trillion surpassed the European Union to become the world’s largest exporter. As to be expected it ships 17% of its goods to America. China’s economy depends on exports to the US. Alex Moore argues, “…without the U.S. consumer market, which relies heavily on debt, the Chinese export market would collapse, which would ruin China.”[6]
What most trade statistics omit to mention is that many American companies produce their merchandise in China, and show no signs of slowing down. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) mentions that U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in China was a whopping $60.5 billion in 2010.[7] This has had a backlash on consecutive US governments, as they are accused of exporting employment to China.
Balanced against these staggering US investments is the Chinese appetite for US debt. In September 2012, the US national debt stood at $16 trillion.[8] Over two-thirds of this sum is owed to the U.S. government, American investors and future retirees, through the Social Security Trust Fund and pension plans for civil service workers and military personnel. The remainder includes treasuries and other instruments that are owned by foreign governments. An American government site states that foreign governments including Japan, the UK, Brazil and PRC, and less than a third of all US debt (or $4.5 trillion) is held by the public.
Although China is the largest foreign owner of US treasuries, most of the national debt is locally held. This is contradicts popular belief that the US “burgeoning debt is being funded by China, thus placing us in a dangerous position when it comes to our foreign policy relations with that nation.”[9] The truth is China owns about $1.2 trillion (about 8 percent) in bills, notes and bonds.[10] However, this figure is high enough to cause jitters all over the US.
Sections of the American society are quite concerned by the country’s debt obligations. These concerns result in what Burton Abrams, an economics professor at University of Delaware, terms “a lot of China-bashing.”[11] US lawmakers and think tanks alike do not hesitate to take a dig on China. Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida labeled China as “a ‘schoolyard bully’ towards its maritime neighbors that aspired to be the dominant power in Asia, controlling vital sea-lanes that could be used to choke off commerce and oil shipments. Also, a conservative politician Michele Bachmann observed in 2011 that “with all the money that we [the US] owe China… Hu’s your daddy.”[12]Michele Bachmann: “with all the money that we [the US] owe China… Hu’s your daddy.”
The US detestation for China may be plausible but it is very much understandable. Since the financial crisis of 2008, Beijing concluded agreements with a number of nations for bilateral currency swaps: to drop the US dollar in trade with that country. These include Pakistan, Argentina, South Korea, Indonesia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Belarus, Hong Kong, Japan, Uzbekistan, Thailand, Turkey, Singapore, and Kazakhstan.[13] What is a Currency Swap? It is “a transaction between two nations to exchange the interest and principal payments on loans issued by two different nations. The two countries gain access to foreign exchange reserves. This limits the nations exposure to exchange rate fluctuations because they can pay back the liability associated with its currency instead of in Dollars.”[14]
The long-term intentions are basically to undermine the US dollar. It can only be a matter of time before China dumps its US debt securities on the market, which would result in a catastrophic drop in the value of the United States relative to other currencies.
11 International Agreements that are nails in the coffin of the US dollar
The power of the U.S. dollar has been one of the few things holding up the US economy. Once that leg gets kicked out from under them, Americans are going to be in a whole lot of trouble.
The following are 11 international agreements that are nails in the coffin of the Greenbacks…
#1 China And Russia
#2 China And Brazil
#3 China And Australia
#4 China And Japan
#5 India And Japan
#6 “Junk For Oil”: How India And China Are Buying Oil From Iran
#7 Iran And Russia
#8 China And Chile
#9 China And The United Arab Emirates
#10 China And Africa
#11 Brazil, Russia, India, China And South Africa
Approximately, 70% of China’s $3 trillion reserves are in US dollars,[15] and the Americans have all the reasons to be worried in the current economic climate.
Sino-American political and diplomatic relations
Despite the interconnectedness between China and the US, the rivalry of the two countries signifies new changes in global politics. The United States accuses China for probably anything under the sky, from unfair trade practices to currency manipulations. The US also charges China for subsidization of industry, dumping, intellectual property theft, discrimination against imports, forced technology transfer, indigenous innovation policies, and raw material export restrictions.[16]
Forbes Magazine’s Dan Ikenson intimates, “Although the massive economic relationship – which reached a record half trillion dollars of trade and investment flows in 2012 – is still mutually beneficial, the future of US – China relations based on developments over the most recent six years appears more problematic.”[17]
The bullish United States in 2012 went ahead to complete a trade agreement or the Trans-Pacific Partnership with 10 Asia-Pacific nations, with the exception of China. Washington wishes to further strain relations between China and its neighbors. At present, China is at loggerheads with its neighbors like Japan and the Philippines over islands in the South and East China Seas. The US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue was established in 2009, according US Treasury website, “to discuss a broad range of issues between the two nations.”[18] It is clear that the US wants to rescind on its policy of engagement with China and shits towards a policy of containment.
All signs are there to show that the US would like to frustrate Beijing’s intentions of becoming a dominant force in the region. Using the old adage of ‘attack is the best defense’ – through its “Pivot to Asia” or “re-balancing” strategy,[19] the US challenges China in its backyard before it causes more damage to American interests in the region and further afield.
The Sino-American competition extends to battling for control in Africa and also to the multilateral sphere. For example, the US sponsored the cessation of South Sudan from Khartoum, in order interrupt China’s increasing influence in Africa. This strategy successfully disrupted supplies of Sudan oil to China. China had put Sudan at its centre of this African strategy and thus investment billions of US dollars in developing that country’s oil industry. Oil wells are found in the south and production happens in the Khartoum in the north. The split resulted in a complex situation for not only the Chinese, but also for the two Sudans. The two foes also struggle to find a solution to this dilemma, which complicates peaceful co-existence and good neighbourhood. It is only fair to suggest that border tensions between the two countries will be with us for a long time to come. The situation can easily deteriorate to levels and resembling the Cold War.
China uses its newly acquired fame to frustrate the US in other regions as well. The conflict in Syria rages as the two nuclear giants cannot agree on the way forward. Other opponents to Washington’s ‘up yours’ foreign policy like Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba and Iran enjoy very comfortable relations with Beijing. It is North Korea that does China’s dirty job of making sure that the US is not too comfortable in the Far East.
North Korea, the Chinese proxy
China pursues slick but well calculated political moves in defending its territory and more particularly the US involvement in the region. Abba Mahmood notes, “Beijing has substantially increased its food aid to Pyongyang, imported more from North Korea and increased its investments in North Korea. China has also withdrawn its support for the six-party talks on North Korea’s nuclear programme, forcing Washington to pursue bilateral negotiations with Pyongyang.”[20] China also debunked myths that the US can be used as a ‘deterrent’ by allies. For example, in its dispute with the US-backed Philippines over Huangyan Island, China simply strengthened the presence of the China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) throughout the disputed waters and islands, regardless of the fact that Manila had the US support.
Mahmood infers, “What all these suggest is that the Obama administration’s pivot strategy in the Asia-Pacific region… has made the region tenser and more conflict-prone.”[21] In, the confrontational approach of North Korea towards the US and its allies Japan and the South has prompted the Pentagon to consider installing an advanced missile defense system to the western Pacific. China’s response to Pyongyang’s been rather lame, to say the least. Deng Yuwen, an editor at a prominent Communist Party newspaper, wrote an op-ed article titled “China should abandon North Korea” in February 2013, which made many to believe that Beijing was reviewing ties with its neighbor following the nuclear test. That wasn’t the case. Yuwen was slapped with a one-month suspension for the article. China is not going to abandon North Korea anytime soon, meaning that it is going to remain its potent weapon for unsettling the US in the east.
The level of distrust between China and US is the battle of neoliberalists who seek to increase their control over the world. They use every trick available in the book to frustrate each other. The US accuses China of cyber espionage, a charge which China denies. Washington goes as far as discouraging American companies from buying Huawei products, especially routers, over espionage fears. On 24 April 2013, Huawei announced that is “not interested” in the U.S. market any longer.
China struggles with its internal social evolution and hostilities. One such example is the region of Xianjiang. Ethnic tensions in the northwestern Xianjiang region, for example, present a chance for ill-mannered US intelligence to destabilize the dragon. Muslim extremists and militant separatists (ethnic Uighurs) in the area are accused of inciting violence especially against the dominant, settler ethnic Han Chinese.
Many scholars and analysts postulate that the rise of China as an economic and military power (and possibly India) will cause the US decline by 2025. Is China worth of becoming the world’s next leaders? I doubt it. But the China – United States competition will define the future of neoliberal economics in the world.
Apartheid struggle icon Nelson Mandela with the late Helen Suzman, formerly of the Progressive Party The Boederbond has long-term intentions of taking full control of South Africa.
It is interesting that South Africa’s largest opposition wants to re-write the history of this country. Last week, the Democratic Alliance (DA) launched what it calls #KnowYourDA campaign, in its attempt to appeal to the minds of the African majority.
I am of the opinion that the campaign borders on “apartheid denialism,” which government does not legislate, as “holocaust denialism” in Germany and other countries. Campaigns of this nature should at least pass through vigorous tests to see if they do not dispute the existence of apartheid. Since no one was punished for crimes against humanity individuals tend to praise the draconian laws and its outcomes, without sensitivity to the victims of apartheid.
Apartheid was not an event but a systematic process of annihilating blacks and its effects remain visible and will be for many generations to come. The silence of victims, the black majority, should be mistaken for ‘acceptance’ or that they have ‘dealt with their pain’. Insensitivities when it comes to the subject cannot heal the pain. Arguing that ‘born frees’ do not understand apartheid is a bit bullish considering that millions in this country remain and shall remain poor for a long time to come.
Changing the historical account of events for purposes of cheap politicking and propaganda can easily re-open the wounds, in a society which is characterized by high inequalities between racial groups. Therefore, there is a need of separating day-to-day politics from some issues that define us as a society.
The DA understands that without the support of the black majority there is no way it will ever rule South Africa.
Over the years, it has tried a number of approaches to woo blacks into its ranks. Sometimes it tried too hard and this led to frustration. Under Tony Leon, it crafted a reactive and provocative ‘Fight Back’ campaign with dire consequences. The ANC called it “the Fight B(l)ack campaign” and this campaign is said to have alienated black voters. Leon left the party’s leadership position with his head down and in shame to become President Zuma’s envoy in Buenos Aires.
Then came Hellen Zille, one of those white South Africans who believes she ‘understands’ blacks. Her claim to fame are her heavily-accented Xhosa and her exposé of the death of anti-apartheid activist Steve Biko in the hands of the apartheid police as well as her participation in the Black Sash movement in the 1980s. She once referred to Julius Malema as ‘inkwenkwe’.
Buoyed by these feeble credentials and by her party’s win in the Western Cape, Zille thought she would tear down the hegemony of the African National Congress (ANC) over black people, mainly the genuine victims of apartheid. This means that she adopted a head-on strategy to fight the ANC, implying that she not only opposed everything the ANC did, including employment equity policies, but she went straight into townships to recruit blacks. In addition, her parasitic politics feeds on ANC misdemeanors, which in turn translates into a juxtaposition of races in South Africa.
Her positions have generally been controversial and have increased animosity between her party and the ANC, also read black South Africans. For example, she once referred to black kids who moved from the Eastern Cape to the Western Cape as “refugees.” In the beginning of her tenure as premier she appointed an all-white male provincial cabinet. Like her predecessor, she blames the ANC for almost everything under the sun.
Not that the ruling party has not made grave mistakes but she tends to overdo anything she chooses to do, even in her party.
When the opportunity arose for the DA to choose its leader in parliament following her option to stay as the Western Cape premier, Zille backed the young Lindiwe Mazibuko to the irritation of conservatives and reformists alike. As regards to the latter DA MP Masizole Mqansela accused her of “running the party like a spaza shop.”
Zille maintains tight control of the party. Late in 2012, she was elected unopposed and therefore wields more power than her predecessors. It also appears that her voice is the only one when it comes to the political direction her party should follow, even if it is clear that would lead to an abyss.
Also in 2012 Zille and her two youthful black lieutenants Mazibuko and Maimane led the younger members of her party to take on the mighty Cosatu. The DA viewed Cosatu as a stumbling block within the ANC-led alliance in making youth wage subsidy a law in this country. Cosatu members have been through worst of confrontational situations, especially with the apartheid government. They simply gave the young DA members a hiding, and the trade union president S’dumo Dlamini rubbed salt in the open fresh wounds by thanking the members “for defending this house.” Dlamini added, “No one will ever think of coming to piss here.”
Last week Zille continued with her campaign of twisting historical facts to the disgust of the ruling party. As part of the #KnowYourDA campaign, Zille and her cronies argue that South African history for liberation does not belong to the ANC. True, the liberation struggle goes beyond the ANC to include many South Africans. However, the only disturbing part in the DA campaign is that it claims to have been part of the liberation struggle.
The DA was born out of a merger in 2000 between the Democratic Party (DP) and the New National Party (NNP). This means, the DA did not exist prior to 1994. Second, a large portion of the DA membership comprises ‘verkramptes’ (conservatives) from the last party to rule in apartheid South Africa, the NNP. These verkramptes did not like the idea of merging with the ANC. The DA therefore inherited the bad lot from the Nationalist Party.
Despite these known facts, the DA wants the nation to believe that it championed the struggle against apartheid. It uses a simple equation: Helen Suzman. Suzman was a famous member of a tiny opposition in a parliament, which excluded millions in South Africa, while Hendrik Verwoerd was in charge. She became an MP on the grounds of her race. She also had some relationship with previous ANC leaders such as Chief Albert Luthuli and Dr Nelson Mandela. It is the associations with the latter that the DA highlights most in its new campaign.
Fair enough. Suzman played her marginal part in fighting apartheid. But what becomes more interesting and juicy in the DA claims, is that it chooses to ignore the ‘verkramptes’ in its ranks. These are the people who voted, supported and heartlessly oversaw the deadly apartheid machinery. They also benefitted handsomely from it.
How come a presumably smart woman like Zille extends herself so far as lying in her desperate attempts to disinform the nation?
The answer lies in the attempts of the white race in South Africa to preserve their privilege, and to re-confirm the Verwoerdian view that blacks are sub-human. As PW Botha put it,
“We do not pretend like the other Whites that we like Blacks. The fact that Blacks look like human beings and act like human beings does not necessarily make them sensible human beings. Hedgehogs are not porcupines and lizards are not crocodiles simply because they look alike. If God wants us to be equal to the Blacks, he would have created us all in a uniform color an intellect. But he created us differently, Whites, Blacks, Yellow; rulers and the ruled. Intellectually, we are superior to the Blacks; that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt over the years.”
The desperation for the black vote, and eventually strong will to control blacks, leads Zille into ‘temptation’ of re-authoring history.
Unfortunately, this is a systematic and continuous attack on the hapless black race in South Africa. As one author points out, “A casual look and perusal on the history, media and information systems in South Africa reveal a very well orchestrated effort to blemish the image of African South Africans who are victims of Apartheid in the eyes of the world…”
What is clear is that the dominant strategy pertains to criticizing “African rule as being incompetent, corrupt and tyrannical.” And, regrettably these “have become the buzz-words of South Africa today.”
The #KnowYourDA campaign denies that apartheid ever existed and that blacks suffered under white rule by disguising as former liberation fighters. They cloud the message in order water down the impact of apartheid in the lives of blacks. This is perhaps the strongest message from the white race in South Africa that they cannot wait any longer. It seems AIDS, poverty, illiteracy and violence are taking way too long to decimate the black population. These were planted for the sole purpose of exterminating blacks like it happened with the indigenous population in Australia.
Not to be outdone by the DA, whether true or not, the extreme white party Vryheidsfront Plus also claim their merits for its contribution towards ending apartheid rule with its tag line: “Remembering our joint struggle against apartheid”
Mandela with the wife of Hendrik Verwoerd
In the light of unrepented perpetrators, the black majority should demand the re-opening of the apartheid file, and demand justice and the punishment of perpetrators, including the likes of FW de Klerk and Wouter Basson, and reparations amongst many other things.
If countries like Guatemala are able to deal with their past by punishing past dictators, what stops South Africa from doing the same to the heartless monsters who are now behind the DA?
The government needs to act on behalf of the black majority that continues to suffer.
Thanks to capitalism the people who would have been labelled bullies in school are described as captains of industry in the adult world, says Steve Parry#
It’s been a few months since I last updated you on my daughter. She has just turned two and her political development is currently expressing itself as a highly aggressive strain of nihilistic anarchism. Not so much ‘smash the state’ as ‘smash anything not hidden on top of the wardrobe’. She’s not that interested in the ‘all property is theft’ elements of the doctrine either; indeed, she has more in common with the ‘all property is MINE… and I’m going to break it’ school of thought.
She is, at this moment in time, the most selfish person I’ve ever met (and I’ve worked with celebrities), so, along with the lovely staff at her nursery, I’m in the process of undertaking a subtle social reprogramming exercise, encouraging her to share – and not to attack anyone she sees as a threat to her stuff.
Of course, I’m ramping up my daughter’s anti-social behaviour a tad for comic effect, but I have noticed that as a society we all seem to agree that children should be encouraged to share, be gentle and to co-operate with their fellow baby. But all that goes out of the window once you graduate to the ‘grown-up’ world. Then you’re confronted with the real values of capitalist society: selfishness, individualism and greed. The people who in school would have been labelled bullies, in adult-land are euphemistically described as entrepreneurs, captains of industry and venture capitalists: their ruthlessness presented as brave go-getting.
It’s not enough for these people to be filthy rich on the back of others’ sweat; they also want to be liked and admired
One of the hardest things to handle is that this sort of behaviour is respected as a kind of precious talent that, if nurtured, will resuscitate the economy. But manipulating someone out of their money when they’re vulnerable does not take genius, just a well-tuned lack of empathy.
My biggest problem, however, is the chasm between what these people actually do and how it’s presented; the sanitization of their behaviour by media and politicians, and the plaudits it brings them. It’s not enough for them to be filthy rich on the back of others’ sweat; they also want to be liked and admired. Why else all the tax-deductible benevolence for charity? ‘Sure, I’ll help the poor, that’s the kind of guy I am – but what’s in it for me?’
The playground mantra of share and share alike is given lip service and then utterly ignored. The austerity measures being meted out to Greece, for example, are presented, almost unquestioningly, as a bitter but necessary pill prescribed by dear Dr IMF to her sickly patient; when in fact it’s the economic equivalent of organ theft.
For the one per cent, childhood socialization is just a decade-long method acting class: of course you need to be able to give the impression you’re thoughtful and generous, but remember it’s just a shtick. Like a dog turd dusted with hundreds and thousands, the reality that lurks beneath the façade stinks to high heaven.
I’m sure my daughter will grow out of her selfish phase, but for IMF boss Christine Lagarde and her ilk it seems to be taking a lifetime. Maybe a few afternoons a week at my daughter’s nursery would sort them out? If not, at least she’d give them a good kick in the shins.
This week saw Venezuelans going to polls for first time after the death of its charismatic leader, Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías (also known simply as Hugo Chávez). Venezuelans had an opportunity of upholding the legacy of Chavez or ditching it.
While Chavez was still alive his expansive social programs and ‘cooperation for oil’ diplomacy did not receive total support from Venezuelan people. For example one man got into trouble a few years ago for wearing a t-shirt with derogatory words aimed at the Bolivarian revolution: ‘Hugo me cago en tu revolucion‘ (I s**t on your revolution) [follow this link for a portrait – http://aperturaven.blogspot.mx/2010/11/la-franela-del-mensaje-contra.html%5D
Opposing or differing opinions are fine and legitimate as long as they occur within the parameters of the law. Problems with opposition politics in Venezuela, and many developing nations, start when an ‘invisible hand’, in the form of external forces, interfere in local politics with a view of imposing a ‘friendly’ leader.
For a long time, Venezuelan opposition did not want to participate in elections during the early years of the Chavez presidency. It was not until 2006 that they decided to contest in elections. Chavez kept on defeating them, to the frustration of their sponsor, the United States government.
Eva Golinger claims, “Since Hugo Chavez won his first presidential elections in 1998, the US government has been trying to remove him from power. With multimillion-dollar investments, every year Washington’s agencies advise and aid anti-Chavez groups with their campaigns and strategies against the government.”
Golinger also explains, “Despite multiple attempts, including a coup d’etat in 2002 that briefly ousted President Chavez, their efforts have been in vain. The Venezuelan President’s popularity continues to rise and opposition leaders have failed to convince constituents of their plans. The latest polls show Chavez’s support above 57%, while the opposition fails to even reach 20%.” He was a favorite until death early this year.
The political direction of South America in general, or the so-called “pink tide”, ushered a new era of socialist ideals in many countries, and also marked an increased antagonism towards the United States. This stands in sharp contrast to its debilitating and destructive strategies from the 1960s to the late 1980s. During the Cold War, the United States treated Latin America as its backyard, and supported cruel dictators and military governments that suppressed dissenting voices. The US military overran small Central American countries and caused irreparable damage and destruction. The intention of this ugly policy was to prevent “another Cuba” in the Americas.
The new generation of Latin American leaders are not afraid of showing Uncle Sam the middle finger.
Leaders Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, and Chavez emerged in the 2000s to become a strong political voice, whose hostilities towards the Latin American upper class and the US are well documented. Their collective power and their strong ties with Cuba continue to unsettle the United States.
The voice of the US in the Organization of American States (OAS) continues to wane as a result of the ‘unruly’ Latin American countries. Isaac Bigio explains, “Venezuela has been able to organize in the last ten years a coalition of countries which are critical of the United States.It is a driving force in the Western hemisphere in opposition to the United States and if Maduro can win the election he will consolidate the Venezuela axis with Cuba and Nicaragua, Bolivia and also the fact that Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and other countries in the region are a little bit independent from the United States.”
Unfortunately for Washington they can no longer support militias in Latin America as they did after the Cuban Revolution in 1959. The strategy now is not necessarily different from sponsoring violent movements, as it “feeds the internal conflict [in these countries] through the consolidation of an opposition movement.”
The US wants unhindered access to Latin American strategic resources such as oil as it did in the past. Venezuela, in particular, has the largest oil reserves on the planet and remains one of the top suppliers of oil to the United States.
The gift of nature makes Venezuela a very soft, brittle target.
Many sources claim that Venezuela remains very high on the US agenda for regime change. For example, in 2012 Washington spent US$20 Million for the Venezuelan Opposition to topple that country’s democratically elected leadership, which also enjoys support by the majority of that country’s population. This money went to anti-Chavez groups mainly in Caracas, and the Russian television station RT purports that the US government once boasted that non-governmental organizations in different parts of the world, were an extension of its foreign policy. US embassies, like the one in Caracas, pull the strings and are at the centre of these corrupt and despicable tendencies.
The United States play a dangerous game of using democracy promotion as disguise for regime change.
Following this week’s elections one can surmise that Washington is displeased with Nicolas Maduro’s victory. Already, the coalition of opposition parties that challenged Maduro and lost elections for a second time in less than eight months has rejected the election results. Herique Capriles also stood against Chavez last October and lost by a huge margin. But this time the difference between candidates was marginal – just 1.6 percentage points, or about 275,000 votes.
The opposition has reasons to complain. It is unimaginable that Capriles and his comrades could spend on yet another election in less than a year and not win. This leads to an important question: Is it the same funders who sponsored the two elections? If yes, what do they stand to benefit? In addition to funding from Washington, the capitalist class in that country never lost hope in displacing Chavismo,and rolling-out major privatization of state-owned entities, especially the oil sector. Generally speaking, the rise of left-leaning governments in countries such as Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Argentina, meant that the largely white, dominant opulent class in Latin American lost privileges.
Together with Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Argentina benefit handsomely from affordable and cheap oil grants from Caracas. Thus, anti-Bolivarians also wanted the Venezuelan government to stop supplying oil to its neighbors. Against the existing weak global economic environment and susceptible macro-economic fundamentals found in these countries it means that Maduro’s loss would have put them in a serious jeopardy. In turn and important, this would have plunged the whole region into chaos. Internally, it would also imply dire consequences for the poor neighborhoods or barrios in the capital, that were principal beneficiaries of the social programs.
Irresponsible US foreign policy creates a social burden for countries that have gone involuntary political change. The outcomes of regime change in Libya, Iraq and possibly Syria have been dire for local populations. For example, Iraqis live in abject poverty and the productive sectors are complete disarray. Meanwhile, the ‘compradors’ and their foreign sponsors remove Iraqi oil without any hindrances to quench the thirst of consumers abroad. The looters don’t share the proceeds from oil with citizens, and thus plunging the entire population even deeper into appalling suffering.
The claims of external destabilization through opposition in Venezuela are not as far-fetched as many would think. Capriles was involved in the coup d’état that tried to overthrow Chavez a decade ago.
If Maduro had lost the election this week it would lead Venezuela to a change in the direction of the United States, and a change that would have affected the entire region and even the situation of the United States in the entire world.
Venezuelans have spoken, may they be left in peace and govern their country as they please.
Venezuelans must be applauded for saving the entire Latin American (and the Caribbean) region from becoming the United States of Anarchy, at least for now.
![Michele Bachmann: “with all the money that we [the US] owe China… Hu’s your daddy.”](https://shadebe.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/hu-is-your-daddy.jpg)
Jaywalking Political Discussions 