Today is a day of celebration for Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.
Tomorrow we will bear witness to the soft and wise words of our next President, a man who has already become a symbol of hope, though the dark skin of his hand has yet to brush the Bible or guide a pen across a new piece of legislation. As a stranded traveler watches a pair of distant headlights growing closer in the fog, our eyes are fixed on this man as he assumes the Office. And yet we cannot help but be shook out of this fixation long enough to feel the portend of gloom; layoffs and salary cuts, foreclosure and evictions, stock crashes and bank failures. There is hope, but with it fear. There is joy, but it can barely mask the anger.
We are angry that despite our hard work and unyielding belief in the holy fairness of our great country, things are not as they should be. We are giving more and getting less than past generations. We are finding our roads to success and self-improvement blocked by higher costs and burdensome debts. "What have we done to deserve such a mess!", we wail, and "Why when the profiteers ride the market too hard does the hoof always hit us in the mouth?". We did not revolt when corporate crooks were refashioned into government hacks, or when thousands of our sons and daughters in uniform fell in battle with an enemy with whom we had no quarrel! No, we did not march on Frankenstein's castle for these crimes! We went shopping online for iPods, we watched our fellow Americans sing and dance their way to embarrassment on prime-time television, and we voted for Democrats (eventually). We thought long and hard about buying a hybrid car. We asked God to get us that big promotion, or help us make that big sale. We whined about the decline of our culture and the decadence of our youth. We erupted in anger when young children saw a black woman's breast bared on national television in between beer commercials.
And somewhere in there, the corporate rush to profit overwhelmed rationality, and we were too distracted to make sure someone was looking over the shoulders of the number-crunchers. And now the house of cards built to reach the golden apple has collapsed, all too predictably, and we are all left holding the proverbial bag. There are great villains in this game, to be certain, but their deeds do not, and will never, absolve us of responsibility for the state of our nation or the state of our world.
We must remember this as we watch the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama. He is certainly a remarkable man, both for who he is personally and what he represents culturally. In all worthwhile estimations, he has the tools and the dedication to be a great leader, ideal for the challenges and opportunities that present themselves at this moment in our history. However -- and I intend this to provide no humor -- he is not a racing horse. We cannot afford, literally or figuratively, to simply put our faith in him and his administration. We cannot stand idly by and simply hope that he is who we think he is. Obama is a great symbol, but symbols only acquire their meaning through the actions of their bearers: army grunts planting the American flag on Iwo Jima, or waving the two-fingered 'victory' -- now 'peace' -- sign as they return from liberating Nazi concentration camps. We must be those grunts, working hard to make sure our families and communities stay strong. We must not give this moment up to historical chance, we must fight to craft our nation and our world to suit us. We will tame the wild stallion that is the free market. We will demand and if necessary, supply, equal rights and equal access for all. We will raise our children in a better world. Some day, the face of President Barack Hussein Obama may grace our mountains and our currency, but in that carving will be contained our faces as well -- the faces of those who, starting tomorrow, will fortify their belief and their hope with passion and commitment.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Military Juntas of the Twenty-First Century: Guinea
The leaders of the coup in the West African nation of Guinea plan to hold elections in 2010. A group of junior officers, led by Captain Moussa Dadis Camara, took power after the death of "President" Lansana Conte on December 22. Camara's junta has moved to consolidate power, "demoting" 22 generals, using force to intimidate powerful allies of the old regime, and threatening to execute anyone engaged in corruption. Guinea under Conte was named one of the ten most corrupt countries by Transparency International. Despite widespread support for the coup within Guinea, the new government was immediately shunned by the African Union and regional West African groups ECOWAS and the Mano River Union.
So there's a military coup in some little African country named after a flightless bird, or perhaps a unit of British currency...so what?
So... Guinea has the world's largest deposits of bauxite, the ore used to make alumina, which is then processed into aluminum. To illustrate the importance of Guinea to the international alumina market: during disturbances in 2007, the price of alumina jumped 76%. The country also has large deposits of iron ore, gold, and diamonds. Several multi-national corporations have multi-billion dollar extraction and processing projects planned, and other projects are already operating. There is a lot riding on control over these resources.
Gasps of horror as the junta announces, soon after seizing power, that it will be "cancelling all mining contracts". Interested parties include:
-Rio Tinto (British and Australian, world's 2nd or 3rd largest mining company), interested in building a $6 billion dollar iron ore project at Simandou (video). Their license to mine there, granted in 2006, was rescinded in August 2008, most likely because they were unwilling to pay additional bribes demanded by the Conte regime. Rio Tinto also owns Canadian aluminum company Alcan (the world's largest aluminum company) who has a stake in the Guinean national bauxite mining company (CBG), and is exploring its own alumina refinery. Rio Tinto has said the Simandou project, undertaken in concert with World Bank, has the potential to generate $10 billion dollars per year, and they had already spent more than $300 million to develop it. The value of this project was essential to Rio Tinto resisting a hostile takeover by BHP Billiton -- which leads us to our next interested party.
-BHP Billiton (Australian and British, world's largest mining company), co-majority stakeholder (33.3%) in the Guinea Alumina Corporation (which is 100% foreign-owned), as well as several other bauxite opertions. They had plans to build a $4.8 billion dollar alumina refinery. As noted above, they are attempted a takeover of Rio Tinto which would make their dominance of the mining industry unparalleled.
-United Company Rusal (Russian, world's second largest aluminum company), owns the Friguia Alumina Refinery, the purchase of which it was forced to renegotiate earlier this year by the Conte regime. The company is owned by Russian billionaire magnate Oleg Deripaska, who has faced some recent financial difficulties after being sued in British court by former Russian/Israeli business partner Mikhail Chernoy/Michael Cherney over shares in UC Rusal. Deripaska also had his visa revoked by the US State Department, and had ties to former Presidential candidate John McCain.
-Alcoa ( American, world's third largest aluminum company), owns a large stake in CBG (Rio Tinto Alcan and Alcoa both have a 45% stake in the Halco consortium, which in turn owns 51% of CBG - the Guinean government owns 49%). In July 2008, just before they extorted Rio Tinto over Simandou, the Conte regime replaced the existing Alcoa management of CBG.
-AngloGold Ashanti (British, South African, Ghanaian, large international gold miner), owns the Siguiri gold mine. The company was accused by Human Rights Watch of supporting a murderous group in the DR Congo in order to access a gold-rich area in that turbulent country.
-Benny Steinmetz (Israeli billionaire, invested in diamonds, real estate, and mining engineering projects through Bateman Engineering), several weeks before the coup claimed to have been granted half of Rio Tinto's Simandou area by the Conte regime.
check back for more later...
So there's a military coup in some little African country named after a flightless bird, or perhaps a unit of British currency...so what?
So... Guinea has the world's largest deposits of bauxite, the ore used to make alumina, which is then processed into aluminum. To illustrate the importance of Guinea to the international alumina market: during disturbances in 2007, the price of alumina jumped 76%. The country also has large deposits of iron ore, gold, and diamonds. Several multi-national corporations have multi-billion dollar extraction and processing projects planned, and other projects are already operating. There is a lot riding on control over these resources.
Gasps of horror as the junta announces, soon after seizing power, that it will be "cancelling all mining contracts". Interested parties include:
-Rio Tinto (British and Australian, world's 2nd or 3rd largest mining company), interested in building a $6 billion dollar iron ore project at Simandou (video). Their license to mine there, granted in 2006, was rescinded in August 2008, most likely because they were unwilling to pay additional bribes demanded by the Conte regime. Rio Tinto also owns Canadian aluminum company Alcan (the world's largest aluminum company) who has a stake in the Guinean national bauxite mining company (CBG), and is exploring its own alumina refinery. Rio Tinto has said the Simandou project, undertaken in concert with World Bank, has the potential to generate $10 billion dollars per year, and they had already spent more than $300 million to develop it. The value of this project was essential to Rio Tinto resisting a hostile takeover by BHP Billiton -- which leads us to our next interested party.
-BHP Billiton (Australian and British, world's largest mining company), co-majority stakeholder (33.3%) in the Guinea Alumina Corporation (which is 100% foreign-owned), as well as several other bauxite opertions. They had plans to build a $4.8 billion dollar alumina refinery. As noted above, they are attempted a takeover of Rio Tinto which would make their dominance of the mining industry unparalleled.
-United Company Rusal (Russian, world's second largest aluminum company), owns the Friguia Alumina Refinery, the purchase of which it was forced to renegotiate earlier this year by the Conte regime. The company is owned by Russian billionaire magnate Oleg Deripaska, who has faced some recent financial difficulties after being sued in British court by former Russian/Israeli business partner Mikhail Chernoy/Michael Cherney over shares in UC Rusal. Deripaska also had his visa revoked by the US State Department, and had ties to former Presidential candidate John McCain.
-Alcoa ( American, world's third largest aluminum company), owns a large stake in CBG (Rio Tinto Alcan and Alcoa both have a 45% stake in the Halco consortium, which in turn owns 51% of CBG - the Guinean government owns 49%). In July 2008, just before they extorted Rio Tinto over Simandou, the Conte regime replaced the existing Alcoa management of CBG.
-AngloGold Ashanti (British, South African, Ghanaian, large international gold miner), owns the Siguiri gold mine. The company was accused by Human Rights Watch of supporting a murderous group in the DR Congo in order to access a gold-rich area in that turbulent country.
-Benny Steinmetz (Israeli billionaire, invested in diamonds, real estate, and mining engineering projects through Bateman Engineering), several weeks before the coup claimed to have been granted half of Rio Tinto's Simandou area by the Conte regime.
check back for more later...
Military Juntas of the Twenty-First Century: Bangladesh
The secular Awami League, led by Sheikh Hasina, has won the recent Bangladeshi parliamentary elections in a landslide. Although the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party, led by Khaleda Zia, has challenged the election, the results seem clear and the elections were declared free and fair by international obeservers. This new parliament is set to take control of the impoverished nation from the military junta which had ruled for two years. The military junta (benignly known as the "caretaker government") began in early 2007, after the previous electoral battle between the Awami League and the BNP turned into a bloody and chaotic street war.
The results of 2008 are a big shift from the results of the last standing election in 2001. That election saw the right-wing BNP win 193 seats to Awami's 62, and the main Islamist party take 17 seats. In contrast, the 2008 elections see the Awami-led coalition take more than 260 to BNP's 31, and the Islamist party "almost wiped out". Note that there are 300 seats in the Bangladeshi parliament.
Between floods, poverty, cyclones, and military intrusions into politics, it seems unlikely that Bangladesh would be able to sustain democracy. And there certainly remains a possibility that the opposition parties will cause a ruckus and incite more violence. Hopefully the will of the people will be respected, and the "caretakers" will step aside as planned.
Hot off the presses: Uh-oh.
Bangladeshis line up to vote (courtesy of the CBC)
The results of 2008 are a big shift from the results of the last standing election in 2001. That election saw the right-wing BNP win 193 seats to Awami's 62, and the main Islamist party take 17 seats. In contrast, the 2008 elections see the Awami-led coalition take more than 260 to BNP's 31, and the Islamist party "almost wiped out". Note that there are 300 seats in the Bangladeshi parliament.
Between floods, poverty, cyclones, and military intrusions into politics, it seems unlikely that Bangladesh would be able to sustain democracy. And there certainly remains a possibility that the opposition parties will cause a ruckus and incite more violence. Hopefully the will of the people will be respected, and the "caretakers" will step aside as planned.
Hot off the presses: Uh-oh.
Bangladeshis line up to vote (courtesy of the CBC)
Monday, December 15, 2008
Ecuador Drops the D-Bomb
Ecuadorean President Rafael "The Mentalist" Correa announced Saturday that his country will be defaulting on an upcoming payment for "illegitimate" loans made by previous administrations. Ecuador was supposed to be making a $30 million dollar interest payment (and you thought your API was bad!), mostly to international banks and foreign governments. The power to default on foreign loans was given to El Presidente by the massive, Chavez-style referendum which was approved (64%) by the voters back in September. Correa made it clear that despite the global economic ice storm, Ecuador retained enough capital to make these payments -- but that it chose not to, based on a recent internal audit which found that these loans were illegitimate under Ecuadorean law.
This was a minor story carried by most MSM under the auspices of the global economic ice storm. However a story from everyone's favorite journalistic go-getter, McClatchy Newspapers, points out that this is the first time a country has defaulted on foreign debt simply out of choice. This is certainly a significant step towards a more level playing field in international debt financing. I believe Correa's action here fits under the general theme of the Great Financial Finger-Pointing of 2009. In this economic crisis, villains are easy to cast, and Correa has cast his finger, rightly so, at the Global South loan-peddlers and their financial enablers. Other countries and foreign affairs blog editors may also take this time to default on loans. It's like karaoke Thursday at the local bar -- everyone's already drunk and singing Marvin Gaye songs off-key, so what the hell, give me the microphone and shot of cheap whiskey.
Correa is already pretty popular, and this D-bomb can only add to his appeal. He will encounter problems if the price of oil keeps dropping, as this industry represents a good chunk (around 40%) of his economy. For now foreign investors will probably resort to some pushy lawsuits and threats to cut off foreign financing. These tactics are nearly moot. Correa has already contracted the massive Boston law firm of Foley & Hoag (Fox News "expert" talking point #1: Foley & Hoag also represents some detainees at Guantanamo Bay) to sue some of the original investors in the "illegitimate" loans. Threats to cut off foreign financing are basically toothless at a time when insolvency is the new black for practically every international financial institution -- the money's not coming, whether it's "cut off" or not.
Interesting soap-opera side note: The same day Correa made his announcement, his foreign minister resigned. Maria Isabel Salvador had only been in office for a year. Are these events related, or is her family just that cool?
Are you a big fan of Rafael Correa? Do you support Global South debt relief? Will you buy a T-shirt, regardless of content, just because it is new and nobody else has it? If you answered "yes" to one or more of these questions, then pass 'GO', collect $14.99 from your parents' wallet, and go directly HERE.
Addendum (12/16/08)
The collective mouth of the Western financial world opens in shock and horror. A Third World country defaulting on foreign loans -- and this time it's not because their coffers have been licked dry by a corrupt banana dictator! A puny wanna-be socialist telling Wall Street bankers he's got better things to do with his money then pay them exorbitant interest rates! What nerve! We must teach him a lesson!
The Fitch Rating Agency slaps Ecuador with an across-the-board investment downgrade. Portfolio.com declares Correa "idiotic". Seeking Alpha ties the decision to an anti-imperialist 'Bolivarian' ideology. So this default decision was short-sighted and lacked pragmatism...right?
Wrong. Rafael Correa is no short-sighted populist. He has a PhD in Economics from the University of Illinois. His new foreign minister, Fander Falconi, has a doctorate in economics from la Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona. These are not men who lack awareness of the consequences of their actions. Correa's administration has been threatening to default on this "illegitimate" debt for over a year, and specifically included the power to do so in their September referendum. Everyone agrees the country retained, and retains, the ability to make these payments, as they have been doing for decades under both leftists and military juntas.
The debt default is part of a well-planned and forward-thinking economic policy. One goal of this policy seems to be the end of dollarization in Ecuador. Ecuador has used the dollar since 2000, when its local currency, the sucre, spiralled out of control. The dollar is no longer the monetary heavyweight it once was, and Ecuador is not alone in trying to escape the Dollar Zone. Another part of this policy is the assertion of a precedent in international North-South lending: Don't make deals with illegitimate governments, because those deals can be thrown out later.
I think Correa is also betting on a lot of the investors to bite on debt renegotiation. This debt has already been renegotiated twice before. However many of these investors are short on capital given the current climate, and Ecuador's ability to pay make renegotiation, even on very pro-Ecuador terms, much more attractive than any attempt to seize assets through the courts. So in this way Correa can take advantage of the economic glo-pocalypse to rid himself of burdensome debt servicing, set a strong precedent for poor debtor nations weaning themselves off the Washington Consensus, and all the while increase his local and regional popularity.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Progressive Challenge for the 21st Century, Part I
We won! We ended eight years of tyrannical idiocy, we elected the nation's first African-American president, we organized a tremendous grassroots effort and overcame the two most powerful political machines in recent history and by doing so turned a new, brighter page in our history. Yes we could and Yes we did! Now what?
There are many challenges that lie ahead -- the ultimate over-stated understatement for this last leg of 2008. As a progressive, I look at how our current economic crisis intersects with our longer-lasting crises in health care, education, and affordable housing to cause and portend ruin for masses of working families. I shudder when I see unemployment rates rising, and can only imagine how many desperate people aren't even included in the already horrific figures because they have either stopped trying to find work, or are stringing enough out of part-time minimum wage jobs so that the ends of their economic belt might occasionally meet before rent is due. I burn to hear of top CEOs flying corporate jets to Washington to beg for bailout money, blaming unions for their troubles while laid-off autoworkers sit down with their spouses late at night, forced to choose between heating their homes and buying Christmas presents for their kids. And after I think of these things, I tend to remember who our next President is, and it gives me some relief from my anxiety. But I am not satisfied, because I am a progressive, and it is not in our nature to be satisfied.
The progressive movement stands for decency and fairness above all. It stands for a government which protects all its people, not just from military attack, but as well from hunger and illness. Progressives believe that government can serve as a force for good in society when it is led by those who will fight for the common good. We believe that a rising tide lifts all boats, and not that bigger boats will somehow lift the tide. The progressive movement has a vital role to play in this new century, not only to counter the influence of those jet-setting beggar executives and their pocket politicians, but to craft a whole new vision for how the world economy should function.
To do that we need passion, intelligence, and unity. But we also need honesty. It is easy to criticize the profit-idolaters and religious zealots. It is more difficult to point that same lens back at our own history and ideas. The progressive movement may have lofty ideals, but we have not always chosen the best means to reach them.
For nearly a century many progressives pushed Communism and Socialism as the answer to the problems of modern society. We advocated for Stalin and Mao even when we knew, or should have known, about their totalitarian madness. As an interlude, I urge readers to resist becoming defensive at this point. We must admit our weaknesses in order to understand them, and to not repeat the mistakes of the past. We celebrate(d) Castro and Che, Lenin and Trotsky, and countless Third World revolutionaries for their gall to fight against evil capitalists. We decided that governments, well-run, could fix all of our problems through legislation. We danced in the streets for the New Deal and the Great Society programs. When a problem arose, we applied our magic cure: more government spending. We demonized globalization and Wall Street. Now, wait just one second, you say -- this author calls himself a "progressive"? Sounds more like a Fox News pundit! The point I am trying to make here is that we were wrong to believe that government could solve our problems, and we were wrong to believe that the capitalist system is inherently evil. Government should be limited and capitalism is okay...Rush Limbaugh is popping pills and nodding his head. What is this madness?
There are many challenges that lie ahead -- the ultimate over-stated understatement for this last leg of 2008. As a progressive, I look at how our current economic crisis intersects with our longer-lasting crises in health care, education, and affordable housing to cause and portend ruin for masses of working families. I shudder when I see unemployment rates rising, and can only imagine how many desperate people aren't even included in the already horrific figures because they have either stopped trying to find work, or are stringing enough out of part-time minimum wage jobs so that the ends of their economic belt might occasionally meet before rent is due. I burn to hear of top CEOs flying corporate jets to Washington to beg for bailout money, blaming unions for their troubles while laid-off autoworkers sit down with their spouses late at night, forced to choose between heating their homes and buying Christmas presents for their kids. And after I think of these things, I tend to remember who our next President is, and it gives me some relief from my anxiety. But I am not satisfied, because I am a progressive, and it is not in our nature to be satisfied.
The progressive movement stands for decency and fairness above all. It stands for a government which protects all its people, not just from military attack, but as well from hunger and illness. Progressives believe that government can serve as a force for good in society when it is led by those who will fight for the common good. We believe that a rising tide lifts all boats, and not that bigger boats will somehow lift the tide. The progressive movement has a vital role to play in this new century, not only to counter the influence of those jet-setting beggar executives and their pocket politicians, but to craft a whole new vision for how the world economy should function.
To do that we need passion, intelligence, and unity. But we also need honesty. It is easy to criticize the profit-idolaters and religious zealots. It is more difficult to point that same lens back at our own history and ideas. The progressive movement may have lofty ideals, but we have not always chosen the best means to reach them.
For nearly a century many progressives pushed Communism and Socialism as the answer to the problems of modern society. We advocated for Stalin and Mao even when we knew, or should have known, about their totalitarian madness. As an interlude, I urge readers to resist becoming defensive at this point. We must admit our weaknesses in order to understand them, and to not repeat the mistakes of the past. We celebrate(d) Castro and Che, Lenin and Trotsky, and countless Third World revolutionaries for their gall to fight against evil capitalists. We decided that governments, well-run, could fix all of our problems through legislation. We danced in the streets for the New Deal and the Great Society programs. When a problem arose, we applied our magic cure: more government spending. We demonized globalization and Wall Street. Now, wait just one second, you say -- this author calls himself a "progressive"? Sounds more like a Fox News pundit! The point I am trying to make here is that we were wrong to believe that government could solve our problems, and we were wrong to believe that the capitalist system is inherently evil. Government should be limited and capitalism is okay...Rush Limbaugh is popping pills and nodding his head. What is this madness?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)