Showing posts with label espionage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label espionage. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

ASIA & EHMs THROUGH INDONESIAN EYES (from John Perkins’ Secret History of an American Empire)

So we spoke about the ‘63 coup against Ngo Dinh Diem in Vietnam which was supported by Kennedy. Diem was assassinated later; some think the order was from the CIA. The US built up forces in Vietnam and later we had the Vietnam war emerge as a result. It was catastrophic; Kennedy was assassinated. And Nixon was the first to begin pulling out troops from Vietnam. Nixon went with a more secret strategy (not through war) trying to prevent countries from falling under communist rule.
Indonesia was one of the countries being observed. President Suharto was a stanch anti-Communist. He killed a Communist-provoked coup in 1965 while he was head of the army and earned his reputation then. He didn’t hesitate to use force and 30,000 - 50,000 people died in battles crushing the coup. Suharto took over as president in the aftermath of the killings and arrests in 1968.
Economic hitmen were dispatched to Indonesia at that time (early 70’s) with the job of creating the economic studies to secure funding from the World Bank, USAID, and the Asian Development Bank. And this worked. The loans benefited US corporations and the rulers of Indonesia but left the country increasingly indebted, of course (if you remember the philosophy behind economic hitmen).

Official statistics reported great economic growth from the 70’s up until the Asian collapse in 1997. Economic growth of 9% (GDP) every year, solid banking sector, foreign exchange reserves of $200 billion, low inflation, etc. But remember the “results” were less than forecast (that’s how it works to keep the country indebted; you must over forecast the economic response to the loans to ensure defaulting), and when you look closely, these gains came at the cost of increased abuse of cheap labor, a proliferation of sweatshops, and the abuse of the environment by western companies given licenses to do what would be illegal in Western countries. The official minimum wage rose to $3/day but it was ignored by corporations. In 2002, 52% of the population lived on less than $2/day. Indonesia had the highest foreign debt of all Asian countries. It was at 60% of GDP from 1990-1996 (before the collapse). So all the glowing figures only described what a very small, wealthy percentage of the population was experiencing.

Sweatshops proliferated with groups like Nike, Adidas, Fila, Polo, Ralph Lauren, Lotto, Levi, the Gap, Old Navy, Reebok, etc. People lived in poverty, in slums, earning wages below the poverty line. Suharto and his dictatorship came under the eye of NGO groups condemning the serious human rights violations, violence, violations of international law, the sacrifice of democratic principles to satisfy multinational corporations and the ruling class around the president.




East Timor, ruled by the Portuguese for four centuries, is predominantly Roman Catholic (different from Indonesia) and is rich in oil and gas with gold and manganese. It declared independence from Portugal in 1975. Nine days later, Indonesia invaded and slaughtered 200,000 people. Well, documents from the National Security Archive show, now, that we (the U.S.) supplied the weapons for this invasion and that President Ford and Secretary of State Kissinger met with Suharto on December 6, 2975 and agreed to the planned attack. The Carter administration blocked declassification of the files in 1977. You can check out a 2005 interview of Joao Carrascalao (brother of former governor of East Timor) on “Democracy Now!” with Amy Goodman. There was a 25-yr pattern of deceit to keep the details of this planned invasion of East Timor from the American people.

Again you see the pattern, dispatching the military was presented as justified to halt the spread of communism; in reality the rebels were driven by a desire to be free of the Suharto regime and turning to China was a last resort. Supporting Suharto helped corporations since he had a desire to control the entire Indonesian archipelago. There are case after case of armed clashes in Borneo, New Guinea, the Molucca Islands, etc. which we (people like me) believe to secure these resource rich places for use by multi-national corporations in this northern tip of Sumatra (an oil and gas rich part of the Aceh province).

Indonesia grew and went deeper into debt to finance the demand for hotels, construction, restaurants, banking, services, etc. all for the wealthy class and foreign companies. In 1997, Southeast Asia was covered in a haze of poisonous smoke from forest fires that were out of control in Indonesia (a result of EHM-induced corruption according to John Perkins). Other ethnicities including the famous Bugi (where we get “boogimen”) had their lands taken and cultures destroyed. Then in 1998 with the worsening economic climate, Suharto took on an IMF Structural Adjustment Package. Now, this is a reason why people don’t like the IMF: the IMF recommended that he drop fuel and food subsidies and other social services to decrease spending which he of course did. This disproportionately affects the poor and the lower class. People took to the streets. The wealthy, fearing the masses, demanded change themselves! Suharto was forced out in 1998 (in May). Clinton’s administration severed ties with the Indonesian military. Then in 2004, the tsunami hit which brought the US back in. Remember that not only do friendly dictators help out US corporations or wars and invasions, but natural disasters. Tons of money is earmarked for US corporations and multinational corporations, restaurants, hotels, communication and transportation networks, insurance companies, retail chains, etc. instead of investing in local businesses, ma-and-pa businesses, local enterprises and restaurants, etc. I’m hoping to work to reverse this as much as possible when working with USAID this year.
The tsunami was especially hurtful because Aceh province had resources for which corporations were exploiting the area and the tsunami helped bolster this. There was a group in Indonesia called GAM (the Free Aceh Movement), a local organization that fought for the Aceh people to share in the profits generated from the oil, gas, and other resources, some degree of local self rule, and other rights. The tsunami wiped out their communication and transportation networks. Even though secret talks had began in 2004 between the government and GAM, and GAM had gained a bargaining position, they lost the position with the tsunami. The government flew in with fresh troops from unaffected areas and were bolstered by US military personnel and mercenaries and ex-CIA operatives. The pretext for the military was the necessary relief of disaster victims, but the goal not promoted in the media was to quench GAM. The Bush administration reversed the Clinton administrations 1999 decision to sever ties with the military and sent $1 million worth of military equipment to Jakarta in January 2005. The New York Times even reported that Washington seized on the opportunity after the tsunami, that Secretary Rice has moved to strengthen American training of Indonesian officers, and that the army’s utmost concern seems to be keeping a stranglehold on the armed forces of the Free Aceh Movement. Tired by efforts to rebuild and recover from the disaster as well as exhausted by mounting pressure from the Indonesian army and the US, GAM signed a one-sided peace treaty with the government.



When I was in high school and a college student I didn’t understand why people protested against the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank, among others. Now, I’ve read, researched, and talked to people, and it’s amazing what you find. I can’t condone a multi-national organization/bank making countries reduce social services and food subsidies to service interest on a debt, to decrease spending, or to simply qualify to receive a loan in the first place. It’s reprehensible to do that or require for a developing country with high unemployment, poor educational and health infrastructure and human resources, and little capital. But this is what happened.
The 1997 Asian collapse was known as the “IMF crisis” if you can believe it. People blamed the IMF for “fast-track capitalism” -- eliminating restrictions on capital, encouraging privatizations, maintaining high interest rates, and attempting to hedge currency risk by pegging currencies to the dollar (I’ll talk more about this next week when we move to the Middle East and Economic Hit Men). Country after country experienced an economic collapse, and the reverberations were felt even in the U.S. if you remember.

So then the IMF came up with a rescue plan. It would offer these Structural Adjustment Packages (SAPs) similar to what was forced on Indonesia by Suharto. Each country was required to allow local banks and financial institutions to fail, largely reduce government spending, cut food and fuel subsidies and social services to the poor, and raise interest rates even higher. Countless number of women and children died of malnutrition, starvation, and disease during this time. Others suffered adverse long-term effects from lack of housing, health care, education, etc. This is when the collapse continued to grow reaching the US and North and South America and Europe (sometimes globalization hurts).

Now, check out what analysis has confirmed. The countries that refused to yield to IMF demands did the best. South Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia were hit very hard with repercussions in Laos and the Philippines. But China did not yield to IMF demands. China channeled foreign investment into factories rather than securities which shielded it from future capital flight and providing employment and other benefits. India, Taiwan, and Singapore all defied the IMF and their economies remained ok. Malaysia followed the IMF, experienced a recession, then turned its back on the SAPs and had an economic rebound.

MOVIES



I love Participant Media.


Waiting for Superman
It’s the newest one I’ve been invited to see from Participant Media. The last one I suggested to you all was “Countdown to Zero.” “Waiting for Superman” is a film about the broken education system in the U.S. They have the DC Chancellor (like a superintendent) who is a Teach for America alum and founder of The New Teacher Project. Check out the trailer and support the film and participate not only in the conversation around education but working to change it and make it better for our children.


The International
This movie talks about some of the international relations issues I was discussing before if you’re interested in seeing it.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Uhhh, it’s kind of hard to watch (for some of us) as it deals with a lot of murders and rapes. It’s a dark movie. I’m interested in reading the book and seeing how it is told in that format.

Sunday, August 1, 2010

POLITICKING FROM AMERICA




Very few people will have read down to this section, but I just wanted to explain that being in Washington has taught me a lot. I want every person to rotate through the government and spend time learning how the state and/or national government work. I would love it if it were like jury duty because it’s really important.

I’ve spoken how Congressmen (reps and senators) only respond to constituents and lobbyist. Every decision they make is whether or not it will get them re-elected. Otherwise, you commit political suicide if you do the right thing and the right thing doesn’t get you campaign dollars (lobbyists) or direct votes (constituents). And remember campaign dollars bring you votes, indirectly. So it’s all about votes.

I’ve learned that the US media is called liberal by conservatives and conservative by liberals. This is because each side focuses on the liberal piece or the conservative piece they see or hear and concentrates on it creating a distorted picture from that concentrated view. You have to look at it holistically or in totality. When I look in totality, it is one way or the other, but I won’t say. I won’t join the argument, but I can say globally (quite matter-of-factly) the US media, again globally, is conservative. We call some people dictators who are elected democratically because they don’t serve US interests (businesses) for example.

So I’ve been trying to figure out why certain things that are morally obvious are hard to do in the US and through the government. I’ve decided that most initiatives tend to be opposed if it affects large corporations negatively, if it could reduce profits of large companies. This is why the electric car has never come into the market for the past 30+ years (I mean a real electric car, not a golf cart that is not allowed to go on the highway or go above 35 mph) or why health care was such a heated debate (we all understand it needs reform regardless of how you want to reform it). Many large changes that are beneficial for the small individual can cause losses for large corporations that have powerful lobbies and it makes it hard. Corporations seem to also affect foreign policy as well as domestic policy. In fact when I came to this realization this year, it reminded me of the book “Confessions of an Economic Hetman” which shows how corporations in the US affect US foreign policy inordinately.

I know US corporations have an inordinate amount of control on the media and US policy especially foreign policy but I’ve been trying to figure out how the link works. I mean does a politician just always side with things that are good for US businesses, naturally? It doesn’t seem logical.

A company is an impersonal entity whose bottom line is profit. That’s all it cares about. If it’s more profitable to ignore safety, safety is ignored. Only when they will go out of business due to law suits or governmental regulations do the take care of things like safety--only when it’s profitable. So the US is controlled by companies. Companies’ bottom line is profit. Therefore, mathematically and logically, the bottom line of the US is profit. Still it leaves the question of how does US policy get shaped by companies instead of by individuals who vote?

It’s quite strange. I’m unimpressed with US history books in our school which don’t seem to paint a factual or balanced picture of our involvement around the world, specifically in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.

Anyway, I’ve learned there’s been a “revolving door” in government where the people in the highest offices are also corporate executives and they move back and forth between the two. This creates a really bad dependent link. It’s bad because the government is supposed to be independent of corporations but there is a strong bias in favor of them in terms of foreign (and domestic) policy for instance.

Secondly, lobbyists represent companies and corporations; individuals or small groups cannot afford lobbyists. And Congress listens to lobbyists. Politicians depend on multiple donations and large donations from companies to raise the money needed to run for office, so again there is this connection. If you don’t act in their favor you lose their money.

So, as I’ve said before, whenever US ideals (democracy, freedom, capitalism) clash with US geopolitical interests (remember this usually means corporate interests) the US generally sides with the geopolitical interests. In doing so, we have subtly built up an empire across this land. We are not a lone superpower in the world. We are the lone hyper power in human history, a superpower of any superpower that has ever lived or had an empire in the history of the world.

According to John Perkins’ research an empire has the following characteristics

1) exploits resources from the land it dominates
2) consumes large quantities of resources--amounts that are disproportionate to the size of its population relative to those of other nations
3) maintains a large military that enforces its policies when more subtle measures fail
4) spreads its language, literature, art, and various aspects of its culture throughout its sphere of influence
5) taxes not just its own citizens but also the people in other countries, and
6) imposes its own currency on the lands under its control.

(from ‘The Secret history of the American Empire”)



Well, even though you may not generally see how #5 fits (you can ask me later) all the characteristics fit and match the US in the 20th century and early 21st century. And it’s sad. I’ve talked before about the general procedure for coaxing other countries (#3). First you send in Economic Hit Men (“Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”). If that doesn’t work, you send in jackals (assassins). If that doesn’t work, you send in the military. Remember that EHM (Economic Hit Men) are economic forecasters that go into countries to forecast the amount that a developing country’s economy will grow if they are given a loan. The forecaster over predicts or over exaggerates the amount a large loan will make the country’s economy grow so that the IMF or World Bank, for instance, will grant the loan and the country will be sure to default. Then the country is beholden to the multilateral organization or the US and either constantly paying interest to the detriment of social services to its people, having to side on UN votes with the US, giving up land space for US military bases, etc. This is largely due to the fact that the US largely controls the World Bank and the IMF, if you remember (some equate the IMF with the US Dept of Treasury).

Sometimes this doesn’t work, so assassins are sent in. If that doesn’t work militaries are sent in.

Now most times we have had an excuse to go into these countries--freedom, democracy, liberty, anti-communism, but usually empires (historically) always need an enemy and something to rally the citizens around. US contractors and companies benefit no matter if we win or lose a war. For example, in Vietnam which my friend argued was a war fought only to stop the spread of communism on ideological grounds, US companies and the government benefited from increased arm sales, expanded markets, and a greater labor pool (we now could have sweatshops and outsourcing in Vietnam). In all honesty, when looking at the historical analysis, Vietnam was a regional conflict, not a greater global conflict. This point is harder to see in Vietnam, but many can see that democracy and freedom were not the reasons of the US entering Iraq.

Remember we created the situations in Iraq and Vietnam. In 1963, Kennedy supported a coup against Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam; he was later assassinated which led to a buildup of troops there and eventually the war. Likewise, during the 50’s and 60’s Qasim, the popular president of Iraq demanded Iraqi people share in some of the profits of the oil reaped from his country by foreign companies (US and UK, for example). He threatened to nationalize Iraqi oil which of course the US and UK didn’t like (this pattern has been repeated in places like Venezuela, Iran, etc.). Economic hit men were sent to Iraq, but it didn’t work. So then a young Saddam Hussein was part of team that was hired to assassinate Qasim. Their attempt failed; Saddam was shot and fled to Syria. Kennedy then ordered the CIA to join the MI6 to finish the job. They executed Qasim on Iraqi TV by a firing squad. Saddam came back and placed as head of national security and his second cousin became president. This led to more support later on (when Saddam was our friend against the enemy of Iran), but I’ll continue later.

Most people in other parts of the world understand that the US is responsible for coups around the world: Chile’s Allende, Guatemala’s Arbenz, Venezuela’s Chavez, Iraq’s Qasim, Brazil’s Goulart, etc. This list continues.



When a country opposes US interests, the EHM come in usually followed by jackals if that doesn’t work. Finally the military is sent in. This pattern occurred in Iraq, and I’ll talk about it in another e-mail. The first two steps occurred in Venezuela and there is a huge buildup of US forces in Columbia at the moment across the border from Venezuela. And though Africa was very much hurt by this empire building and it neutralized parts of Asia, Latin America has a rising tide that is changing the story. For such actions quite honestly build up resentment and reaction from the forces of the people within the country. And in Latin America, the people have had enough of leaders who have bought into the system and have been electing, as of late, “leaders of the people,” men who were previously in prison, priests, and farmers.