|
Post by dodger on Nov 25, 2013 5:44:54 GMT
NOVEMBER 20, 2013 Pantukan small-scale miners protest US-owned mining anew by MART D. SAMBALUD Davao Today PANTUKAN, Compostela Valley Province — Agitated after learning that drilling explorations have resumed last week, some 1,000 small-scale miners and farmers staged a protest rally Monday morning to reiterate their position against the joint mining operations of US-based St. Augustine Gold and Copper Limited (SAGCL), formerly Russell Mining and Minerals Inc., and its local partner, the Nationwide Development Corp. (Nadecor).
Spearheaded by Save Pantukan Movement, protesters marched from Pantukan Public Market to the office of SAGCL, stopping over at the municipal hall to submit their position paper and to seek dialog with the mayor. The miners and farmers have staged crippling barricades at the national highway last year to dramatize their opposition against the $2-billion open-pit mining.
The NADECOR owns a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement covering 1,656 hectares of mineral-rich area in Pantukan.
For its part, the SAGCL announced in September it would start full-blown operations in 2017 after finding positive results in their feasibility study. The US-based large-scale mining company cited in its feasibility study that the project will produce 100,000 tons per day of copper and gold and a mining rate at an approximate 178,000 tons daily.
Pedro Arnado, Chairman of Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas – Southern Mindanao Region, said “small scale miners and farmers fear the devastating effects of the SAGCL operations to the environment and to the people’s livelihood in Pantukan.”
In their position paper, the Gagmay’ng Minero sa Pantukan and Hugpong sa mga Mag-uuma sa Walog Kompostela (HUMAWAK) — an alliance of peasants and small-scale miners in Compostela Valley — demanded that the government should implement a “pro-people’s mining policy”, oppose and cease and desist all the large-scale mining operations of SAGCL; and stop the counter-insurgency operations under Oplan Bayanihan by the 71st Infantry Battalion and 28th IB of the Philippine Army. These armies were reportedly backing SAGCL interests in the area.
Protesters were later disappointed after Pantukan Mayor Roberto Yugo refused to heed a dialog with them.
“Please have the position paper received at our records section, and I will answer it in a proper forum. You should have proposed the schedule earlier,” Yugo told the protesters.
In a news report, Yugo said he backs the $2-billion gold and copper project as this would be beneficial for local constituents.
Bellen Galleto, spokesperson of Save Pantukan Movement, told Davao Today that Yugo’s move was “arrogant” and “inappropriate” for a public official.
“We expected him to read our position paper and allow us to ventilate our grievances,” Galleto said.
“We are protesting again because we truly fear that with the impact of natural disasters in our country, the open pit mining operations of SAGCL will ultimately destroy our environment. This is like a Yolanda in our midst,” Galleto said.
She added that “With denuded mountains as a result of large-scale mining, residents in low-lying lands will have to suffer more when great disasters come upon us. ”
Protesters said Pantukan town is already prone to geo-hazards, with a number of landslides in the past having claimed a high number of casualties.
Meanwhile, proponents of the Kingking gold and copper open-pit mine project claimed the project will generate 4,000 to 5,000 jobs with 1,700 direct employment during construction.
Small-scale miner Rogelio Simbajon, however, belied the claim, saying that “once the operation continues, 30,000 miners and their families will be displaced.”
Abelino Gudin, 53, from Diat village, said that the local government of Pantukan should heed their demands.
“If our local government will permit this, it is a downright and deliberate attack to our economic right as small-scale miners. What will happen to our families? We don’t have jobs or other means of livelihood.”
Gudin added that “if we excavate our own mining site, we can earn as much as P10,000 ($229) or even bigger if we will work hard in one day, but if we are mere employees of the company, we would be earning P500 ($11) daily or less, which can barely sustain our needs.”
“Our families can live off just a gram of gold, but if we allow the SAGCL to come to our midst, we would be merely contractual employees, earning very little,” he added.
Juland Suazo, Spokesperson of Panalipdan-Southern Mindanao, said the drilling operation of US-based firm in the mountains of Barangay Kingking in Pantukan town is “proof that the Aquino government has no political will to alleviate the economic conditions of the people struck by typhoons Pablo and Zoraida in Compostela Valley province.”
“SAGCL continues to pose grave threats to the people and to environment. Its operations would worsen the impact of storms and other natural calamities. Our communities would be more vulnerable if we allow large-scale mining operations of SAGCL to take place,” Suazo added.(Mart. D. Sambalud/Reposted by (http://bulatlat.com)) - See more at: bulatlat.com/main/2013/11/20/pantukan-small-scale-miners-protest-us-owned-mining-anew/#sthash.s6MpKM6Z.dpuf
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Nov 25, 2013 9:30:53 GMT
US Trojan Horse arrival, open-ended disaster intervention must be denounced -- Patriotic Youth
Thursday, 21 November 2013 08:20 Ma. LAYA GUERRERO Spokesperson, Kabataang Makabayan The Kabataang Makabayan (KM, Patriotic Youth) denounces the arrival of US’ Trojan Horse USS George Washington, a high-powered, nuclear-carrying warship in the guise of ‘relief and humanitarian mission’ in Eastern Visayas in the aftermath of supertyphoon Yolanda.
The USS Washington which is carrying around 5000 US naval troops, embarked in an open-ended mission in Central Philippines using disaster relief as its cover. This is aside from the 243 US Marines who were deployed within the week after the supertyphoon and the 700 US Special Forces stationed in Zamboanga more than a decade now. It is reported that around 13,000 US troops are involved directly and indirectly in this disaster interventionism which the US euphemistically called “Operation Damayan”.
The US DND Secretary announced that Aquino’s government requested for US warships and troops deployment in the aftermath of Yolanda. Fitting the US’ design for “inter-operationability”, Japan and Australia, two of the US’ closest allies in Asia-Pacific, joined in sending troops and warships. There are 16 armed troops of foreign countries deployed in Visayas, making Yolanda as one of the world’s most militarized disaster-aftermath operations.
We condemn the US-Aquino regime’s shameless exhibition of incompetence pre-Yolanda and in the aftermath, making the death and damages to reach a catastrophic level, and compounding the misery of the survivors. Two weeks after, the Aquino government could not present a clear accounting of the damages, much less the total casualties of the calamity, no blueprint for relief and rehabilitation.
The Filipino people must condemn and hold accountable the US-Aquino regime for its inutility and failure to prevent the massive loss of lives and stem the humanitarian crisis. We must likewise denounce this as much as the US-Aquino’s laying the ground for justification of a prolonged and open-ended US military intervention in devastated Visayas.
US imperialism is exploiting the grave situation in the typhoon-torn Tacloban and Visayas islands and hyping the propaganda that the US troops are ‘godsend’ to protect and help the victims. It echoes US imperialism's “benevolent assimilation“ and war of occupation of our country at the end of 20th century, killing millions of Filipinos and strangling our country under its direct colonial rule.
They come like vultures ready to feed on the miserable condition that befell the masses and the country. Already the imperialist banks are also stretching its “helping hand” for the Philippines thru offers for loans for rehabilitation which surely will be onerous loans that will lead our country to perpetual indebtedness.
From its ascendancy the Obama regime has been maximizing on a less expensive and easiest entrance for its US troops in its targeted strategic areas. The US has been using the United Nation’s “responsibility to protect” doctrine and Obama’s “humanitarian intervention” as its politically-expedient justification for military action and intervention on purportedly and hyped humanitarian crisis such as in Libya and Syria. In 2010, the US likewise occupied Haiti and reasoned ‘relief and rehabilitation’ in the wake of the deadly earthquake that struck the country as its entry-point.
With or without a disaster, US imperialism is aching to regain military foothold in the Philippines along with its “Pivot to Asia”. We must expose and oppose the US imperialism deployment of US warships and armed troops and open-ended presence in the country as a Trojan Horse, and a clear affront to our national sovereignty.
The Aquino neocolonial regime must be condemned for its all-out subservience to US imperialism and all its agenda, including the camouflaged disaster intervention.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Nov 26, 2013 15:00:28 GMT
The People's Cry for Justice
Tuesday, 26 November 2013 14:51 www.ndfp.net/joom15/images/stories/Open_Source_Tribunal_invite1.jpg
Opening Statement in Prose Poem (Proem) at the Open Source Tribunal Nicolai Church, Utrecht, Netherlands
23 November 2013 CASE: National Democratic Movement of the Philippines versus
Those Responsible for the Unnatural Disaster Related to Supertyphoon Haiyan By Prof. JOSE MARIA SISON
Founding Chairman, Communist Party of the Philippines
The bewildering winds howled from afar,
Then came suddenly screaming into the ears
Of the people as rooftops flew like hats
And walls tumbled down like cards.
The teeming huts of the poor toilers crumbled
So did the few houses of the middle class.
The winds showed no respect to the churches
And shook the solitary mansions of the powerful.
The flying and falling parts of every structure
Killed and injured people in great numbers.
The sea rose like a mountain close to the shore
And surged to engulf the people and shambles.
It swept and carried them away as flotsam
Killing more people than did the monstrous winds.
As if death by drowning were not enough,
The loss of food stocks and the plenitude of dirty brine
Caused maddening death by hunger and thirst
As the crucial days passed without rescue and relief
From the high bureaucrats who had promised these
Before the super typhoon and storm surge.
The highest and most corrupt of the bureaucrats
Had boasted that planes, ships and relief goods
Were ready to come to the aid of the people in distress.
But none came for a long while as hunger, thirst, illness
And death stalked 15 million people in 32 provinces.
As people cried for loved ones lost amidst the wreckage
And the stench of the dead, he depicted the victims as looters
To obscure his crime of having vetoed public funds
For pre-disaster preparations and for having pocketed
Every year the calamity fund in billions of pesos.
We accuse the rulers of corruption and incompetence,
Of conniving with the military and NGO racketeers
In the diversion of public funds to their private accounts,
Making the people suffer natural and social calamities.
We demand the end of the wanton destruction of lives
Of the fishermen, peasants, workers and other poor.
We demand that justice be rendered in their favor.
We demand the end of the cruel and corrupt regime
And thus let the people prevail and take a step forward
In freeing themselves from exploiters and oppressors.
Long before Haiyan, the vulnerability of the people
To natural disasters has been predetermined
By the imperialists, the big compradors, landlords
And by the corrupt bureaucrats who chain the toilers
To the system of exploitation and unrelenting poverty
Consigning them to expanses of frail homes
Of nipa and bamboo or discarded pieces of wood,
Easily destroyed by the typhoons and floods.
It is the edifices of the wealthy and powerful
That have withstood the onlaughts of Yolanda.
We accuse the rulers and their foreign masters
Of subjecting the Filipino toilers to the violence
In the daily grind of exploitation and oppression
And in the cycles of social crisis and natural disaster.
We demand the end of the system of exploitation,
That condemns the people to lives of want and misery,
Without adequate food and shelter from the storms.
We demand that the broad masses of the people enjoy
The blessings of national and social liberation,
All-round development, social justice and peace.
Long before Haiyan, the imperialists and their puppets
Have ravaged and plundered the environment.
They have used open pit mining and excessive chemicals
To extract the natural riches of the Philippines.
They have poisoned the atmosphere with carbon emissions,
Caused global warming and warmed the Pacific Ocean
To make the typhoons more often and more devastating.
There are indications that weather warfare is afoot,
With microwave pulses being manipulated to stir up
A super typhoon as ferocious as Yolanda.
We accuse the US-led imperialists of ruining the milieu,
Causing global warming and making natural disasters
More frequent, more destructive and more deadly.
It is outrageous that the puppets in the Philippines welcome
The invading military forces of the US and its allies
Under the pretext of humanitarian assistance
And accept more debts from the imperialist banks
For the further benefit of the wealthy and powerful
We must rise up to fight the foreign superprofiteers
And the puppets shameless in treason and national betrayal.
The toiling masses have lost thousands of lives
And millions of them their homes and means of livelihood.
They expect nothing from their oppressors and exploiters
But worse oppression and exploitation after every disaster.
The people can best fight for their lives and rights
And have thus rescued and lifted themselves up.
Still they need the help of compatriots at home and abroad
And the solidarity and support of the people of the world
To accelerate relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction
And to prevent the exploiters from further ruining them.
We appeal to the people of the world to help the Filipino people
Through the people's organizations and not the corrupt regime.
Like the imperialists, the corrupt bureaucrats and military officers
Are vultures hovering and gloating over the dead and suffering.
They are ever poised to feast on public funds and foreign aid
That they deem as off-budget account subject to their greed.
We are confident that the people of the world stand in solidarity
With the Filipino people not only against one unnatural disaster
But against all the disasters unleashed by the imperialists and puppets
And for the common purpose of creating a new and better world.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Dec 5, 2013 14:25:37 GMT
DECEMBER 5, 2013 Another IP killed for having opposed palm oil plantation “Ironically, under the government of BS Aquino, warlords and paramilitary groups were not dismantled. Worst, the same warlord group is said to be facilitating the entry of mining and oil palm plantations like that of A. Brown Company in the area.”By MARYA SALAMAT Bulatlat.com MANILA — A few days before Human Rights Day, and more than a year after Indigenous People’s (IP) leader Gilbert Paborada was murdered, another IP active in defending their farmland against landgrabbing was killed last Dec 1. Rolen Langala, a member of IP group Pangalasag, was brutally murdered at 1:00 a.m. on December 1, the Kalumbay Regional Lumad Organization said in a statement.
Langala was a farmer planting corn and coconut in Misamis Oriental. His farm and those of his fellow IPs are reportedly being seized by A. Brown company as it seeks to expand its oil palm plantation in the province. With Paborada and other IPs, Langala had been opposing the company’s drive to takeover their farm lands, Datu Jomorito Guaynon, chairman of Kalumbay Regional Lumad Organization, told Bulatlat.com today. Guaynon said five IPs were specifically threatened by known representatives and armed goons of A. Brown. Of the five, Paborada and now Langala had been killed.
Langala, 35, suffered an undetermined number of stab wounds and two gun shots in the head. His remains currently lie in state in the church of Iglesia Filipina Independiente at Opol, Misamis Oriental.
As reported by witnesses to Kalumbay, Langala and a companion, another Pangalasag member, Ruel “Don-don” Tagupa, were about to go home after enjoying the festivities in the upcoming fiesta held at the public plaza of Barangay Bagocboc, Opol town of Misamis Oriental, when their way at the exit was blocked by village Councilor Nestor Bahian and Ramil Salban.
Quoting the witnesses, Councilor Bahian confronted Tagupa with the words: “Musokol naman kaha mo, isog mo?” (Are you already tough?) To which Tagupa replied: “Kung kami unahan, mosukol rasad mi.” (If people would hurt us first, we would retaliate). After that, witnesses said Councilor Bahian pushed Tagupa away and then took out a .45 caliber pistol.
Meanwhile, Rolen Langala was assaulted by Ramil Salban and a certain Arnel.
Moments later, Langala was seen bloodied from multiple stab wounds. It was after he collapsed that, according to a witness, Councilor Bahian allegedly shot him in the head for good measure.
The Kalumbay regional lumad organization vehemently condemns the murder of Langala and the perpetration of culture of impunity in Misamis.
The IP group said that historically, for several decades now, it has been an “open secret” to the residents of Barangays Bagocboc and adjacent villages that only a gang of few and some armed untouchables are controlling the area. Using terror tactics, politicians exploit the presence of these armed terrorists to secure winning votes during elections, so the local political dynasty holds complete power.
Kalumbay said that until now, the ruling political dynasties in the area and its armed groups have victimized many poor and voiceless farmers with impunity.
“Ironically, under the government of BS Aquino, warlords and paramilitary groups were not dismantled. Worst, the same warlord group is said to be facilitating the entry of mining and oil palm plantations like that of A. Brown company in the area.” According to Kalumbay, the warlord’s army and representatives of the company strive to make sure that those who oppose them “suffer the consequences.”
Jomorito Goaynon asserted that because of the economic interests of firms like A. Brown, “local bureaucrats such as Councilor Bahian have been emboldened to commit rights abuses in their brutal campaign to suppress the legitimate dissent directed at their racketeering schemes.”
Continuing rights violations for expanding oil palm plantation According to an International Fact Finding Mission(IFFM) conducted May 2011, several incidents of rights abuses were found to have been committed due to the presence of A. Brown agri-business firm.
Sometime in November 2011, for example, the house of Victoria Tabubo, 64, who was amongst those forced to leave by the shooting incident earlier, was burned down by A. Brown security guards. They took away the coconuts she was tending to and they planted palm oil on her land.
On February 11 and 12 of 2011, the security guards of A. Brown reportedly pointed their guns at Pangalasag leader Gilbert Paborada, as they disliked the fact that the latter was asserting their prior rights over the land. One of the guards even warned Paborada then that he would be shot at if the farmers did not leave their farms.
Sometime in October 2011, Councilor Jimiterio Sharot along with plantation laborers and armed security guards went to the farm of Amadeo Payla, 66, and uprooted and destroyed his crops with chemicals while pointing a gun at him. Sharot is the principal manpower provider of A. Brown.
Leoncito Mabao, 34, was also held at gunpoint by around 20 armed security guards while his crops (e.g. bananas, cassava, corn and coconut) were being uprooted and destroyed with chemicals by A. Brown goons.
Kalumbay and human rights groups in the region fear for “another whitewash” on the government’s investigation, saying that based on its record, not a single case of human rights violations complaint allegedly perpetrated by local officials and their cohorts had been given justice in the area.
Adding another case, last October 2013, in clear public view, Opol town councillor Cecilio Abuhan, the husband of Bagocboc village Chairperson Margilen Abuhan, was “cleared” of charges of alleged illegal possession of firearms from his participation in a raid conducted by Criminal Investigation & Detection Group (CIDG). Based on frightened villagers’ accounts, they saw sacks full of assorted high-powered rifles being hauled by authorities during the raid on the house of Abuhan. The following day, the villagers were shocked to hear the news that not a single firearm was reportedly found or declared.
Kalumbay demanded a fair and speedy investigation on the continuing rights violations of IPs. They urged the Aquino government to dismantle paramilitary and warlord groups including those in Opol, Misamis Oriental. They called on the public to support their struggle against land conversion, and for their fellow IPs to regain their lands and ancestral domain. (http://bulatlat.com) - See more at: bulatlat.com/main/2013/12/05/another-ip-killed-for-having-opposed-palm-oil-plantation/#sthash.NUDEI8VQ.dpuf
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Dec 6, 2013 19:12:01 GMT
Corruption and militarism to mark Aquino's Yolanda rehab with Lacson--CPP
Information Bureau
Communist Party of the Philippines
December 05, 2013
The Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) condemned the Aquino regime for appointing the fascist and criminal bureaucrat Panfilo Lacson, a close ally of Benigno Aquino III, to oversee rehabilitation efforts in areas devastated by supertyphoon Yolanda.
"Lacson's appointment as the so-called rehabilition czar reveals the Aquino regime's militarist and antipeople priorities in facing the demand for the rehabilitation of the vast areas devastated by supertyphoon Yolanda," said the CPP.
"By appointing Lacson and giving him control of more than P40 billion of newly allotted funds, the ruling Aquino regime is set to make use of rehabilitation efforts to advance the interests of big bourgeois compradors, especially of the big Chinese compradors, with whom Lacson maintains strong ties."
"Lacson's appointment is yet another indication of how the people's demand for calamity response and rehabilitation is being subjected to the politicking and factional struggles of rival ruling class cliques whose main concern is how to take advantage of bureaucratic privileges for the benefit of their relatives, friends, loyalists and supporters in big business," said the CPP.
"Aquino's big capitalist friends, from the Ayalas to the Petillas, the Cojuangcos and Pangilinans, are sure to benefit from the massive influx of cash for big infrastructure projects and the displacement of people from prime real estate, particularly in Tacloban City," pointed out the CPP. "By appointing Lacson, Aquino is also set to preempt rival political families in Leyte, particularly the Romualdezes, from obtaining control of large amounts of rehabilitation funds."
"By appointing Lacson, Aquino also reveals his militarist mindset in suppressing the people in the areas devastated by the recent supertyphoon, in much the same way that he applied the Oplan Bayanihan campaign of suppression against the victims of supertyphoon Pablo last year when they demonstrated their outrage at the Aquino regime's criminal negligence in failing to address their needs," added the CPP.
"Lacson is notorious for fascist brutalities during his career as a young military officer during martial law and his bureaucratic criminal activities during his stint as police chief and security officer under the Estrada regime," said the CPP. "He continues to maintain strong links with criminal syndicates involved in carnapping, kidnapping and illegal gambling through active police officers in his criminal network."
"Lacson's appointment dovetails Aquino's refusal to relent in waging his Oplan Bayanihan war of suppression," said the CPP. "Aquino's militarism is clearly shown by the fact that his ground forces in the Visayas, particularly the 8th and 3rd ID, continue to prioritize offensive military operations against the revolutionary base areas instead of heeding the people's demand for a ceasefire in order to facilitate relief and rehabilitation work."
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Dec 12, 2013 14:54:50 GMT
People’s Democratic Government indicts 71st IB, GPH Fiscal, PNP, AFP officials, Aquino for murder of 8-year old Roque Antivo
December 12, 2013 Rubi Del Mundo
Spokesperson
NDFP Southern Mindanao Chapter A Special Investigative Body formed by the Compostela Valley People’s Democratic Government found “sufficient basis to constitute a people’s court to try” the officers and members of the 71st Infantry Battalion led by Lt. Col. Jerry T. Borja, Col. Angelito de Leon of the 1001st Brigade, Major Jake Obligado and GPH Prosecutor Graciano Arafol, Jr. for “ planning, aiding, abetting and conspiring in the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity and serious violations of Human rights and international humanitarian law in the murder of Roque Antivo and frustrated murders of Jefrey Hernan and Earl Jhun Antivo” last April 3, 2013 in Brgy. Anitapan, Mabini, Compostela Valley. An indictment was released last December 10, 2013 to 23 Respondents that also included GPH Pres. Benigno Aquino III, GPH Department of National Defense Chief Voltaire Gazmin, AFP Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Emmanuel T. Bautista, and Eastern Mindanao Command Commander Gen. Ricardo Rainier Cruz. Aquino,as commander-in-chief, and Bautista were indicted for designing and carrying out, respectively, the Oplan Bayanihan which targets civilians like Roque.
The Special Investigating Body composed of Osang Quijano, Mario Renante and Julius Senajon “recommended an order for the immediate arrest and commencement of the trial of the Respondents by a competent tribunal duly constituted under the revolutionary laws, legal and judicial system and processes of the People’s Democratic Government.” Appropriate penalties will be implemented following the trial.
The Special Investigating Body which documented the circumstances surrounding the April 3 incident said the troops under a platoon of the 71st IB led by 2nd Lt. Felipe Llorca were responsible for the killing of 8-year old Roque Antivo, the wounding of his uncle Jefrey Hernan and the severe psychological trauma of Roque’s elder brother Earl Jhun. It also found the Mabini police and members of the crime laboratory for having committed the cover-up in the crimes by “presenting, giving credence and by upholding the clearly tampered evidence at the crime scene and for deliberately showing two sets of bullets to insinuate that two armed groups were involved in an armed encounter.”
The Special Investigating Body also indicted GPH Provincial Prosecutor Graciano Arafol, Jr.in Nabunturan town who issued a Resolution dated September 17 dismissing the charges filed by the family last May 28, 2013. His acts constituted of “abetting in the further denial of justice to the victims and their families by partially dismissing the case without regard to the direct and clear testimonies of eyewitnesses by instead relying heavily on the respondents’ unsubstantiated and self-serving alibis of a phantom encounter between the responsible AFP unit and the NPA.”
The Special Investigating Body also affirmed that Roque Antivo was not killed due to a legitimate encounter between the AFP and the NPA, saying that “(G)eographically and physically it would be impossible for the nearest NPA unit F2 platoon or even a detached team to arrive at about two hours later at Kidaraan,” the site of the incident. The indictment also said that because of the small number of empty shells found at the scene of the crime, it would be impossible to say that an encounter occurred on the night of April 3, given that “AFP units have no fire discipline and that they expend bullets in the numbers in an attempt to show superior strength whenever they are in armed encounter with their enemies.”
The Indictment, likewise, singled out Maj. Jake Obligado, 10th ID Civil Military Operations Battalion Chief “for acts of bribery and for influencing the victims’ family to deny justice and erase culpability of the Responsible Army unit.” Obligado was said to have offered scholarship and small amount to the Antivos to prevent them from filing charges against the Army.
Antivo’s murder and the frustrated murders of the other two children show grave violations of children’s rights. As the AFP units desperately seek to control countryside villages, children who are at least 10 years old, or who looks 10 years old, are at risk of being falsely accused as NPA combatants and are thus considered enemies of the state.
Already exploited on account of poverty and oppression, children are deliberate targets of AFP operations in hapless communities that are suspected to be under the control or are supportive of the revolutionary movement.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Dec 19, 2013 8:51:27 GMT
Kerry visit heightens tensions to justify increased US presence, weapons build up—CPP
December 19, 2013 Communist Party of the Philippines The Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) denounced the visit of US Secretary of State John Kerry to the Philippines, saying his statements and actions contribute to overall US efforts to heighten political and diplomatic tensions in the Asia-Pacific region in order to justify the further deployment of US rotational forces in the region. Kerry arrived for a two-day visit on December 17.
“The heavy-handed presence of US armed troops, warships, drones and jetfighters in the region make the peaceful resolution of territorial conflicts, particularly in the South China Sea, more and more difficult,” said the CPP.
The CPP denounced the allocation of $40 million by the US government under the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) to supposedly strengthen the sea defense capabilities of the Philippines against China.
“US State Sec. John Kerry pretends to be altruistic and big-hearted in granting the Philippines the $40-million GSCF funding when in fact, American policy-makers always make strategic calculations of US interests for every dollar extended to its so-called allies,” said the CPP. According to US State Department documents, the US government extends GSCF assistance to its “partner countries” to enable them to “address emergent challenges and opportunities important to US national security”.
The CPP said the $40-million dollar funding from the US is likely to supplement the expansion of the Oyster Bay naval facility of the Philippine Navy in Palawan in order for it to accommodate the biggest US aircraft carriers in its docks. “The US military has long wanted to set up facilities in Oyster Bay because the deep waters allow its warships to dock near the shores.”
The CPP said such military funding “is unduly drawing the Philippines to an arms buildup campaign which serves the interests of the US, causing China and other countries in the region to race ahead of each other in the purchase or production of war materiél which would invariably benefit the US military-industrial complex.”
“The Filipino people should denounce Kerry for declaring all-out US support for the large-scale rearmament efforts of Japan and plans to spend as much as $240 billion to buy stealth fighters, drones and submarines,” said the CPP. “Upon US prodding, the weapons buildup in Asia is now being boosted by the Abe government’s campaign to revive the military power and dominance of Japan.”
“The CPP denounces the Aquino regime for exhibiting extreme obsequiousness to the US government when it continues to allow the US military to building up its rotational presence in the Philippines. Aquino has even followed the US lead with regard to Japan when he declared that he was seeking to forge a military treaty with the Abe government.”
The CPP further denounced the US government for engaging in “disaster interventionism” in using the devastation brought about by supertyphoon Yolanda (Haiyan) to “glamorize American troops by letting them carry relief and emergency supplies aboard their nuclear-capable warships and missile-carrying helicopters.”
On a different note, the CPP likewise called on the Filipino people “to reject the offer of the US government to categorize the Philippines as being under US ‘Temporary Protection Status’ to supposedly ease restrictions for Filipinos seeking employment in the US.”
The CPP branded the US offer as “extremely hypocritical” as the Obama government continues to make life difficult for Filipino immigrants in the US, especially those coming from the working class, who not only suffer from widespread unemployment, but from the highly restrictive and punitive US immigration laws.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Dec 21, 2013 14:27:13 GMT
Brilliant proposals for reviving British industry, 10 Oct 2011
This Will Podmore review is from: Reviving British Manufacturing: Why? What? How? (Paperback)
Dr Alan Reece established Pearson Engineering, which specialises in countermine equipment. This booklet is a brilliant contribution to the necessary debate about Britain's future.
Last year, we had record deficits in goods and services (£46.2 billion) and in goods alone (£97.2 billion). Since 1997 our manufacturing output has not grown, at £150 billion a year; with inflation, that means a loss of £3.5 billion a year. Since 2000, we have lost 30 per cent of our manufacturing capacity. Important links have vanished from every production chain. We now rank 20th in terms of manufacturing output per head.
The government is forcing up energy prices faster than other governments in the EU and promoting inefficient and costly alternatives that are driving some of our manufacturers overseas, all, supposedly, to reduce the impact of climate change.
The Labour government's sale of Westinghouse and the Coalition government's withdrawal of the £80 million loan to Sheffield Forgemasters wrecked the prospects of a British nuclear power industry.
He writes, "Our membership of the EU is a further cause of our manufacturing decline ... because much EU regulation impacts on Britain to its comparable disadvantage."
We waste too much on the wrong things in 2010 the government spent £19.6 billion on NATO, the EU and war.
We need to cut imports, produce more goods, food and energy for the home market. "Manufacturing, farming and mining have to grow." We `must make, grow and mine more'.
The answer is not de-regulation; but protection, subsidies, grants, quotas and tariffs. The government must buy from domestic sources.
We must "stop the purchase of British companies by foreigners except after a rigorous examination of its effect on our economy. The City makes money out of such sales and asserts that they are in some way beneficial. This claim is untrue." We must aim to get 200,000 workers into manufacturing jobs every year for the next ten years - reaching a target of five million manufacturing industrial jobs by 2021, and increase production by £10 billion a year for ten years.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Dec 27, 2013 17:03:33 GMT
Fine critique of current US foreign policy, 10 May 2012
This Will Podmore review is from: The Sovereignty Solution: A Common Sense Approach to Global Security (Hardcover)
Anna Simons is a Professor of Defense Analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School, Joe McGraw is an active duty Special Forces officer with over 17 years in the US Army, and Duane Lauchengo is also a Special Forces officer with many years' experience.
Their subject is the need for the USA to adopt a new policy, of "respect our sovereignty and we will respect yours." This entails, "don't expect us to embrace your values in this country and we won't expect you to embrace our values in your country: or to be even more blunt about it: we'll be us. You be you. `You be you' means there would be no more government-sponsored proselytization of the American Way abroad. There would be no more inveigling by the U.S. government to get others to change. This buttresses the respect that sovereignty is supposed to accord, whereas self-respect requires a much more concerted focus by us on our domestic problems."
As the authors write, "populations should be able to live under whatever system of governance they choose, to use their natural resources in whatever manner they see fit, and to run their economies according to the principles that most suit them ..."
The authors cite Richard Haass who wrote of the threats to sovereignty, "States are being challenged from above, by regional and global organizations; from below, by militias; and from the side, by a variety of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and corporations."
They point out that aid has failed, citing Kishore Mahbubani: "the story of Western aid to the developing world is essentially a myth. Western countries have put significant amounts of money into their overseas development assistance budgets, but these funds' primary purpose is to serve the immediate and short-term security and national interests of the donors rather than the long-term interests of the recipients."
They observe that from 1985 to 2005 the World Bank pressed Malawi to adopt free-market policies and slash or end fertiliser subsidies. The 2005 harvest was the worst ever: 5 million of Malawi's 13 million people needed food aid. Then the country's new president adopted the policies the West practised (not those it preached) and subsidised its fertiliser production. Now it is feeding its own people and selling food to its neighbours.
As the authors state, nation-building from outside always fails, so instead: "we would share our values, ideals, and principles, and let people make of them what they will. But we wouldn't build or finance projects or inject large sums of anything that can be pocketed or siphoned off. We would educate. We would train."
As they point out, so-called `humanitarian interventions' also always fail. They quote Alan Kuperman, "the emerging norm of humanitarian military intervention, which is intended to prevent genocide and ethnic cleansing, perversely causes such violence through the dynamic of moral hazard. The norm, intended as a type of insurance policy against genocidal violence, unintentionally encourages disgruntled sub-state groups to rebel because they expect intervention to protect them from retaliation by the state. Actual intervention, however, is often too late or too feeble to prevent such retaliation. Thus, the norm causes some genocidal violence that otherwise would not occur."
Again, occupations too always fail. No country welcomes foreign invaders or occupiers. As the authors point out, upon occupation, the initiative at once moves to the occupied.
The authors advocate US disentanglement from the internal affairs of all other nations. On their own logic, they should be calling for an immediate end to the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. They call for declarations of war against those who attack the USA, like Al-Qaeda. They are wrong to claim that Hezbollah and Hamas are `attacking the United States'. Again, on their own logic, the USA should withdraw all its forces from the Middle East.
This is a rational, radical and effective critique of longstanding US foreign policy.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Jan 2, 2014 15:16:37 GMT
www.workers.org.uk/opinion/opinion_0114/pimping.htmlPimping for foreign capital
WORKERS, JAN 2014 ISSUE Mao Tse-tung, writing about classes in Chinese society in the 1920s, defined “the comprador class” as “wholly appendages of the international bourgeoisie, depending upon imperialism for their survival and growth”. And the Chinese know a comprador when they see one.
So David Cameron strutting around China talking as the apostle of free trade, using the language of British capitalism from the 19th-century Manchester school of economics, must have struck his hosts as even more of a buffoon than they had thought.
“Comprador” is a useful word. It originated in China, of Portuguese origin, to denote the native manager of a European business house – and by extension a class of people owing their allegiance to foreign capital. And few are more comprador than Cameron. (It comes from a Latin word meaning “procure”, making Cameron also a procurer, a pimp, for foreign interests. How apt.)
British imperialism no longer dictates to China. Instead, the representatives of British capitalism act as the foreign managers and company representatives of Chinese capitalism in Britain. How far has the wheel turned!
Perhaps someone should have reminded Cameron that the largest investors in Canary Wharf, home of born-again capitalism post-Thatcher, are Chinese companies.
Chinese capitalists are expanding at unprecedented speed into London’s real estate. Chinese entrepreneurs own black cab maker the London Taxi Company. Chinese companies dominate Britain’s infrastructure in the railways, oil and energy production (the largest investor in Grangemouth), and so on. They own the intellectual rights and remnants of British Leyland. They are huge investors in information technology in Britain. They have built a brick for brick replica of Nottingham University in China to make the point about their commitment to engineering, science and manufacturing development; the Chancellor of Nottingham University is a Chinese professor.
The Chinese recently bought Sunseeker, the world’s leading luxury yacht builder in Dorset, lock, stock and barrel. Originally they wanted 30 yachts but then decided they’d take the whole yard. Their intention is to expand production from 180 yachts a year to 370 yachts, all aimed at the Chinese market. Who is trading with whom? When Cameron struts, he looks more like a plantation manager showing off for his absentee landlords.
National independence, sovereignty and control means regaining the assets which constitute the British nation from whoever claims ownership. Be they United States, Arab, Chinese, European Union or the British traitor class. ■
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Jan 10, 2014 2:12:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Jan 10, 2014 15:32:01 GMT
Wishful thinking on a grand scale, 10 Jan 2014
This Will Podmore review is from: Scotland's Future: Your Guide to an Independent Scotland (Kindle Edition)
This book sets out the Scottish Government's case for breaking away from Britain. It is huge, hugely expensive (but luckily the taxpayer paid its £800,000 expenses) and hugely repetitive. But wishes and hopes, however often repeated, are still just warm words.
Much of the book is a vision of a never-never land. But all these desirable policies are prevented not by the Union, but by capitalism, and dividing our working class would make impossible to achieve them.
Manufacturing still accounts for 12 per cent of Scotland's output, and for 66 per cent of business R&D. The SNP claims to want to rebuild Scotland's industry, good, but domination by finance capital would block this. The EU membership it desperately wants means domination by finance capital. The Scottish government opposes even holding a referendum on the EU.
The guide complains about `Westminster governments, rejected at the ballot box in Scotland ...' In 2004, the people of the North East rejected Westminster governments, and yet they also rejected John Prescott's proposed regional assembly. Everyone in Britain, except the tiny minority of finance capitalists and CEOs, suffers government policies we never voted for. None of us voted for deindustrialisation, for bankers to run and ruin the economy, for the destruction of the NHS.
The guide says, "The Government has identified measures to raise revenue and reduce spending ...", that is, the SNP wants spending cuts. It boasts that spending on social protection, as a share of GDP, is lower in Scotland than in the UK in each of the past five years. But, contradictorily, it also claims to want to increase spending, for example, one of its six key polices is to cut energy bills by 5 per cent by removing the costs of some environmental schemes from companies and funding them from government resources.
The Scottish government seems to believe that the Coalition government will separate casino banking from retail banking. There is no mention of repealing anti-trade union laws.
The SNP says that its 3 per cent corporation tax cut would lift output by 1.4 per cent, jobs by 1.1 per cent (27,000) and investment by 1.9 per cent - by 2034! This is one of the very few pledges in the guide. There are lots of conditional statements - we could do lots of good things, but only when we're independent, for example, end the bedroom tax, yet in late 2013, the SNP failed to back a Bill to end this tax.
If Scotland is the eighth richest OECD member, and the UK its 17th, hasn't the Union benefited Scotland? In the UK, only London and the South-East of England have higher GDP per head than Scotland. If Scotland's economy is strong enough to be independent, the Union made it so, hence independence is unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Jan 17, 2014 13:19:53 GMT
A very useful introduction to this vital debate, 17 Jan 2014
This Will Podmore review is from: Road To Referendum (Kindle Edition)
Journalist Iain Macwhirter has produced a helpful, and excellently written, introduction to September's crucial vote.
We need to unite on our strengths, not trade on our weaknesses. Writing off Scotland as too weak to survive on its own is a mirror-image of writing off England as too backward to make progress.
The people of Scotland do not want to break up Britain. Like the rest of us, they want Britain to be better for all our people. We all reject Thatcherism and her neo-liberal offspring, Cameron, Blair, Brown, Clegg and Salmond.
In World War Two, the state created full employment, higher wages, better health and a dynamic economy - so it could in peace too! Constitutional changes will not achieve these. A breakaway Scotland that followed SNP policies would still have mass unemployment, lower wages, worse health and a declining economy.
It's Britain's oil - Thatcher wasted it to pay for the unemployment she caused across Britain. Macwhirter writes, "the deindustrialisation of Scotland was the result of conscious political decisions taken predominantly in London." But so was the deindustrialisation of the rest of Britain.
Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland all have solid manufacturing bases. They also had their banks under control - unlike Iceland, Ireland and Scotland.
Under the SNP, Scotland has lost 2,000 teachers. The SNP's 2007 election manifesto promised to scrap council tax, abolish student debt and replace the Private Finance Initiatives. It has broken all these promises. Scottish Finance Secretary John Swinney said it would cost £600 million to set up a Scottish Revenue alone.
The SNP wants to break away from Britain and join the EU but keep the pound. So it wants to be represented at Brussels, which wouldn't control Scotland's economic and monetary policy, but not be represented at Westminster, which would control Scotland's economic and monetary policy!
Macwhirter writes, "The Scottish trade unions saw solidarity as the means of promoting the interests of workers across Britain. Unity, after all, was strength, and the combined forces of the British working class were considered necessary to combat the political power of capital. Collective bargaining in industry worked when workers stood together, irrespective of geography."
All parts of Britain have to change - in a common direction, towards greater unity, based on the working class principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Feb 8, 2014 7:09:10 GMT
Hague classic. Banging away with his little tin imperial drum.
"He came, he saw, he condescended"William Hague: He came, he saw, he condescendedby Ken Fuller writing in the Philippines Daily Tribune In Manila last Thursday, speaking at an event hosted by the Asian Institute of Management, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague affected the persona of the wise, benevolent uncle, lecturing this “flourishing Asian democracy” on the steps it should take to guarantee sustainable growth. In doing so, he glossed over the history of his own country and that of development in this region – and the performance of his own government. And although he made mention of British support after last year’s natural disasters, his real interest was, of course, to promote British trade and investment.
Although Hague claimed that his government was in an ideal position to offer such advice due to the fact that it is getting its own economy “back on track,” the fact of the matter is that his Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition is a disaster for the majority of the population. In its attempt to “solve” the economic crisis which began in 2008 on the backs of the people, unemployment is high, wages and conditions have been worsened, and social provision has been reduced.
Last year, use of food banks — centers where the poor can, if certified by a healthcare professional or social services as being in need, obtain free food donated by the public — increased by 60 percent. Between April and December, half a million people received such help. Many had seen their benefits reduced. Some were actually in employment, some on zero-hours contracts. There are now over 400 food banks in Britain.
Back home, Hague and his colleagues represent the interests of British capital, and these were the same interests motivating his Manila speech. “My message today,” he said in what amounted to a veiled threat, “is that … we will of course have a particularly close bond with nations that share our values most closely and those that are ready to take the reforms necessary to advance free and open societies.” And, of course, the “reforms” he refers to are mainly those of the “free-market” variety.
Hague concedes that Asian economies have grown by a variety of means, but insists that there are five universal principles that “underpin sustainable growth and will be crucial for the stability and success of Asian countries…” These are as follows (and you can probably guess what’s coming).
First, the state must be small, allowing “market forces to drive enterprise and finance…” He praises Thatcher’s privatization program, and gives Rolls Royce as an example — a bad one as it happens, because the luxury car-maker failed as a private company and was rescued by, ironically, a former Conservative government, which took it into public ownership; only after it was rehabilitated with public money was it restored to the private sector.
Hague, in fact, has no problem with the state as long as it’s used to support the private sector. Later in his speech, for example, he boasts that the UK is undertaking “the largest program of investment in our railways since the nineteenth century.” Thatcher split Britain’s rail network into separate packages which were then awarded as franchises to the private sector. Another disaster. With sky-rocketing fares, often shoddy services, and significant taxpayer support, there is a rising clamor for the railways to be taken back into public ownership. The same is true of the privatized power sector which, as Herman Tiu Laurel pointed out recently in this newspaper, has seen power-bills rise to scandalous levels.
But never mind the British experience. What about the experience of this region? Did the “tiger economies” develop by slimming down the state? They did not. At the heart of each of their development strategies was an interventionist state that first decided which industries would be built, and then went about creating the conditions necessary for their construction. Telling the Philippines that it should slim down the state is tantamount to advising it not to develop.
Next, says Hague, there should be the rule of law; the judiciary must be reliable. Well, although he’s obviously keen to protect British investments, we should concede that he has a point here. But whose law? Which class of people should the law protect? In the UK, a worker could take a case to an Employment Tribunal, free of charge. Since last year, charges have been introduced, so that for a claim of unfair dismissal the applicant must fork out a claim fee of £250 and a hearing fee of £950 — a total of £1,200 (or almost P90,000 at the current rate of exchange). In whose interest is this law, Mr. Hague?
Last Friday, changes were introduced concerning the legal protection British workers receive when their company is taken over (in, for example, the case of privatization or franchising). Previously, their original wages, conditions and seniority were guaranteed. Now, the new employer can negotiate changes.
Three young men were recently charged under the 1824 Vagrancy Act for “stealing” discarded food they found in a rubbish skip at the rear of a store. Doubtless due to fear of public embarrassment, the prosecution was dropped, but this case is a stark illustration of the depths to which Hague’s government has dragged the UK.
And what of the bedroom tax? If you occupy social housing, your benefits will be reduced if you have an unused bedroom. As a result of this blatantly anti-poor regulation, there has been at least one suicide. And Hague has the effrontery to lecture the Philippines about the law!
Thirdly, Hague pontificates on respect for individual freedoms, saying that it was in an atmosphere of a free and open intellectual and scientific culture that the great British inventions saw the light of day — the steam engine, the jet engine, the light bulb, television and the telephone. But each of these (and there are US counter-claims concerning the telephone and the light bulb) were invented and developed when Britain ruled the largest empire the world has ever known — where individual or national freedoms were either scarce or non-existent, and where the colonies were forbidden from developing their own industries
Then comes a hardy perennial: “The UK,” says Hague in a half-truth, “has long been a champion of free trade…” Maybe, but since when? When Britain was still developing, it opposed free trade and instead imposed a system called “mercantilism” whereby its colonies could only trade with Britain and all goods had to be transported in British ships.
This only changed when Britain became an industrial giant and wished to break into foreign markets — as Hague now wishes to expand in the Philippine market. Again, he turns a blind eye to (or is simply ignorant of) the history of this region, because the “tigers” followed a similar path to Britain’s, employing protectionist measures while their industries were still growing and only embracing free(r) trade when they could withstand competition. For an underdeveloped country like the Philippines, “free trade” will not lead to development.
Finally, there is investment in human capital and infrastructure which, like the rule of law, would be of benefit to this country. But you can bet your bottom dollar (if you have one left after he’s finished with you) that Hague, like all spokesmen for foreign capital, has in mind only the advantages in this for foreign investment: well-educated but poorly paid labor and modern transport systems to facilitate imports and exports.
But there’s more to this than economics. Hague says that the UK’s Asian engagement, which is undergoing a considerable expansion under a 20 year plan, “is as much about security as it is about as trade and prosperity, since these are all inextricably linked.” As he mentions, the UK is a member of the International Contact Group in the Mindanao peace process, and this leads one to wonder just what plans the UK and the USA (presumably with the former in the role of junior partner) have for their involvement in the proposed Bangsamoro entity.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Feb 13, 2014 16:54:00 GMT
Interesting but flawed effort to justify Scottish separatism, 13 Feb 2014
This Will Podmore review is from: Arguing for Independence: Evidence, Risks and the Wicked Issues (Paperback)
In this well-written and lucid book, the late Stephen Maxwell presented six cases for Scottish independence: democratic, economic, social, international, cultural and environmental.
He wrote, “The democratic case for independence rests on two irrefutable claims – that it would guarantee that the government of Scotland was aligned with the preferences of the Scottish voter, and that the reach of Scottish democratic decision-taking was equal to that of other independent countries …”
Irrefutable? No, finance capital would still rule Scotland, despite the preferences of the Scottish voter. And the SNP wants to join the EU, so the wholly unelected European Commission would govern Scotland. Scotland is a far larger part of Britain than it would be of the 17-member euro-zone. Scotland’s GDP is 10 per cent of Britain’s, but would be only 1.9 per cent of the eurozone’s. Its population is 9.1 per cent of Britain’s population, but would be only 1.6 per cent of the eurozone’s. So it would carry far less weight in EU decision-making than it does in Britain.
The second claim is just a tautology – obviously, an independent Scotland would have the same rights as other independent countries.
The democratic deficit is not peculiar to Scotland. Britain as a whole never voted to fritter away North Sea oil, nor did we vote for Private Finance Initiatives, illegal wars, the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, or lower wages. Workers in the rest of Britain didn’t like Thatcher either, or Blair or Cameron. England’s North-East has been ruled by governments for which its people didn’t vote for 40 of the last 70 years, but it is not calling for secession.
On the key economic case, Maxwell acknowledged that the Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland reports from 2004-05 to 2008-09 showed that Scotland was ‘in deficit on its overall fiscal balance’. In the 2008 crash, the liabilities of the two Scottish banks RBS and HBOS were between 20 and 30 times Scotland’s GDP. Britain backed these banks with £470 billion, three times Scotland’s GDP.
Maxwell wrote, “Scotland’s recent over-reliance on banking can reasonably be attributed to a historic UK policy bias in favour of the City of London …” This would only make sense if he had written ‘in favour of finance capital’, but he could not bring himself even to write the words capital or capitalism.
Maxwell wrote, “There remain some individual economic arguments against independence which advocates of independence have not yet answered convincingly. Perhaps the most important relates to the currency of an independent Scotland.” After the SNP’s feeble response to Governor Carney’s speech, it is clear that advocates of independence have still not answered this argument convincingly. The EU’s acquis includes the obligation to join the euro and, as Maxwell observed, “the eurozone fiscal pact would constrain Scotland’s economic freedom more tightly than other currency options …” Breaking away from Britain would embed Scotland more deeply in the EU than it is now in Britain.
One in five Scots is still in poverty, after seven years of SNP government. As Maxwell noted, “Currently there is a wide gulf between Scotland’s default social democracy and the policies needed to make serious inroads on Scotland’s social problems.” His chapter on the social case concludes, “There are grounds to anticipate progress but they fall well short of providing a route map to Nordic levels of equality and welfare.”
On the international case, the author wrote, “Much would depend on whether Scotland would be treated as a successor state to the UK – and so inherit the EU rights and obligations accumulated by the UK – or as an entirely new state with no pre-existing rights and obligations. … there is no clear answer.” There is now.
José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, wrote in December 2012, “The EU is founded on the Treaties which apply only to the Member States who have agreed and ratified them. If part of the territory of a Member State would cease to be a part of that state because it were to become a new independent state, the Treaties would no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the EU and the Treaties would no longer apply on its territory.” So Scotland would not be treated a successor state.
Maxwell remarked, “the [EU’s] limitation on the powers of national governments to control the movement of capital makes it more difficult to defend national ownership of companies or national business champions from takeover by external capital.” No, it would not be more difficult, it would be impossible – within the EU.
He wrote, “if Scotland wanted to rebuild an independent banking sector from the ruins of the 2008 crisis the EU’s freedom for capital movements and rules against distortions of markets arising from preferential tax treatment or other forms of public subsidy would significantly limit the options.” Again, ‘limit’ is too weak a word. EU rules forbid such a rebuilding, as of every industry.
Maxwell commented, “It is more surprising that the Scottish Government, with its commitment to a non-nuclear Scotland, in both civil and military terms, raised no objection to the decision to base all the UK’s nuclear-powered submarines at Faslane.” It even called the decision ‘welcome’. Maxwell indicted this SNP failure to stick to its commitments: “The inconsistency between the Scottish Government’s commitment to phase out civil nuclear power on general environmental grounds and its welcome to a prospective doubling of the total of civil and military nuclear reactors using Scottish seas and land was ignored.”
In regard to the cultural case, he cited the need for Scottish people to take responsibility for the direction of society, which is true of any country, and so of Britain too.
Finally, on the environmental case, he noted that Scotland would need to borrow to create new green industries. Naturally, the investment needed to build new industries requires the power to borrow large sums, which is easier when you are part of a larger economy.
So none of Maxwell’s six cases for independence holds up. Scotland in Britain will be more democratic, better off, less poor, more independent, better endowed with culture and with a better environment, than it would be as just the EU’s 29th dependency.
|
|