Who Makes US Foreign Policy? - Lawrence Wilkerson on Reality Asserts Itself

Couple points to highlight from this interview of Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell):

1. As I always blog that there's no such thing as "democracy" in this world. Many countries, & billions of people either say that "they are living in a democratic country" or "they are fighting for democracy", but everyone of them think "democracy" is merely voting in "free & fair elections". That's not democracy. Democracy is not merely about voting in elections, but it's much more. Democracy is when the voice of the majority of a nation are heard on major internal & external issues; issues which are affecting a country.

But, as this interview proves once again, that the wealthy people of United States, for instance, are controlling the government, & hence, all the major decisions American government makes; regardless of it's domestic or foreign matters. As Larry Wilkerson says, that "the oligarchs ... buy the president and thus buy American foreign policy." He also gives example of this is similar to what happens in Putin's Russia. I completely agree with it. Many Americans will of course disagree with it, but it's the bitter truth. There's no "democracy" in US, since it doesn't matter what the general public needs or wants, it's the rich elites who get what they want.

2. Another point I frequently make in my blogs is that arms sales around the world, ironically, by the permanent members of UN "Security" Council, create more chaos & deaths around the world than brutal dictatorships.

Such international arms manufacturing companies as Lockheed & Raytheon vigorously lobby politicians in US, UK, Canada, France etc. to allow them to sell international arms & weaponry to such countries as Saudi Arabia, China, Israel, Nigeria, UAE, Bahrain etc. Then, these countries have to find any excuse whatsoever to use that stockpile, & hence, wars start. Poor people die in large numbers in neighbouring countries like Palestine, Yemen, Syria etc.

But who benefits from all these arms & weapons transactions? Definitely not Saudi Arabia, UAE, or Nigeria. These countries are importing these arms & hence, they are indebted to their Western counterparts. But companies like Lockheed & Boeing, & of course, those politicians who pushed their countries' foreign policies towards more belligerence & wars, benefit tremendously. As Larry Wilkerson says in regards to the re-emergence of another potential Cold War era between US & Russia that "this group alarms me probably more than any other in the world, and particularly my own country--that is interested in a constant state of war, or as near a constant state as possible, because they sit behind all the belligerents and make money."

So does the majority of American or Russian public want their countries at each other's throats? Or how about the new Asian pivot of America? Does the majority of Americans want US & its Asian allies (Philippines, Japan etc.) banding together against China? I don't think so. But do they have any say in this matter? Of course not. So is this "democracy" when the general public suffers because their tax dollars, which they are paying just so they can get better public infrastructure, education, healthcare etc., are actually being used towards military hardware & a perpetual war against the world?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZW8T4NA3Is

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Larry, you were right at the center of the State Department. Back when you were there, and then sort of extrapolating to today, who runs U.S. foreign policy? 'Cause there's this sort of feeling there's this grand design and, grand machinations and chessboard-playing and all of that. Where are the centers of power for making U.S. foreign policy? 'Cause it seems to me it's not just the president.

COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON, FMR. CHIEF OF STAFF TO COLIN POWELL: I think you're right. And part of what I teach--and I teach post-World War II policy more than anything else, but we have to go back into the past to understand that policy. Part of what I teach is how since World War II and the acquisition of this enormous power by what in essence is the new Rome in the world, the United States, part of the shift that takes place in manipulating and managing that new power is a centralization of foreign policy away from the old cabinet places where it used to take place, most prominently through the Foreign Service and through the secretary of state, to the White House and to the creation of the 1947 National Security Act, the National Security Council. So if you ask me pro forma where does it exist today, it exists more in the National Security Council and its staff than it does anywhere else, certainly anywhere else in the cabinet. So what I'm saying is it's centralized in the White House.

But what does that mean in terms of, I think, your real question, who's behind the White House, and who's therefore behind U.S. foreign policy, more or less? I think the answer today is the oligarchs, which would be the same answer, incidentally, ironically, if you will, for Putin in Russia, the people who own the wealth, the people who therefore have the power and who more or less ... buy the president and thus buy American foreign policy. ...

JAY: There seems to also be centers or circles of power. For example, Lindsey Graham and John McCain seem to represent an alignment of forces. It seems that the fossil fuel industry, military-industrial complex--and certainly not that they are exclusively backing McCain and Graham. They have their hooks into both parties and to--they're kind of a hidden hand throughout much of American politics. But it seems to be a somewhat distinct center. And then Wall Street seems to have even--although it's not monolithic, it's a distinct center of power. What's the actual dynamic? Like, how do they influence National Security Council decisions? How do these processes take place? Where do the discussions take place?

WILKERSON: I think it's probably less fundamental and less precise, and therefore less in the interest, often, of the United States than you might think or that the American people might think. Because of what you've just suggested, that there are many poles in American foreign-policy, from the Congress to even the Supreme Court, to the White House, to the State Department, the Foreign Service, and so forth, it's a very complex mix, and it's rarely ever articulated in a way or manifests itself in a way that good leadership can control it, handle it, and manage it toward a real strategic objective. That's part of our problem in the world today.

But I would submit to you that certain oligarchs, anyway, big food, big pharmacy, big energy, oil, real estate, things like that, they like it this way because then they can flow into the void in the particular region or function or both that they want to control, that they want to manipulate, and do so effectively, whether it's subsidies from the federal government for oil companies or whether it's massive efforts by the government, clandestinely or otherwise, to influence someone like Monsanto being able to operate in Latin America and do the things that it does. So it's incredibly complex, difficult to analyze from a strictly governmental standpoint.

But when you start probing and you start analyzing, you begin to discover that there are centers in this mess, if you will, that are getting what they want. And what they want is basically wealth and power. And they then turn that wealth and power back into political contributions, which now almost have no limits, no constraints on them, and they influence people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham and Bob Menendez and Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank when he was in there and so influential with the banking committee, and they get what they want in terms of legislation that oftentimes I'm convinced the legislatures do not even realize they're doing. They don't understand that they're fulfilling this objective of a particular oligarch or conglomeration of oligarchs. And yet they're doing it, and they're doing it because they are well paid for doing it, in the sense that their PACs are flush and full and they get reelected.

Is John McCain motivated entirely by this? Is Bob Menendez motivated entirely by this? Of course not. They're not intellectual giants, and they don't spend lots of time analyzing this situation in the complex ways that we do. So they think they're actually fulfilling their principles and bending over a little bit to accept the money and the cash necessary to do that. So that's how the system works. That's not even half the explanation, but that's how the system works. And, incidentally, it has worked that way for a very long time, I would say probably since about Andrew Jackson coming into the White House after we'd really established ourselves.

JAY: I think it's a really interesting point, because those of us that sit back doing this geopolitical analysis--and we look at what are the objective interests of the powers and what are the objective interests of the different parts of these powers, and then we kind of think there's people making policy the same way, but they kind of ... what's the crisis that I'm going to deal with today? How am I going to make money out of this tomorrow? It seems to me that with the odd exception of ... the Brzezinskis and these type of people that seem to think in a broader way--most of it seems to be what is in it for me today, the hell with tomorrow, & not so conscious of the forces. I mean, one of the things that always hits me is when you look at the predictions of who would win World War II. Most of what I've seen is by 1940, '41, it was pretty clear Hitler's going to lose. Now, if you're in the German monopoly capitalist class doing analysis, you'll say, well, this is not leading to anything good for us; why aren't we bailing? But the forces of refusing to accept the reality of it were far too strong.

WILKERSON: Well, that's a good point. I would say--and I don't subscribe to conspiracy theory normally, but I would say there were forces behind that shadow, if you will, who were doing quite well, Swiss, German, American, and others who were more or less feeding off the conflict and got very wealthy feeding off the conflict, just as they did off World War I, even more dominantly with respect to the United States in particular, German reparations and so forth. We made a ton of money off of World War I, and we really didn't contribute a whole lot, if you'll remember. We were only really there substantially for a very short period of time, roughly April 1917 to Armistice Day. So there is a group that's interested in this kind of thing--and this group alarms me probably more than any other in the world, and particularly my own country--that is interested in a constant state of war, or as near a constant state as possible, because they sit behind all the belligerents and make money.

JAY: And there seems to be sectors of the economy that profit from volatility, brinksmanship, geopolitically, which leads to massive arms sales. And I've mentioned before on air that I was at this dinner of this organization that does military advice and policymaking to Middle Eastern countries, mostly about arms purchases, and of course who backs the organization's advice is Lockheed Martin and Boeing and, all the military manufacturers. So the brinkmanship sells weapons. And then, of course, Wall Street also does great in volatility, 'cause--especially if you're one step ahead, which the insiders are. But then there's other parts of the economy. ... if you're trying to sell stuff to the American public, massive volatility is not particularly good for you.

WILKERSON: No, it's not. The real economy in this country, though, has shrunken so dramatically since World War II--I show the stats to my students, and I usually use the CIA stats. I can't remember them precisely right now, but I can give you general idea. In 1945, we were about 25% or so services and about 60% or so what was called heavy, medium, or light industry, manufacturing mostly. It's completely the opposite today. It's about 11% to 12% manufacturing, and the latest stat--and this is a precise number from the CIA--76% services. So you don't have the same real economy, if you will, and you don't have the same GDP reflective of that real economy. And that's a very different economy to wage war under than the one we had when we entered World War II, for example. Very different. And you could say in some respects this shadow behind the power that makes money off war, period, no matter who's the belligerent, makes money off that volatility now, especially with computers that are able to assist them in doing so, like currency manipulation, for example, or just general speculation. With computers you can do it at lightning speed and you can do it in a nanosecond, and you can make billions in that nanosecond, and you don't care about what you're doing to the real economy, because you're raking in the dough.

JAY: Has the American elite, including that section which profits on near war and profits on actual war--but in general has there come to a conclusion now that ... if you want a really good Cold War, a really good arms race, then Russia's the right one to do it with?

WILKERSON: That's an interesting speculation. ... I think what's happening is people are beginning--people, these people I'm talking about, who really understand the dynamics in the world--and some of those are in the White House, no question about it. Some of them are people bearing the burden of public policy. No question about it. ... what's happening ... with Ukraine and with Russia, of course, is what you just said: hey, ... we yearn for the solidity and the stability of the Cold War, and my God, Putin's giving it back to us. Let's accept the offer.
...

JAY: ... Is this coming from the Obama administration? Or is it coming from--and this is where I get to who makes U.S. foreign-policy--how many lines of this kind of policy exist that kind of circumvent the White House and the National Security Council?

WILKERSON: I don't think they necessarily circumvent it. I think they are at times in tension within it, but I don't think they necessarily circumvent it, like, for example, Dick Cheney did in the Bush administration. I think what you have is you have people like Samantha Power and Susan Rice who are right-to-protect-people. This is very traditional. This is messianic Christianity manifesting itself in a secular way. This is we have to bear the brown person's burden, we have to go fix these problems in the world. So this is not something new. It's just got a more sophisticated manifestation in 2014.

And it makes a difference. It made a difference in Somalia when Madeleine Albright and Boutros Boutros-Ghali were pushing for state building in Somalia, when any anyone with a brain could have seen impossible task, you're going to fail, and you're going to have to leave ignominiously, which is exactly what Bill Clinton had to do. It manifested itself in the Balkans and in Kosovo. Two days of bombing and Milosević will cave. 78 days later and the threat of ground forces and Milosević finally caves.

So there's that strain, a messianic strain that's always been there.

Then there is a strain of real power, realpolitik. And that's people who are actually trying to achieve American interests, whatever they may be, and the way they think they should be achieved. I would put President Obama in that category.

And then you've got people who are closet neoconservatives, who really do feel that America has to assert itself periodically at a minimum in order to teach the rest of the world that it can't climb the hill on which America is the king.

JAY: But Ukraine is setting up we have to teach Putin a lesson, except you helped create the conditions where you have to teach Putin a lesson ... and more or less play into Putin's hands.

WILKERSON: Well, this is a chess game, to a certain extent, played on multiple levels simultaneously. And when you have a person like Putin with the capabilities that Putin has--I would suggest to you that the KGB and the GRU or NKVD, whenever you want to talk about, were probably the best intelligence people in the world for a long time. When you've got those kind of capabilities, you can do things, and particularly when you're operating on interior lines.

I'll take you into a military jargon here. Interior lines means I've got a border with you and I can move my tank 15 feet and kill you. But I am the person going to contest that tank, and I'm 10,000 miles away, and I've got to fly my tanks into your country before I can even take you on. The advantage of operating on those interior lines is really, really huge. It'd be like us doing something in Mexico and Russia trying to object or us doing something in Cuba and Russia trying to object. It's really difficult. You can do it, but it's really difficult.

So there are a lot of things operating with respect to Crimea, Ukraine, Odessa, and so forth, Georgia, right now that play into what some of these people, like ... John McCain, Lindsey Graham, would love to see happen, and that is the development of a new Cold War, a new Cold War with old antagonists.
...

WILKERSON: ... When Jim Baker and George H. W. Bush really accomplished what I think was one of the real diplomatic feats of the end of the 20th century, the reunification of Germany, whether we agree with that or not, they did it, and they did it without a shot being fired. It was wonderful to watch H. W. Bush do that, and Jim Baker. But one of the reasons they could do it was because they assured Gorbachev, and later Yeltsin, that NATO would be quiescent, it wouldn't move, it wouldn't threaten Russia. In fact, I was there when we told the Russians that we were going to make them a member -- observer first and then a member and so forth.

Well, that fell apart on the fact that they perceived right quickly that we weren't really serious. And then we start, under pressure from Lockheed Martin and Raytheon and others, to sell weapons to Poland and weapons to Georgia and weapons to Romania and everybody else we could bring into the fold. Under those pressures and others, we started to expand NATO and stuck both our fingers in the Russian eye, so to speak, immediately. It's clear to me why Putin responded in Georgia and why he's now responding to Crimea in Ukraine. This is what great powers do when they get concerned about their so-called near abroad.
...

Ivy League Study: The General Public Has Virtually No Influence on Policy

This news bite isn't so surprising or at least should not be surprising, if you don't live under a rock & actually think a little bit how the world actually works in real life.

As I have blogged several times in the past & as this news bite confirms it that democracy doesn't exist anywhere in the world, except, maybe, in very small countries with quite a bit of homogenous population in terms of race, ethnicity, & religious beliefs.

So, as this study concludes that public policy is heavily, or rather, completely, influenced by wealthy elites & the special interest / lobbying groups. The common man, or a woman, doesn't have any power in influencing public policies, even the ones directly & adversely affecting him / her.

Now, I know that correlation doesn't imply causation but you do have to wonder how come most, if not all, policies coming out of the government end up favouring the wealthy much more than the poor public. Be it the taxation debate or jobs discussion, or the minimum wage or homelessness, or any number of social & public problems, the rich & wealthy always win out, while the poor left holding the empty bag.

Democracy in the world, especially in the West, only exists superficially. The mass public thinks that since they are voting, their voice matters. Nope it doesn't. Take Canada, for instance. Majority of public is against Syrian refugees making Canada their new home or Canada supplying $15 billions of armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia. But did the government listen to the public to actually not welcome Syrian refugees, especially when government is cutting funding to help reduce urban homelessness or rising unemployment through financial injections in the economy. Please keep in mind here that we are not discussing the morality of these issues. That's a whole different discussion in itself.

We can also take US public opinion when George Bush's approval ratings before winning his second term was the lowest of any American president before him but he still won a second term. Or how a majority of German public is against Merkel's insistence on keep welcoming more & more refugees & migrants? Once again, not discussing morality of such issues as refugee crisis. Or Japan where a majority of public was against Abe's decision to turn the country towards more militarism than pacifism. Or is it really democratic of all those dozens of nations involved in TTP (TransPacific Trade Partnership) without any input, whatsoever, from the general public, who will be taking the brunt of all the adverse effects of this trade partnership, while the rich elites make a fine buck out of this trade partnership?

Remember, democracy is not about voting in general elections, but actually about having an actual influence in how the country is run.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5So9ZFO5DeY

ANTON WORONCZUK, TRNN PRODUCER: A new study titled Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, & Average Citizens (PDF) says what we've all long felt to be true: the rich & powerful have much greater influence than the rest of us. Political scientist Martin Gilens of Princeton University & Benjamin Page of Northwestern looked at about 1,800 survey questions of public opinion between 1981 & 2002, & they concluded "economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

So, Benjamin, tell us how you came to this conclusion. Tell us about the data that you looked at. And give us some concrete statistics to show that democracy gap between the public & the economic elites.

BENJAMIN PAGE, FULCHER PROF. OF DECISION MAKING, NORTHWESTERN UNIV.: Well, Marty Gilens & his people worked for about 10 years to do this. It's a very difficult study. ... . It involved gathering a lot of information about public opinion, about what affluent people think, & about what interest groups stand for. And we then looked at how public policy came out on these 1,800 cases. And it turns out, if you wanted to predict it, the average citizen simply appeared to have no influence whatsoever, no measurable influence, but organized groups had quite a bit, & affluent citizens even more.

WORONCZUK: So you looked at about two decades' worth of surveys of public opinion. Do you see a change in influence of economic elites over that time? Or is it relatively constant? And also, do you see a change in the kinds of elites that have influence over policy?

PAGE: Well, there appears to be some change over time. As economic inequality has increased & there's more money among the most wealthy people, they seem to use more of it for politics & have more influence. And, of course, the study data ended some time ago. This was before the Supreme Court decisions that increased the power of money still far further.

WORONCZUK: And so what kind of issues do we see the wealthy having a greater influence over? What kind of policy choices do they seek that differs from that of the desires of the public?

PAGE: Well, there are certain kinds of issues on which wealthy Americans tend to disagree quite a bit with the average. One of the biggest is Social Security, where the average American really likes the program, wants to increase it, & wealthy Americans tend to want to cut it to reduce budget deficits. Then there are a lot of policies that have to do with jobs & incomes where you get the same kind of situation--the wealthy people, of course, don't particularly get anything from those, & I think they may underappreciate their importance to average people. There are also disagreements about economic regulation. The average American's much more keen on regulating big corporations, for example. And there are difference about tax policy. The average American would like to close loopholes & have high-income people pay a substantially larger share, whereas upper income people are less enthusiastic about that.

WORONCZUK: Do you see any policy desires of the public or the economic elite that tend to converge?

PAGE: Yes. There are many of them, and particularly in this study. ... in many cases, the average person agrees & they get what they want, but apparently it's only because the affluent want it.

What we suspect but don't really have evidence for is that much wealthier people may be exerting most of that political influence. And they tend to have much more different policy preferences from the average person.

WORONCZUK: Okay. So judging this democracy gap that exists between the public & the economic elite, let's say that Obama called you tomorrow & put you on economic reform task force. What recommendations would you make to him?

PAGE: ... what I would suggest is that we really work hard to reduce the role of money in politics. The Supreme Court's made it a little harder, but there's still things you can do--full disclosure of all kinds of political donations, for example; limiting lobbying; & probably public financing of campaigns. Most people don't want to give a bunch of tax money to politicians, but the alternative is to have them rely on private money, & public funding would probably help quite a bit reduce that reliance.

Fossil fuel firms are still bankrolling climate denial lobby groups

As I always say that corruption in western developed countries happens "under the table" & in eastern developing countries, "over the table." The perception around the world is that western developed countries are fair & free of corruption.

Ironically, these developed countries are the cause of all problems in the world; be it the climate change, terrorism, smuggling (guns, drug, human), financial & economic (recession, money laundering, world wide interest rate fixing scandal etc.), human rights abuses (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, CIA black prisons around the world, UN soldiers exploiting local civilians for sexual purposes etc.) etc.

This piece talks about how international fossil fuel companies; BP, Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil publicly say that they are working towards sustainability & mitigating the adverse effects on the environment of their business, but secretly, payoff climate-deniers to create doubts in people's minds about climate change. Shell has just been permitted to exploit one of the last areas of the world not been spoiled by oil exploration activities, yet; the Arctic. Say goodbye to the pristine beauty of Arctic. Soon Antarctica will be in their crosshairs.

If you think I am wrong to say developed countries are the cause of most world-wide problems, then you should read my posts in my blog from Jan 2015 onwards, & you'll see how am I asserting that, or you can keep reading from now onwards, & you may learn something valuable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/25/fossil-fuel-firms-are-still-bankrolling-climate-denial-lobby-groups

The oil giant BP has announced that they will no longer fund the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), a lobbying group that routinely misrepresents climate science to US state legislators. It is the latest sign that some of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies appear to be warming to the overwhelming evidence that the unabated use of their products poses severe risks of disrupting the climate.

Last month, BP & Royal Dutch Shell announced their support for shareholder resolutions calling on them to commit to reduce heat-trapping emissions, invest in renewable energy, & show how their current business model would hold up against the strict limits on future emissions needed to limit the risk of major climate disruption.

Shell chief executive Ben van Buerden recently stated that “climate change is real & a threat we want to act upon. We are not aligning with sceptics.”

Even ExxonMobil, which spent $16m (£11m) between 1998 & 2005 to fund groups that spread disinformation about climate science, now prominently acknowledges on their website that “rising greenhouse gas emissions pose significant risks to society & ecosystems.”

But appearances can be deceiving.

For one, BP still channels funds through its political action committee to climate science-denying US policymakers such as senator James Inhofe, chair of the senate’s environment & public works committee. While such direct contributions to politicians are a matter of public record, companies continue to sow climate doubt & influence climate policy in ways that are far more opaque.

For instance, recently released documents show that ExxonMobil gave more than $75,000 between 2008 & 2010 to secretly support the work of Willie Soon, a contrarian climate researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, well after the company announced it would halt such funding. Soon’s research has sought to downplay the human influence on global warming.

This follows revelations that Southern Company, one of the largest utilities in the US, spent $400,000 between 2006 & 2015 to fund Soon, supporting his research, Congressional testimony, & other “deliverables” while specifying that its funding be disclosed only with express company permission.

Robert Gehri, the Southern Company employee who authorised this funding was one of a dozen industry representatives who, on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute, created a $6m campaign in 1998 that misled the public about climate science. Among other strategies, he oversaw the covert funding of “independent” scientists.

Some of the largest fossil fuel companies now publicly accepting mainstream climate science, continue to support climate denial through influential lobbying groups & trade associations. Shell, Chevron, & ExxonMobil still fund Alec, which misleadingly describes climate change as “a historical phenomenon for which debate will continue over the significance of natural & [human-caused] contributions.”

With their support, Alec promotes “model legislation” to repeal state renewable energy standards & roll back other climate & energy policies.

Shell, BP, Chevron, & ExxonMobil are also members & funders of the API & the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA). Late last year, a leaked presentation from WSPA revealed a stealth campaign to block climate policies in California by backing a constellation of astroturf groups with names such as the “California Drivers Alliance” & “Californians Against Higher Taxes”.

Exactly how much fossil fuel companies have spent to support disinformation remains shrouded in secrecy, in part because they are not required to report their political & public relations spending. Robert Brulle, a social scientist at Drexel University, estimates that hundreds of millions of dollars have flowed from corporations, ideological foundations, & groups that oppose climate policy & often sow doubt about mainstream climate science.

Such spending is big money in politics, but it pales in comparison to the staggering costs of climate change. New York City alone estimates it will cost nearly $20bn over a decade to protect its citizens against rising seas & more extreme weather. The bipartisan Risky Business Project estimates that over the next 15 years, sea-level rise & storm surge are expected to increase damage from East & Gulf Coast storms by $2bn to $3.5bn. They also conclude that more extreme heat could cause corn, wheat, soy & cotton yields to decline 10% or more in some southern & midwestern counties.

Who will pay these & other costs of preparing for now inevitable changes? Right now, by default, this responsibility falls largely to taxpayers.

But shouldn’t fossil fuel companies bear some responsibility to pay for the harms resulting from their products?

Tobacco companies were found liable for damage from cigarettes. Those companies also deceived the public about the realities of scientific research on smoking. In fact, they funded some of the same scientists & groups fossil fuel companies have relied on to spread misinformation. The tobacco companies were held accountable, in part, because they colluded to deceive the public & policymakers about the risks their products caused.

Similarly, after scientific evidence on the cancer-causing risks of asbestos was established, producers of asbestos & manufacturers of products containing it were also held liable for damages.

The magnitude of the fossil energy industry’s contribution to the climate problem is enormous. Researchers have found that just 90 entities – including the world’s largest investor-owned fossil fuel companies such as Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, & Shell – are responsible for extracting the coal, oil, & gas that have produced about two-thirds of all industrial carbon pollution. For decades, these same companies have sought to obscure the risks of using their products, & sought to deny & delay regulation – increasing the risks society faces from a changing climate.

It is not too late for fossil fuel companies to take responsible action. Shell & BP’s support for shareholder resolutions calling on them to invest in low-carbon energy is a first step. But investors – & society at large – should expect far more.

We should expect fossil fuel companies to stop supporting climate disinformation & distance themselves publicly from trade associations & lobbying groups that do. We should expect them to make their political spending transparent. And we should expect them to pay a fair share of the costs of limiting the damages from climate change, which a more expedited transition to low carbon economy could have – & should have – avoided.

Peter C Frumhoff is the director of science & policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists & a former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author. Naomi Oreskes is a professor of the history of science at Harvard University & the author with Erik M Conway of Merchants of Doubt, which is the subject of a new documentary, & The Collapse of Western Civilisation. 

Israel lobby's attack on academic freedom

As an update on this opinion piece (which is a good one), the said conference in the piece was cancelled by its organizers. It was supposed to be held on April 17-19, 2015.

In the end, academic freedom lost the battle.

It's funny that no individuals & the Western media make any sound using statements like "freedom of speech" when these kinds of attacks are done by Jewish lobbies to silence the academics, but if you even try to talk to people what's the point of disrespecting a religion by drawing its sacred individuals ... whoa ... "Muslims are against freedom of speech".

But, hey, the West is oh so fair & balanced !!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/03/israel-lobby-attack-academic-freedom-150322061358503.html

For years, Israel lobby groups have slammed the Palestinians' call for a boycott of Israeli universities as an attack on "academic freedom". Now the mask has well & truly slipped.
 
Next month, the University of Southampton in the UK will hold a conference on Israel & international law to bring together "scholars from law, politics, philosophy, theology, anthropology, cultural studies history & other connected disciplines".
 
However, in an unashamed attack on free speech, the university has come under increasing pressure to cancel the gathering.
 
Late last year, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council, & the Union of Jewish Students wrote to the head of Southampton's Law School, claiming that the conference would "surpass the acceptable".
 
In February, the organisations met with umbrella group Universities UK, where they complained that "freedom of speech" was preventing universities from "considering valid representations on behalf of the Jewish community". Strangely, British ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould was also present.
 
In recent weeks, a steady stream of attacks on the University of Southampton has even included the suggestion that the conference would make the university "complicit in furthering the rising & harrowing tide of anti-Semitism in Europe".
 
For their part, the university has emphasised its legal obligations to protect free speech. A spokesperson said that the university "is committed to academic freedom, free speech & opportunities for staff & students to engage with a wide range of opinions & perspectives".
 
Meanwhile, hundreds of academics have signed a statement in support of academic freedom. Professors from Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, MIT, the University of California & more, have condemned "partisan attempts" being made to "silence dissenting analyses of the topic in question".
 
The whole episode is instructive about the way in which Israel advocacy groups seek to hypocritically & disingenuously shut down critical discussion.
 
First, opponents of an academic boycott of Israel present themselves as defenders of "academic freedom" - even though Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) is a campaign based on the institutional complicity of Israeli universities in occupation & war crimes.
 
Yet the same Israel lobbyists who incorrectly say BDS is an attack on academic freedom now want to shut down a conference simply because they don't like the ideas that will be discussed. Indeed, in a strikingly McCarthyite gesture, one anti-BDS umbrella group went through 56 conference speakers & labelled 45 of them "anti-Israel".
 
Second, the initial strategy - first in private, then in public - was to insinuate that the conference would somehow harm "community relations", a transparent attempt to tap into fears about "extremism" & antisemitism.
 
University officials were told by those seeking to censor that the conference was causing "great concern & distress" & would have "damaging consequences for student welfare & community relations on campus". Jewish Leadership Council chief executive Simon Johnson claimed that the conference would "have a detrimental impact on cohesiveness".
 
This kind of discourse is a growing trend. The Board of Deputies, for example, has cited "community cohesion" when opposing local councils who fly Palestinian flags in a gesture of support for an occupied people.
 
Third, the meaning of free speech is revised so as to mean a discussion that won't disturb Israel's die-hard defenders. Board of Deputies' vice-president Jonathan Arkush demanded that unless the university "re-structured" the conference, it "should be cancelled". This wasn't censorship, he said, "merely" asking for "a balanced debate".
 
The Board's "insistence" on so-called even-handedness is ironic, given that the organisation's outgoing treasurer has spoken of his inability to criticise Israel while in office. According to Laurence Brass, those who speak out "are subjected to very harsh & sometimes quite abusive personal criticism". Indeed, Arkush himself requested that Brass keep quiet.
 
The double standards are beyond parody. The Henry Jackson Society's Douglas Murray declared that the conference is not protected by free speech because it is "one-sided" - just days after penning an article that claimed "Britain is a country which now has trouble with free speech".
 
MP Caroline Nokes, meanwhile, described "academic freedom" as "sacrosanct" before, with a lack of self-awareness, immediately qualifying the inviolable principle in the case of this "apparently one-sided" conference.
 
"This isn't about academic freedom," said the Zionist Federation in their petition. They protest too much. But it is not only a matter of standing firm against an attack on academic freedom masquerading as concern about "bias" or "community relations".
 
It is also about the bigger picture, a continuation of efforts to silence critical debate & points of view, especially the Palestinian perspective, at a time when the voice of the expelled & occupied is being heard louder than ever. Efforts to censor are not a sign of strength, but of weakness.

Climate-sceptic US senator given funds by BP PAC

I know it's no secret that climate-skeptic senators, congressmen, & ministers are financially supported by oil & gas companies, but what I am trying to show with this article is that this is the level of honesty, in the government leaders, in the so-called democratic Western hemisphere. The general public doesn't know how many millions are spent from top federal to municipal levels by lobbyists to change viewpoints & get their points across. I consider lobby money as "bribe". Whoever can give the biggest bribe gets the biggest piece of action.

How can these leaders, & esp. this senator, who is the environmental committee, while being a climate-skeptic & getting paid by BP (British Petroleum), do anything useful, climate-wise, for the public?

On top of that, BP is also trying to show to the public that they are working tirelessly towards alternative energy & a green planet. Corruption & lies at the government & business levels. Where is Transparency International now?

Shouldn't this be happening in the authoritarian & corrupt regimes in the Eastern hemisphere of the world? That's why, I always say that democracy in the West is only on its face; inside, it's no different from any authoritarian & corrupt regime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/22/climate-sceptic-us-politician-jim-inhofe-bp-political-action-committee

One of America’s most powerful & outspoken opponents of climate change regulation received election campaign contributions that can be traced back to senior BP staff, including chief executive Bob Dudley.

Jim Inhofe, a Republican senator from Oklahoma who has tirelessly campaigned against calls for a carbon tax & challenges the overwhelming consensus on climate change, received $10,000 (£6,700) from BP’s Political Action Committee (PAC).

Following his re-election, Inhofe became chair of the Senate’s environment & public works committee in January, & then a month later featured in news bulletins throwing a snowball across the Senate floor.

Before tossing it, the senator said: “In case we have forgotten – because we keep hearing that 2014 is the warmest year on record – it is very, very cold outside. Very unseasonal.”

The BP PAC is funded by contributions from senior US executives & company staffers who sent in contributions to the PAC totalling more than $1m between 2010 & 2014. Over the same period the committee paid out $655,000 to candidates, with more than 40 incumbent senators benefiting.

Yet, BP & Dudley have long called for world leaders to intervene & impose tough regulatory measures on the fossil fuel industry. Publishing its 98-page research paper, Energy Outlook 2035, last month, BP warned: “To abate carbon emissions further will require additional significant steps by policymakers beyond the steps already assumed.”

Dudley has personally given $19,000 since June 2011 to the BP PAC – very close to the $5,000-a-year maximum allowable by law. Although Dudley is resident in Britain, he is eligible to give via the BP PAC because he is a US national.

While the sums channelled to Inhofe’s campaign represent only a small proportion of the BP PAC’s election spending & the senator’s own campaign funds, they show how unafraid the committee has been to spread its donations to the most controversial candidates. According to the BP PAC website, it financially supports election candidates “whose views and/or voting records reflect the interests of BP employees”.

Records suggest Inhofe’s 2014 campaign was a funding priority for the BP PAC, ranking as one of the top recipients of committee funds when compared with disbursements to other serving senators.

This was despite Inhofe’s senate battle not being a close one. His opponent, Matt Silverstein, who Inhofe beat comfortably in last November’s midterms, had a tiny campaign war chest by comparison.

BP was asked whether it was appropriate for the PAC to make campaign contributions to such a vocal opponent of action on climate change, or for Dudley to be contributing towards such payments.

In a statement BP replied: “Voluntary donations [by staff] to the BP employees’ political action committee in the US are used to support a variety of candidates across the political spectrum & in many US geographies where we operate.

“These candidates have one thing in common: they are important advocates for the energy industry in the broadest sense.”

It added: “BP’s position on climate change is well known & is long-established. We believe that climate change is an important long-term issue that justifies global action.”

PACs exist in the US where companies & trade unions cannot give directly to the campaigns of those running for office. Instead funds are pooled from staff – often senior executives – into a PAC, & disbursed by a committee board, often in a manner sympathetic to the company’s lobby & other interests.

Other US oil industry leaders, including Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson, make contributions to their own corporate PACs – money which in many cases can then be traced to Inhofe & other climate-sceptic politicians.

But Tillerson & other peers have not been as outspoken as BP & Dudley in calling for state intervention to tackle climate change, making the BP boss’s links to Inhofe campaign finance more controversial.

Last week Obama said it was “disturbing” that Inhofe had been made chair of the senate environment committee. In broader criticism of unnamed political opponents, he then went on to say: “In some cases you have elected officials who are shills for the oil companies or the fossil fuel industry. And there is a lot of money involved.”

Inhofe is unabashed about election campaign financing he receives from the industry. In his 2012 book, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, he wrote: “Whenever the media asked me how much I have received in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry, my unapologetic answer was ‘not enough’.”

According to data compiled from public filings by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), Inhofe’s campaign raised $4.84m between 2009 & 2014, with $1.77m coming from PACs, many of them sponsored by fossil fuel companies.

BP’s PAC was more active in the US 2014 election cycle than any other for more than a decade. Despite insisting it is non-partisan, 69% of contributions to federal election candidates in recent years have been to Republican politicians. This is a stronger bias than most other corporate PACs, according to the CRP.

There are, however, other leading recipients who have attracted criticism from climate change campaigners, including Republican House speaker John Boehner & fellow Republican, Sen Mike Enzi from Wyoming.

When asked his views on climate change in January, Boehner said: “We’ve had changes in our climate, although scientists debate the sources, in their opinion, of that change. But I think the real question is that every proposal out of this administration with regard to climate change means killing American jobs.”

“I don’t see [Obama] as trying to control pollution. I see him trying to put business out of business,” Enzi said last year.

Campaign contributions is just one aspect of US political engagement linked to BP & its staff. Filings show the oil & gas group spends millions on lobbying efforts.

The CRP classifies BP as a “heavy hitter”, ranking it among the top 140 biggest overall donors to federal elections since 1988. Its PAC ranks as the six largest such body with a sponsor company that is ultimately part of a non-US multinational.