Latin American woes stem from globalization

By Ding Gang Source: Global Times Published: 2019/11/20 

Contrary to popular belief, it is not doctrines that are dominating Latin American politics, but globalization. If we still use neoliberalism or any other concept invented by Western scholars to explain what Latin America is passing through, our understanding of the continent may not be right. We can only understand the problems of Latin American countries by observing them in an already globalized world, especially comparing them with Asian countries.

The fact is simple to understand: Globalization has increased the flow of goods and formed a complete industrial chain. A country will gradually retreat to the bottom of the global industrial chain if the length of its railways begins to decrease, factories start to close, consumer goods start to depend on imports, manufacturing jobs are reduced and no one in the country is willing or able to become blue-collar workers. The country will become more vulnerable as it has to export raw materials to sustain its economy. Thus, it will be the first to become a victim of the global recession.

According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, China, Japan, South Korea, India, plus some Southeast Asian economies account for over 50 percent of total global manufacturing output. 

However, of all Latin American countries, only Mexico and Brazil has relatively stronger manufacturing industries. But they respectively account for only 2 percent and 1 percent of global manufacturing output.

According to the World Bank, Argentina's manufacturing (value-added) as a percentage of GDP fell from more than 40 percent in 1965 to less than 13 percent in 2018. Another turbulent country, Chile, fell from nearly 30 percent in the mid-1970s to 11 percent in 2018. The entire Latin American manufacturing industry is still shrinking.

When we lived in a period in which countries and regions were relatively independent, Brazil, Argentina, and Chile were leading producers in the region, and could hence win more export orders. 

But as globalization accelerates, the competitiveness of Europe and the US continues to increase on the high-end, and the rise of East Asian countries on the middle and low ends also have a strong impact. With expanding globalization, as global industries are forged into a complete industrial chain, Brazil, Argentina and Chile will be replaced.

Globalization to date is more about alternatives. With capital, cheaper alternatives can always be found. The fierce inter-state competition results in winners replacing losers, who find it hard to get back to their position from where they have been derailed. So far, there have been no successful cases of deindustrialization followed by reindustrialization. US President Donald Trump is trying to achieve it, with grim prospects.

Reliance on exporting industrial and consumer goods and equipment has led to a profound change in the economic structure of Latin American countries. 

Mass labor forces have entered low-end businesses, and the possibility to transform into high-end manufacturing has declined. Latin American left-wing forces were prosperous when the Asian manufacturing industry represented by China boomed.

The Left is known to offer more benefits to low-income people. Of course, this is not a question of what kind of doctrines, or whether left-wing or right-wing, should govern. Increasing social investment has been a common policy in Latin American countries since 2010. However, due to globalization, Latin American countries can access better and cheaper industrial and consumer products compared to those produced at home, which leads these nations to depend more on exporting energy and primary products in exchange of economic growth, and maintaining their European-style welfare system.

Amid the backdrop of a global economic downturn, especially Asian economic slowdown, they would be hit hard. A generous welfare system cannot sustain without the support of manufacturing. Rising unemployment could lead to social unrest - which is ravaging many Latin American countries that are now in the throes of. 

It is difficult for an economy without factories to be sustainable. For developing countries, deindustrialization is also a source of instability. This has been a problem of unbalanced development brought about by globalization.

The author is a senior editor with People's Daily, and currently a senior fellow with the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China. dinggang@globaltimes.com.cn. Follow him on Twitter @dinggangchina

Trump's gifts to Israel: Jerusalem, the Golan and now the settlements

Since coming into office, the US Trump administration has promoted Israeli interests at the expense of the Palestinians

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/trumps-gifts-israels-netanyahu-jerusalem-west-bank-settlements-and-golan-heights

The Trump administration's bombshell an announcement that it no longer considers Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank illegal under international law has sent shockwaves through the region.

But it's only the latest in a long line of unilateral gifts offered by Donald Trump to Israel since the president took up residence in the White House in January 2017.

Middle East Eye takes a look at how Trump has promoted Israeli interests at the expense of the Palestinians:

Pro-Israel aides: Friedman, Kushner, and Greenblatt

From the first moment, Trump stepped in the Oval Office he appointed a raft of aides with close ties to Israel and the settlement movement.

Two of the first, and most prominent, tasked with dealing with the Israel-Palestine conflict were Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, and Jason Greenblatt, his personal lawyer.

Kushner and Greenblatt have been heavily involved in the so-called "deal of the century" peace plan, however there loyalties are heavily weighted in Israel's favor.

Kushner's family are close friends of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and donated money to settlement organizations.

In June he said that Palestinians are not yet capable of governing themselves, though conceded: "I do think they should have self-determination."

When his Bahrain economic summit fell flat as Palestinians boycotted it over the United States' bias towards Israel, Kushner described Palestinian Authority officials as “hysterical and stupid".

As Middle East envoy, Greenblatt, meanwhile, has consistently defended Israeli actions against Palestinians.

When it was announced in September he was leaving his post, Trump tweeted that "his dedication to Israel and to seeking peace between Israel and the Palestinians won't be forgotten. He will be missed”.

Meanwhile David Friedman, US ambassador to Israel, has been the Israelis' chief cheerleader since taking office in May 2017, telling the New York Times that “under certain circumstances, I think Israel has the right to retain some, but unlikely all, of the West Bank".

In July, Friedman and Greenblatt opened a highly controversial tunnel under the Palestinian neighborhood of Silwan in occupied East Jerusalem.

The US ambassador was seen taking a hammer to a wall in the ancient archeological site with particular zeal, in an event organized by the settler group ELAD.

Recognising Jerusalem as Israel's capital

In a clear sign that Washington was prepared to upend years of convention and consensus in Israel's favor, Trump announced in December 2018 that the United States recognized Jerusalem as the Israeli capital.

East Jerusalem has been occupied since 1967 Middle East war and the Palestinians seek it as their capital of any future state.

The international community has maintained that Jerusalem's status must be agreed upon in a settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians, and in response to Trump's move 128 states condemned the decision in a UN General Assembly vote.

On 14 May 2018 - the 70th anniversary of Israel's founding - the US officially moved its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Demonstrations erupted in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, with Israeli forces killing at least 57 Palestinians as Kushner and his wife Ivanka Trump grinned at the embassy's opening.

Cutting funds for UNRWA

In early 2019, the US cut all funding to the UN agency that supports Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, saying its business model and fiscal practices were of an "irredeemably flawed operation".

UNRWA provides services to about five million Palestinian refugees, with the US a significant donor since the agency's founding following the 1948 creation of Israel.

In 2018, Washington gave UNRWA $125m in aid and the agency has scrambled to make up for the sudden shortage.

More than 700,000 Palestinians were forced from their land in the events leading to the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948.

Surviving refugees and their descendants still live in camps in neighboring Arab countries, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, many in poverty.

The Golan Heights

In another unilateral decision, Trump in March announced that the US recognized Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights.

The Golan was captured from Syria in 1967 and is both highly strategic and resource-rich. The majority of its inhabitants are Syrian Druze, who largely refuse to engage with Israeli rule.

Some 20,000 illegal Israeli settlers also live on the plateau.

Trump's decree was a gift to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ahead of the April elections, and was signed in his presence alongside Friedman, Greenblatt, and Kushner.

Returning the favor, Netanyahu announced that Israel was renaming an illegal settlement in the Golan as Trump Hill.

"All Israelis were deeply moved when President Trump made his historic decision," Netanyahu said in a video statement.

DOS CARAS DE UN GOBIERNO

Ha trascendido que López Obrador (AMLO) intervino en el conflicto interno de Morena, para obligar a las partes que se disputaban la presidencia del partido, a realizar una reunión del Consejo Nacional el próximo 30 de noviembre en donde se definirá que la presidenta actual Yeidckol Polevnsky, cuyo mandato interino termina mañana 20 de noviembre, permanezca en el cargo hasta seis meses más; así como la presidenta del Consejo Nacional, Bertha Luján, y el de la Comisión de Honestidad y Justicia, Héctor Díaz Polanco.

De la misma manera, la dirigencia de Morena está solicitando al INE y al tribunal electoral, una extensión del plazo de 90 días para limpiar y corregir su padrón electoral, y elegir a su nueva dirigencia nacional y a las estatales.

Se supone que dentro de 6 meses, cuando expire la extensión del mandato de las actuales autoridades partidistas, se celebrará un Congreso Nacional en donde se incluirá en los estatutos la figura de la “encuesta” para elegir a los dirigentes del partido, haciendo caso así a la “sugerencia” del presidente López Obrador.

¿Qué significa todo esto? Es un triunfo arrollador de los grupos de interés, de los conciliábulos cercanos al presidente de la República y de aquellos que quieren matar por completo la vena izquierdista y más vinculada del partido a sus bases en territorio.

En suma, los arribistas identificados con el PRD, el PRI, el PAN, el PVEM y el PES, se harán ahora con la estructura formal de Morena, purgarán (a través del padrón y mediante “encuestas”), a las bases y a los dirigentes que dieron origen a este movimiento social y político de izquierda, y lo llenarán de organizaciones clientelares, al estilo de las que proliferaron en los gobiernos priístas y perredistas.

Polevnsky, Mario Delgado y Alejandro Rojas Díaz Durán han derrotado así a Bertha Luján en la lucha por la esencia misma del partido, y ahora lo convertirán en un cascarón al servicio de los intereses políticos y económicos de siempre; de los representantes del statu quo ante.

Y lo peor de todo es que AMLO se convirtió en el enterrador de su propia creación, es decir de Morena. Ya no le interesa más que como aparato electoral y no como defensa de un proyecto de transformación; como matriz de nuevos políticos y funcionarios públicos para gobiernos progresistas; ni como impulsor de una conciencia social y política entre las masas del país, para transformarlo de fondo.

La realidad es que AMLO tiene pavor a los cambios profundos, reales de las estructuras políticas, económicas y sociales del país. Quiere reformas que quiten algo de poder a los grupos oligárquicos y a ciertos grupos políticos a nivel regional; pero en su perspectiva, la forma en que mantenía la “paz social” y el crecimiento económico el viejo PRI de los años cincuenta del siglo pasado (no por nada, uno de sus ídolos es Adolfo Ruiz Cortines), es el modelo que debe seguir su gobierno. Y, por lo tanto, el partido en el poder no debe tener vida propia, sino ser sólo un apéndice del Poder Ejecutivo Federal.

Por ello, AMLO ha decidido abandonar a las bases militantes y a los dirigentes más comprometidos con los cambios de fondo, y ha optado por los “moderados”, los “negociadores”, los que le van a aplaudir cualquier decisión, correcta o errónea que tome; aquéllos que no van a espantar al grupo de oligarcas con los que ha hecho alianza (ni a la potencia hegemónica a la que tanto teme).

Esta es la cara derechista de AMLO, que se ha reafirmado estos días con su acercamiento con el hombre más rico de México, Carlos Slim; con el próximo anuncio del programa de obras que serán construidas por un selecto grupo de hombres de negocios, y con su sumisión ante Estados Unidos, aceptando que hasta 40 miembros del FBI se hagan cargo de la investigación del asesinato de los niños y mujeres pertenecientes a la familia-secta Lebarón (eso de que van a “acompañar” la investigación de la Fiscalía General, no se lo cree nadie; y eso de que van a estar “desarmados” tampoco, ya que en la Ley Federal de Armas de Fuego y Explosivos se permite a los agentes de seguridad de gobiernos extranjeros, portar sus armas de cargo en el territorio nacional).

La cara izquierdista de AMLO se ha reflejado en una parte de la política exterior, al incomodar a Washington en el ámbito de la política latinoamericana, negándose a desconocer al gobierno de Nicolás Maduro en Venezuela; acercándose al recientemente electo presidente de corte progresista de Argentina, Alberto Fernández; y, sobre todo, dando asilo y poniéndose manifiestamente de lado del depuesto presidente Evo Morales, después del golpe de Estado que se verificó en Bolivia.

Estas posiciones tienen histérica a la derecha mexicana y a sus corifeos en los medios de comunicación. Y de la misma forma, la manera en que AMLO está tratando de remodelar los organismos autónomos, que fueron creados en los gobiernos anteriores, para mantener la misma estructura de dominación política y económica, ha provocado una intensa campaña en su contra por querer “capturar” y prácticamente demoler a estos organismos.

En este sentido, se está planteando la próxima elaboración de una reforma fiscal, que si bien se buscaría aprobar hasta 2021, tendrá que ir negociándose con los grupos de poder, desde ahora.

Todo indica que esa reforma será un durísimo golpe contra la exigua clase media del país, pues se elevarán los pagos de predial, las tarifas de agua, energía eléctrica y muy probablemente de gas y gasolina.

También se establecerá el IVA para alimentos y medicinas; aumento del IESP; y es posible un aumento del ISR para clases medias y altas.

De la misma forma se establecerán impuestos (todavía más) a las transacciones financieras; y ya se habla de un impuesto a las herencias.

En suma, será un paquete supuestamente dirigido contra los sectores más adinerados, pero en esencia sólo afectará a la delgada clase media del país, pues los millonarios y multimillonarios sacarán la mayoría de sus fortunas del territorio nacional (a paraísos fiscales) y buscarán los mecanismos contables y legales adecuados, para protegerlas. Los pobres, o no pagan impuestos (60% de informalidad), o pagan muy pocas contribuciones; así que el 80% del peso de la reforma fiscal recaerá, como siempre, en ese pequeño segmento de profesionistas, empleados y pequeños empresarios que conforman a la clase media, y que están cautivos y sin medios de defensa ante este tipo de “reformas fiscales”, que se convierten en un robo en despoblado, para estos sectores de la población.

Esta reforma, que se aprobará una vez que pasen las elecciones intermedias del 2021 y la consulta para definir si AMLO continúa o no como presidente, tendrá el efecto de alejar a esa parte de la clase media que votó y confió en AMLO para terminar con un régimen corrupto, provocador de pobreza, desigualdad, inseguridad, violencia e impunidad.

A cambio recibirá más impuestos; la casi confiscación de sus propiedades, la no solución a las crisis de inseguridad, violencia e impunidad; y para colmo, la acusación de ser criticones, desagradecidos y conservadores.

Por supuesto, ello llevará a que esa clase media que comenzaba a percibir en 2018 que un gobierno progresista podía ser benéfico para el país en su conjunto, se tornará agresivamente en su contra, y se convertirá nuevamente en la base social de la derecha política, es decir del PAN.

LÓPEZ OBRADOR Y LAS INSTITUCIONES

La desaseada elección de Rosario Piedra Ibarra como nueva presidenta de la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos (CNDH) en el Senado de la República, ha generado una nueva ola de críticas de la comentocracia de derecha contra López Obrador y su partido Morena.

Para los opinólogos acostumbrados a vivir bajo el paraguas de los poderes fácticos tradicionales, el que la hija de una luchadora social de izquierda, sin ninguna experiencia en materia burocrática y política, llegue a presidir un órgano autónomo como la CNDH, a través de un proceso pésimamente mal manejado por el líder de la mayoría de Morena en el Senado, Ricardo Monreal, significa una afrenta intolerable para los cánones establecidos durante el periodo de los gobiernos neoliberales; durante los cuales los tres partidos de derecha (PRI, PAN y el pseudo izquierdista PRD), se repartían las posiciones de los organismos autónomos, creados para defender los intereses de los poderes fácticos y el statu quo.

Es lógico que si un partido de izquierda (es un decir) como Morena, con un líder identificado con la izquierda (al menos durante su período de opositor), llega al poder político, desee transformar las instituciones creadas por gobiernos de derecha, las cuáles están encargadas de defender los intereses de los oligarcas, de la potencia hegemónica y de grupos de poder político regional o nacional; y por lo mismo, sea indispensable cambiar a los dirigentes de esas instituciones con personas identificadas con la nueva ideología y el nuevo proyecto político.

La autonomía de muchas de estas instituciones, no importó en su momento a los gobiernos neoliberales, pues nombraron en ellas (mediante oscuras negociaciones) a incondicionales de la ideología prevaleciente y de las políticas públicas identificadas con la misma.

El problema es que para cambiar esas instituciones y a ese personal directivo, se requieren primero cambiar los procedimientos y las leyes mediante los cuales funcionan y son dirigidas, y ello requiere contar con mayorías en el Congreso de la Unión; y en el caso de cambios constitucionales, también contar con mayorías en los congresos estatales.

López Obrador y Morena están tratando de cambiar esos procedimientos y esas leyes, a trompicones, con aciertos y errores; y con las esperadas críticas y descalificaciones de los grupos de poder económico y de la derecha política que ven cómo el entramado legal e institucional creado durante 4 décadas para defender sus intereses y sus privilegios, comienza a ser desmantelado.

Ahí radica la indignación y la histeria de los comentócratas de derecha (a los que por cierto el gobierno de López Obrador les cortó los fondos que los gobiernos neoliberales les pagaba como consultores, asesores, etc. lo que también ha generado su ira), que en coro afirman que el actual gobierno y su partido quieren “capturar” a las instituciones autónomas y a los contrapesos del Poder Ejecutivo.

Da la casualidad qué cuando todas esas instituciones respondieron a la lógica del neoliberalismo, de la derecha y a los intereses de los oligarcas, poco dijeron o se indignaron estos “politólogos” y “analistas” (no queremos ser mal pensados, pero a lo mejor los cheques llegaban entonces puntuales para esas asesorías y consultas tan importantes que ellos hacían).

Pero es lógico esperar que mientras López Obrador (a pesar de los magros resultados que da su gobierno en economía y seguridad, por inexperiencia, ineptitud, sabotajes de supuestos “aliados” y/o por la propia obstrucción de sus muchos opositores), se inmiscuye para cortar o eliminar las rentas e ingresos de determinados grupos de poder, las exaltadas críticas, la ira y la indignación crecen en contra de su gobierno.

The Harvard walkout: ‘Israeli officials will eventually speak to empty venues’

Dani Dayan, Israeli diplomat and former leader of the Israeli settler movement, spoke to a near-empty auditorium after students staged a dramatic walkout

 https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/harvard-walkout-israeli-officials-will-eventually-speak-empty-venues

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=62&v=zQfXEAVPYCE&feature=emb_title

By 

Azad Essa

 in 

New York City

Published date: 15 November 2019 

On Wednesday, around 100 students staged a dramatic walkout during an event at the Harvard Law School, where Dani Dayan, Israel’s consul-general in New York City was scheduled to speak. 

Just as Dayan was about to begin his address, protesters who had taken up most of the mid-section of the auditorium stood up, lifted placards that read “Settlements are a war crime”, then turned their backs on Dayan, and walked out in silence.

As the venue emptied, Dayan could be heard muttering: “I remember doing this in kindergarten.” 

But it was the protesters’ silent action that carried beyond the auditorium.

Dayan was left to speak on “The Legal Strategy of Israeli Settlements" to a mostly empty venue.

On the internet, a video of the walkout went viral and words of encouragement and congratulations came pouring in for taking a stand and making Dayan uncomfortable.

“To have 100 people standing up all at once and silently, did leave an impact,” Samer Hjouj, one of the organizers of the protest, told Middle East Eye. “As soon as we found out about the event, we planned and it took a lot of time but we had a team at every school in Harvard, finding people to help us make it happen.”

The former leader of Israel’s settler movement, considered to be one of the major stumbling blocks to the peace process, Dayan wrote in the New York Times in 2012 that "Israel’s settlers are here to stay". 

Around 650,000 Israelis live in settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Settlements are illegal under international law and are considered a war crime.

Menachem Butler and Noah Feldman, with the Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law (who co-organised the event), told MEE that while it was perfectly appropriate for students to express disagreement and disapproval in this way, they had no regrets over hosting the event. 

 “Our program invites people with very different views on Israel-Palestine. Dayan is an Israeli government diplomat who was stating Israeli government policy. International organizations do indeed deem settlements a Geneva violation. The government of Israel does not,”  said Butler, who is the program coordinator for Jewish Law Projects.

Likewise, Feldman, who had introduced Dayan moments before the walkout, said the fact “that someone has views of international law that I or my government consider wrong does not mean that the view must not be engaged”. 

“Dayan’s view on the legality of settlements is that of his government - and I am willing to host Israeli government officials, just as I am very happy to host Palestinian officials. Unless the Israeli government view is engaged in settlements, peace will be close to impossible to achieve,” Feldman, a professor at the law school, said. 

But student activists said arguments that suggested this was a matter of tolerating diverse academic views were a distortion of the truth.

Hjouj said they had decided not to engage Dayan to avoid making an untenable position any more credible.

Rami Younis, a fellow at the Harvard Divinity School, who also helped arrange the silent walkout, said that given the Israeli consul-general was someone whose entire life had revolved around dispossession and theft, he “should be tried in an international court and not brought to speak in front of a ‘liberal’ audience”.

Likewise, Amaya Arregi, a student at the Fletcher School who also took part in the walkout, argued that even if academic freedom was paramount, she wondered how the Law School could justify “inviting an Israeli politician to talk about how they go about violating international law”. 

“They gave him a big platform and he was going to speak unchallenged. The topic of the panel was precisely what legal methods Israel uses to advance its settlement project. We felt that Harvard Law was opening the door to such views to become normal in academic settings,” Arregi added.

Students also argued that Harvard was replete with Israeli viewpoints, including lectures from former Mossad operatives. 

 “Harvard brings in many Israeli speakers - from across the spectrum. But the Palestinian speakers have to be palatable to the administration. They would never bring someone like Omar Barghouti who endorses the boycott campaign,” Hjouj said.

But Hamzah Raza, a graduate student at the Harvard Divinity School, who participated in the walk-out, said that the successful action on Wednesday signaled to him that more and more young people in the US were growing supportive of Palestinian human rights.

 “The fact that virtually the entire room walked out on him says something. People who continue to take such positions will find themselves speaking to more and more empty rooms,” he said.

The So-Called War on Terror Has Killed Over 801,000 People and Cost $6.4 Trillion: New Analysis

"The numbers continue to accelerate, not only because of many wars continue to be waged, but also because wars don't end when soldiers come home."

by

Jessica Corbett, staff writer

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/13/so-called-war-terror-has-killed-over-801000-people-and-cost-64-trillion-new-analysis?cd-origin=rss

The so-called War on Terror launched by the United States government in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks has cost at least 801,000 lives and $6.4 trillion according to a pair of reports published Wednesday by the Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs.

"The numbers continue to accelerate, not only because many wars continue to be waged, but also because wars don't end when soldiers come home," said Costs of War co-director and Brown professor Catherine Lutz, who co-authored the project's report on deaths.

"These reports provide a reminder that even if fewer soldiers are dying and the U.S. is spending a little less on the immediate costs of war today, the financial impact is still as bad as, or worse than, it was 10 years ago," Lutz added. "We will still be paying the bill for these wars on terror into the 22nd century."

The new Human Cost of Post-9/11 Wars report (pdf) tallies "direct deaths" in major war zones, grouping people by civilians; humanitarian and NGO workers; journalists and media workers; U.S. military members, Department of Defense civilians, and contractors; and members of national military and police forces as well as other allied troops and opposition fighters.

The report sorts direct deaths by six categories: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria/ISIS, Yemen, and "Other." The civilian death toll across all regions is up to 335,745—or nearly 42% of the total figure. Notably, the report "does not include indirect deaths, namely those caused by loss of access to food, water, and/or infrastructure, war-related disease, etc."

Indirect deaths "are generally estimated to be four times higher," Costs of War board member and American University professor David Vine wrote in an op-ed for The Hill Wednesday. "This means that total deaths during the post-2001 U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, and Yemen is likely to reach 3.1 million or more—around 200 times the number of U.S. dead."

"Don't we have a responsibility to wrestle with our individual and collective responsibility for the destruction our government has inflicted?" Vine asked in his op-ed. "Our tax dollars and implied consent have made these wars possible. While the United States is obviously not the only actor responsible for the damage done in the post-2001 wars, U.S. leaders bear the bulk of responsibility for launching catastrophic wars that were never inevitable, that were wars of choice."

Referencing the project's second new report, United States Budgetary Costs and Obligations of Post-9/11 Wars Through FY2020: $6.4 Trillion (pdf), Vine wrote, "Consider how we could have otherwise spent that incomprehensible sum—to feed the hungry, improve schools, confront global warming, improve our transportation infrastructure, and provide healthcare."

"At a time when everyone from Donald Trump to Democratic Party candidates for president is calling for an end to these endless wars, we must push our government to use diplomacy—rather than rash withdrawals, as in northern Syria—to end these wars responsibly," he concluded. "As the new Costs of War report and 3.1 million deaths should remind us, part of our responsibility must be to repair some of the immeasurable damage was done and to ensure that wars like these never happen again."

The project's $6.4 trillion figure accounts for overseas contingency operations appropriations, interest for borrowing for OCO spending, war-related spending in the Pentagon's base budget, medical and disability care for post-9/11 veterans (including estimated future obligations through FY2059), and Department of Homeland Security spending for prevention of and response to terrorism.

Costs of War co-director and Boston University professor Neta Crawford co-authored the project's death toll report and authored the budget report. For the latter, she wrote that "the major trends in the budgetary costs of the post-9/11 wars include: less transparency in reporting costs among most major agencies; greater institutionalization of the costs of war in the DOD base budget, State Department, and DHS; and the growing budgetary burden of veterans' medical care and disability care."

Both reports were released as part of the project's new "20 Years of War" series. Crawford, Lutz, and fellow Costs of War co-director Stephanie Savell were in Washington, D.C. Wednesday to present the reports' findings at a briefing hosted by the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services.

We have already seen that when we go to Washington and circulate our briefings, they get used in the policymaking process," Lutz said in a news story published by Brown Wednesday. "People cite our data in speeches on the Senate floor, in proposals for legislation. The numbers have made their way into calls to put an end to the joint resolution to authorize the use of military force. They have a real impact."

Lutz pointed out that "if you count all parts of the federal budget that are military-related—including the nuclear weapons budget, the budget for fuel for military vehicles and aircraft, funds for veteran care—it makes up two-thirds of the federal budget, and it's inching toward three-quarters."

"I don't think most people realize that but it's important to know," she added. "Policymakers are concerned that the Pentagon's increased spending is crowding out other national purposes that don't war."

U.S. Peace Council Statement

Mobilize to Stop the Imperialistic Coup and Intervention

in Bolivia and Latin America!

The U.S. Peace Council (USPC) strongly condemns the U.S.-backed military coup against the democratically elected president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, and stands in solidarity with Bolivia’s first indigenous president and the people of Bolivia. The violence unleashed by the military and members of the right-wing opposition forced the resignation of Evo Morales and his vice-president in the hope of putting an end to the foreign-induced violence and destruction in their country.

This is a coup against a president who has lifted three million Bolivians out of poverty (42% drop in the poverty rate and a 60% drop in the extreme poverty rate). He had also dared to close U.S. military bases in Bolivia and had paid to combat fires in the Amazon, actions which have undoubtedly angered the U.S. ruling circles.

This action in Bolivia is in keeping with U.S. efforts to destabilize democratically elected governments in Central and South America — Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and now Bolivia — and brutalizing and suppressing people’s movements in countries like Colombia. The orchestrated protests and violent acts of reactionary forces in the city of La Paz; the threats and attacks on politicians, the media and social movements; and the threats against embassies of Venezuela, Cuba and Mexico in La Paz, are further evidence for the true intentions of the U.S.-backed coup plotters. Since 2001, the USAID has been financing the right-wing opposition to Evo Morales and the U.S. Government has been working closely with them.

It is clear that the U.S. government is deeply concerned with the rise of the left and independent popular movements and governments in Latin America. It has been using every weapon in its arsenal — sabotages, political subversions, imposing trade blockades and killer economic sanctions, expanding the NATO presence in Latin America, and establishing new military bases — to stem the tide. The coup attempt in Bolivia is just the last imperialistic attempt in this direction.

The U.S. Peace Council vehemently opposes the U.S. imperialism’s efforts to re-establish its hegemonic domination of Latin America. We call for an end to NATO presence and closure of all U.S. military bases in Latin America, an end to the unilaterally imposed sanctions on Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, U.S. commitment to the Colombian Peace Accords and an end to U.S. regime change efforts in Latin America and throughout the world.

We call upon all peace-loving people of the United States to condemn these imperialist acts of the U.S. Government and mobilize mass protests against the coup in Bolivia and all other U.S. efforts to undermine the national sovereignty of the peoples of Latin America and the world.

Executive Committee of the U.S. Peace Council
November 11, 2019

U.S. Peace Council • PO Box 3105, New Haven, CT 06515 • (203) 387-0371