Published on May 16, 2013

Una Nato economica? No, grazie!

The following is an Italian translation of my recent article, “Large Corporations Seek U.S.–European ‘Free Trade Agreement’ to Further Global Dominance,” courtesy of Gil Guy Sparks.

La Partnership di Investimento e Commercio Transatlantico è l’ultimo piano delle multinazionali per rafforzare la loro presa sul pianeta.

di Andrew Gavin Marshall

Sta emergendo un ordine mondiale di corporation, e come ogni parassita, sta lentamente uccidendo il suo ospite. Purtroppo, “l’ospite” sembra sia il pianeta, e tutta la vita su di essa e al suo interno. Così, mentre l’estinzione delle specie sarà il risultato finale dell’accettazione passiva di un mondo a guida aziendale, dall’altra parte, essa è molto redditizia per le corporation e i loro azionisti.

La Partnership di Investimento e Commercio Transatlantico (TTIP) è l’ultima agenda a guida aziendale in ciò che viene comunemente definito un “accordo di libero scambio“, ma che in realtà equivale al ‘consolidamento aziendale cosmopolitico‘: grandi aziende che dettano e dirigono le politiche dei membri – sia livello nazionale e che internazionale – nella costruzione di strutture che facilitino il consolidamento regionale e globale del potere finanziario, economico e politico nelle mani di, relativamente poche, grandi corporation.

Tali accordi hanno poco a che fare con un reale ‘scambio’, e tutto a che fare con l’espansione dei diritti e dei poteri delle grandi aziende. Le corporation sono diventate potenti soggetti economici e politici – in competizione in termini di dimensioni e ricchezza con le grandi economie nazionali del mondo – e, quindi, hanno assunto un carattere spiccatamente ‘cosmopolitico’. Agendo attraverso associazioni industriali, aggregazioni lobbistiche, think tank e fondazioni, le società cosmopolitiche sono grandi progetti di ingegneria che mirano al consolidamento economico e politico transnazionale del potere… nelle loro mani. Con la costruzione di “una zona di libero scambio euro-americana“, come “ambizioso progetto,” stiamo assistendo alla promozione di un nuovo e inedito progetto globale di colonizzazione transatlantica aziendale.

La Fortezza Atlantica come “Ampia Strategia”

In un articolo del 2006 per Der Spiegel, Gabor Steingart suggeriva che “per combattere l’ascesa della Cina e dell’Asia“, il “ruolo che la NATO ha rappresentato in un’epoca di minaccia militare potrebbe essere svolto da una zona di libero scambio transatlantico nell’attuale epoca di confronto economico.“ Con la possibile “aggiunta del Canada,” gli Stati Uniti e l’Unione Europea “potrebbero arginare la diminuzione del potere del mercato occidentale unendo le forze… [cosa che] porterebbe inevitabilmente ad una convergenza dei due sistemi economici.” In un processo che probabilmente comporterebbe decenni, “una mega-fusione dei mercati“, che “serva da fortezza“, invierebbe un “nuovo messaggio” all’Oriente.

Durante il momento peggiore, all’inizio della crisi finanziaria ed economica, nel gennaio del 2009, Henry Kissinger scrisse un articolo per il New York Times in cui sottolineava che “l’indirizzo [americano] verso un ordine finanziario mondiale era stato generalmente incontrastato“, anche se la crisi lo aveva modificato, mentre la “disillusione” diveniva “diffusa“. Le nazioni in quel momento volevano proteggersi dai mercati globali e, quindi, diventare più indipendenti. Kissinger mise in guardia contro quest’idea, proclamando: “Emergerà un ordine internazionale se un sistema di priorità compatibili verrà posto in essere. Si frammenterà disastrosamente se le varie priorità non potranno essere conciliate… L’alternativa ad un nuovo ordine internazionale è il caos“.

Kissinger osservava che il mondo economico era “globalizzato“, ma il mondo politico non lo era, e nel bel mezzo di “crisi politiche in ogni parte del mondo“, accelerate da una “comunicazione in tempo reale“, era necessario che i sistemi politici ed economici venissero “armonizzati in uno solo di questi due modi: con la creazione di un sistema di regolamentazione politica internazionale della stessa portata di quello del mondo economico, oppure, riducendo le unità economiche a una dimensione gestibile dalle strutture politiche esistenti, cosa che rischia di portare a un nuovo mercantilismo, forse di unità regionali.” La vittoria elettorale del presidente Obama rappresentava una “opportunità” nel “dar forma ad un nuovo ordine mondiale.” Ma quell’opportunità doveva diventare “una politica” mentre si manifestava attraverso “una grande strategia.” Un aspetto centrale verso quella grande strategia includerebbe il rafforzamento “del partenariato atlantico“, che “dipenderà maggiormente da politiche comuni“.

Circa quattro anni dopo, l’ex consigliere della Sicurezza Nazionale Statunitense Zbigniew Brzezinski elogiò la “grande promessa” nel nuovo accordo transatlantico, che “può dar forma ad un nuovo equilibrio tra le regioni oceaniche dell’Atlantico e del Pacifico, mentre al contempo genera in Occidente una nuova vitalità, una maggiore sicurezza e una maggiore coesione.” Non era degno di nota, a quanto pare, che questa, dappertutto, fosse una “coesione” di interessi di potere. Nello stesso discorso nel quale Brzezinski approvava una “maggiore coesione” tra gli Stati Uniti e l’Unione Europea, criticava l’UE che era “un’Europa più di banche che di persone, più di convenienza commerciale che un sentito impegno dei popoli europei.“

E’ il tipo di “coesione” che solo a banchieri, aziende e “grandi strateghi” come Kissinger e Brzezinski potrebbe piacere. Così, naturalmente, tale accordo ha un grande sostegno, incoraggiamento e pianificazione organizzata. Mentre l’idea di ‘integrazione transatlantica‘ è stata a lungo nei discorsi e nei documenti dei grandi strateghi e dei think tanks finanziati dalle corporation, ha mantenuto una certa distanza dalla politica formale. Nel 2007, il vertice euro-statunitense dei leader – [alla presenza] del presidente americano Bush, della cancelliera tedesca Angela Merkel, e del presidente della Commissione Europea José Manuel Barroso – ha istituito il Consiglio Economico Transatlantico (CET) per promuovere la cooperazione economica tra le due regioni.

La crisi economica ha in sé ritardato che qualsiasi progresso avesse luogo, mentre i paesi si sono concentrati a salvare le loro banche e ad imporre misure di austerità con lo scopo di cacciare le proprie popolazioni nella povertà, privatizzare la società, e creare le condizioni idonee per il saccheggio senza ostacoli delle risorse e per lo sfruttamento del lavoro. Questa si chiama “riforma strutturale“.

Ma le riforme strutturali mostrano “successo” solo quando le aziende cominciano a trarre profitto da esse. Questa si chiama “ripresa economica“. C’è un intero linguaggio per la crisi del debito europeo – e per l’economia politica in generale – che, tradotto, aiuta a chiarire la ratio delle scelte politiche.

Linguaggio politico: Parole o armi?

Come George Orwell scrisse una volta: “Il linguaggio politico… è progettato per rendere il suono delle bugie veritiero e l’omicidio rispettabile, e per dare una parvenza di solidità al vento puro e semplice.“

In un mondo in radicale trasformazione di strutture e relazioni politiche, economiche e sociali – dalla primavera araba, dalla crisi economica mondiale, dalla crisi alimentare e dall’accaparramento delle terre, alla diffusione globale dei movimenti di protesta – il linguaggio politico diventa armato. Nascondendosi dietro parole apparentemente senza senso, rese oscure da una retorica abusata e da termini e concetti astratti e indefiniti, il linguaggio politico ed economico opera per impedire alla popolazione di comprendere il vero significato e le implicazioni delle politiche perseguite.

Prendete, per esempio, la parola ‘austerità‘. E’ stata utilizzata all’infinito – nella retorica e nelle politiche – come la ‘soluzione‘ alla crisi economica, finanziaria e del debito, ma il suo significato è reso oscuro da una nozione astratta di taglio della spesa pubblica allo scopo di far calare il debito e, quindi, accrescere la fiducia degli investitori nel paese. Questo dovrebbe portare ad un “risanamento” economico. Il problema è che non lo fa: porta invece ad una depressione molto profonda. Eppure, tali politiche continuano ad essere promosse e perseguite.

Che cosa si può dedurre da questo? Se la retorica promuove politiche specifiche per un effetto desiderato, e l’effetto desiderato non si è mai raggiunto, ma la retorica e le politiche continuano ad essere promosse, si può assumere una delle due cose: o, come aveva definito Einstein, coloro che prendono le decisioni mondiali sono tutti pazzi (“poiché mettono in atto la stessa cosa più volte, aspettandosi risultati diversi“), oppure, stanno semplicemente parlando una lingua diversa, e difettiamo nella sua comprensione. In tali circostanze, è utile tentare tradurre questo linguaggio.

Le politiche di ‘austerità‘ comprendono: licenziamento dei lavoratori del settore pubblico, taglio della spesa dell’assistenza sanitaria, dell’istruzione, del welfare, dei servizi sociali, delle pensioni, aumento dell’età pensionabile, aumento delle tasse e riduzione dei salari. I risultati, inevitabilmente, sono l’impoverimento generale della popolazione, l’aumento della disoccupazione, l’eliminazione dei servizi sanitari e sociali nel momento in cui occorrono maggiormente, l’aumento del costo della vita e la diminuzione del tenore di vita. Quindi, possiamo liberamente tradurre ‘austerità‘ come impoverimento, poiché questo è ciò che gli effetti reali di quelle politiche comportano.

Nel marzo 2010, l’OCSE (Organizzazione per la Cooperazione Economica e lo Sviluppo) ha suggerito che l’Europa intraprenda un programma di austerità della durata di non meno di sei anni dal 2011 al 2017, che il Financial Times ha indicato come cosa “estremamente ragionevole“. Nel mese di aprile del 2010, la Banca dei Regolamenti Internazionali (BRI) – la banca centrale delle banche centrali di tutto il mondo – ha chiesto alle nazioni europee di avviare l’attuazione di misure di austerità.

Nel giugno del 2010, i ministri delle finanze del G20 si misero d’accordo: era il momento di entrare nell’era dell’austerità! Il cancelliere tedesco Angela Merkel, la levatrice europea dell’austerità, fa da esempio per l’UE, imponendo misure di austerità a casa, in Germania. I leader del G20 si incontrarono e convennero che il tempo per lo stimolo era giunto al termine, e il tempo per la povertà da austerità era vicino. Questo è stato ovviamente approvato dal non eletto presidente tecnocrate della Commissione Europea, José Manuel Barroso.

Anche il non eletto presidente del Consiglio Europeo, Herman Van Rompuy, ha convenuto, spiegando con la sua spietata saggezza economica che l’austerità “non ha alcun effetto reale sulla crescita economica“. Pure Jean-Claude Trichet, presidente della Banca Centrale Europea (BCE), è saltato sul treno austerità, scrivendo sul Financial Times che “è ora il momento di ripristinare la sostenibilità fiscale.“

Jaime Caruana, direttore generale della Banca dei Regolamenti Internazionali (BRI) dichiarò nel giugno del 2011 che la necessità di austerità era “più urgente” che mai, mentre il presidente della Banca dei Regolamenti Internazionali (BRI), Christian Noyer, anche governatore della Banca di Francia (e membro del consiglio della BCE), dichiarava che, a parte l’austerità, “non c’è soluzione possibile” per la Grecia.

Ma, naturalmente, l’austerità non è completa senza il suo complementare programma di ‘riforme strutturali‘ (o di ‘aggiustamento strutturale‘), che comprende politiche volte a privatizzare tutti i beni di proprietà dello Stato, le risorse e i servizi, lo smantellamento delle tutele del lavoro e quelle ambientali e dei regolamenti, l’apertura di nuovi ‘mercati‘, ed enormi sovvenzioni e protezioni per banche e multinazionali.

Perché ciò viene messo in atto? Per promuovere gli investimenti, la concorrenza e la crescita. Privatizzare tutto – compreso gli aeroporti, la terra, la gestione delle acque, le strade e le risorse – incoraggia gli investimenti, perché le aziende possono entrare ed acquistare beni nazionali con penny anziché dollari. In effetti, la maggior parte dei programmi di privatizzazione comprendono sussidi enormi e protezioni per le aziende, per fornire loro un incentivo ad investire.

E la concorrenza è promossa meglio, consentendo solo ad una manciata di gruppi di corporation transnazionali di acquisire, a buon mercato, la ricchezza e le risorse di una nazione, e poi attraverso la promozione di quella che si chiama “flessibilità del lavoro“.
Queste ‘riforme‘ significano che i diritti dei lavoratori devono essere smantellati, [significano] taglio dei salari, dei benefici, delle protezioni, della capacità di fare sindacato e di fare richieste, allo scopo di rendere la forza lavoro flessibile alla domanda delle grandi imprese, che richiedono poco più di una forza lavoro a basso costo (così come il controllo assoluto dell’economia globale).

Pertanto, in tutti i mercati – in Europa attraverso l’Unione Europea, in Nord America attraverso il NAFTA (North America Free Trade Agreement) – e, di fatto, in tutto il mondo, le forze lavoro sono messe in concorrenza tra loro in una corsa verso il basso a chi può rappresentare la migliore, e quindi, la più economica forza lavoro a disposizione – allo scopo di attrarre investimenti e occupazione.

Pertanto, l’effetto delle “riforme strutturali” è quello di facilitare lo sfruttamento di risorse e persone e di consolidare il potere economico e politico in mani aziendali. L’austerità serve così lo scopo di impoverire la popolazione per renderla pronta e disposta ad accettare le riforme strutturali (o “di aggiustamento“) che aggiustano la gente ad una situazione di devastazione sociale rendendola un’idonea – ed economica – forza lavoro.

Il saccheggio aziendale senza ostacoli è facilitato dallo smantellamento di tutte le “barriere” agli investimenti e, quindi, del controllo dell’intera economia. Austerità e riforme strutturali creano le condizioni per gli investimenti, concorrenza e crescita. Investimento significa essenzialmente acquisizione/controllo sovvenzionato sull’economia da parte delle società, competizione implica la tutela degli interessi aziendali, e crescita significa che le aziende stanno facendo enormi profitti. L’effetto di tutte queste politiche e programmi è quello di consolidare il potere economico e politico regionale e globale nelle mani di multinazionali cosmopolitiche.

Austerità è impoverimento per le popolazioni.

Riforma strutturale è sfruttamento di persone/risorse, e  consolidamento del potere politico in mani aziendali.

Investimento è controllo societario dell’economia.

Concorrenza è protezionismo per le aziende.

Crescita è profitto aziendale.

Mario Draghi è il presidente della Banca Centrale Europea (BCE) – una delle tre istituzioni della ‘troika’ assieme alla Commissione Europea e al Fondo Monetario Internazionale – che impone austerità e riforme strutturali in Europa in cambio del salvataggio delle banche. Nel febbraio del 2012, ha rilasciato un’intervista al Wall Street Journal nella quale ha spiegato che, “non c’era alternativa al consolidamento fiscale“, cioè all’austerità, e che il contratto sociale europeo era “obsoleto” e il modello sociale era “già morto.“ Tuttavia, ha spiegato Draghi, era necessario ora promuovere la “crescita“, aggiungendo, “ed è per questo che le riforme strutturali sono così importanti.“

Oltre alla austerità e alle riforme strutturali, sono necessari  nuovi mercati e, quindi, bisogna promuovere il “libero commercio“. Tutto questo fa parte della strada verso il “risanamento“. Il libero commercio ha anche una definizione tecnica: le sue politiche smantellano le tutele ambientali, del lavoro, e altre sociali, incrementano la privatizzazione, la deregolamentazione, e comprendono ampi sussidi e protezioni per le multinazionali. E gli attuali accordi di ‘libero scambio‘ concedono diritti senza precedenti alle aziende di citare in giudizio direttamente i governi che hanno leggi e regolamenti che le aziende vedono come “ostacoli agli investimenti.“

Il libero scambio promuove la concorrenza tra popolazioni – in una corsa verso il basso – e protezione per i potenti, multinazionali e banche. Ciò che noi chiamiamo accordi di libero commercio funzionano essenzialmente come un processo aziendale di colonialismo: consolidamento regionale e globale del potere finanziario, economico, politico e sociale nelle mani di aziende relativamente poche.

Con l’inizio della crisi economica mondiale, nel 2008, i paesi si sono rivolti a piani di salvataggio per salvare le grandi banche che hanno distrutto le loro economie.
Nel far questo, hanno accumulato ingenti debiti, consegnando il conto alle popolazioni. La gente paga i debiti attraverso austerità, e, quindi, povertà, che a sua volta necessita di riforme strutturali e, quindi, sfruttamento. Accordi di libero scambio come il Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), in fase di negoziazione tra i 12 paesi del versante Pacifico, facilitano il colonialismo transnazionale aziendale.

Un nuovo mondo aziendale sta emergendo, e il partenariato transatlantico è un elemento centrale nella costruzione di questo ‘nuovo ordine mondiale’. Mentre la crisi aveva inizialmente messo in fase di stallo il processo, esso è stato rimesso in moto al vertice euro-statunitense nel novembre del 2011, quando i leader politici ordinarono al Consiglio Economico Transatlantico (CET) di creare un Gruppo di Lavoro ad Alto Livello su Occupazione e Crescita, guidato dal rappresentante statunitense agli affari commerciali, Ron Kirk e dal commissario Ue al commercio, Karel De Gucht, “con il compito di individuare le politiche e le misure per aumentare il commercio e gli investimenti euro-americani per sostenere la creazione di occupazione, la crescita economica e la competitività internazionale a reciproco beneficio“, lavorando a stretto contatto con gruppi dei settori aziendali pubblici e privati.

La Complesso Aziendale Transatlantico

L’impulso al Parternariato di Investimento e Commercio Transatlantico è stato fornito da una pletora di organizzazioni del grande business e da think tank controllati dalle multinazionali, tra cui il Consiglio Atlantico, il Brookings Institution, il German Marshall Fund, BusinessEurope, Business Roundtable, la Camera di Commercio degli Stati Uniti, e la European Round Table degli industriali, tra molti altri. Queste istituzioni collettivamente formano un complesso aziendale transatlantico, che unisce le élite delle grandi aziende, banche, think tank, fondazioni, università e circoli politici con lo scopo di stabilire un consenso sulle agende dell’élite e di fornire le strategie e gli obiettivi da conseguire.

Il Consiglio Atlantico è stato fondato nel 1961 da un ex Segretario di Stato americano, Dean Acheson e da diversi altri eminenti cittadini degli Stati membri allo scopo di contribuire a consolidare il sostegno alla ‘Alleanza Atlantica‘. Il primo volume edito del Consiglio Atlantico, Costruire il Mercato  Euro-Americano: Pianificazione per gli anni ’70, è stato pubblicato nel 1967, e il Consiglio ha continuato a pubblicare documenti politici, libri, monografie e altre relazioni per tutti gli anni ’70.

La leadership e la direzione del Consiglio Atlantico è nominata dai membri delle sue commissioni, che sono costituite dall’élite della politica estera degli Stati Uniti, così come delle grandi aziende cosmopolitiche, tra cui elementi del calibro di Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski e Madeleine Albright, insieme ai dirigenti di aziende come Deutsche Bank, BAE e Lockheed Martin. [Per uno sguardo ad alcuni degli altri nomi di amministratori e consulenti, vedi Appendice 1]

Il Consiglio Atlantico rappresenta quindi gli interessi di interessi corporativi e finanziari transatlantici e dell’élite della politica estera negli Stati Uniti. Così, i temi e le agende  che promuovono, tendono ad esercitare dietro di loro un’influenza significativa, con ampio accesso a coloro che prendono decisioni politiche e ai processi. Già nel 2004 il Consiglio Atlantico pubblicò un rapporto, L’Economia Transatlantica nel 2020: un partenariato per il futuro? nel quale si raccomandava una sempre maggiore integrazione tra le due economie e regioni, la gestione congiunta dell’economia mondiale, e più “cooperazione transgovernativa.“

Il German Marshall Fund degli Stati Uniti fu fondato nel 1972 con una donazione da parte del governo tedesco alla Harvard University, nella quale 25 anni prima il Segretario di Stato statunitense George Marshall aveva annunciato il Piano Marshall per la ripresa economica dell’Europa dopo la Seconda Guerra Mondiale. Il German Marshall Fund (GMF) “è dedicato alla promozione di una maggiore comprensione e azione comune tra Europa e Stati Uniti“, e comprende un certo numero di dirigenti aziendali, commentatori e altre élite a capo dei loro consigli direttivi [Vedi Appendice 2].

La Business Roundtable (BRT) è un’organizzazione di amministratori delegati di grandi aziende statunitensi “con più di 7.300 miliardi dollari di fatturato annuo“, secondo il suo sito web. La BRT è stata fondata nel 1972 “con la convinzione che … le imprese debbano svolgere un ruolo attivo ed efficace nella formazione delle politiche pubbliche.” Il Presidente del Comitato Esecutivo della BRT è W. James McNerney, presidente e amministratore delegato di Boeing. Il Comitato Esecutivo comprende gli amministratori delegati di una serie di altre importanti società cosmopolitiche [vedi Appendice 3].

La European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT), fondata nel 1983, è un’organizzazione di diverse decine di amministratori delegati di grandi aziende europee. Come Bastiaan van Apeldoorn ha scritto sulla rivista New Political Economy (Vol. 5, No. 2, 2000), l’ERT “si è sviluppata entro una piattaforma d’élite per una classe capitalistica transnazionale europea emergente dalla quale può formulare una strategia comune e – sulla base di tale strategia – cercare di modellare la governance socio-economico europea attraverso il suo accesso privilegiato alle istituzioni europee.“ Wisse Dekker, ex presidente della ERT, una volta dichiarò: “Considererei la Tavola Rotonda più di un gruppo lobbistico in quanto aiuta a dar forma alle politiche. Il rapporto della Tavola Rotonda con Bruxelles [Unione Europea] è di forte cooperazione. E’ un dialogo che inizia spesso in una fase molto precoce dello sviluppo di politiche e direttive“.

L’ERT è stata un’istituzione centrale nel rilancio dell’integrazione europea dal 1980 in poi, e l’ex commissario europeo (ed ex membro ERT), Peter Sutherland ha dichiarato: “si può sostenere che l’intera realizzazione del progetto del mercato interno è stata avviata non dai governi ma dalla Tavola Rotonda e dai suoi membri… E penso che abbia giocato successivamente un ruolo piuttosto consistente nel dialogo con la Commissione in merito alle misure concrete per attuare la liberalizzazione del mercato“.

Sutherland ha anche spiegato che l’ERT e i suoi membri “devono stare ai massimi livelli delle compagnie e in pratica tutti loro hanno libero accesso ai capi di governo per via della posizione delle loro aziende… Quindi, per definizione, ogni membro dell’ERT ha accesso al più alto livello di governo“. [Per un elenco delle altre società rappresentate nel consiglio della ERT, vedi Appendice 4]

BusinessEurope è il principale gruppo europeo d’impresa, che rappresenta 41 federazioni commerciali in 35 paesi con “un essenziale compito” – secondo il suo sito web – che è quello “di garantire che gli interessi delle aziende siano rappresentati e difesi vis-à-vis nelle istituzioni europee, con l’obiettivo principale di preservare e rafforzare la competitività delle imprese.“ [Per uno sguardo ad alcune delle aziende che componevano il Corporate Advisory and Support Group, vedi Appendice 5]

La Camera di Commercio degli Stati Uniti è stata fondata nel 1912 come organizzazione ombrello che rappresenta la voce del business in tutti gli Stati Uniti. Secondo il suo sito web, la Camera “lavora con più di 1.500 volontari provenienti da aziende membri, da organizzazioni e da comunità accademiche che servono nelle commissioni, sottocommissioni, task force, e consigli allo scopo di sviluppare e attuare politiche sulle principali questioni che interessano gli affari.” La loro “missione globale” è quella di “rafforzare la competitività dell’economia degli Stati Uniti.“ [Per uno sguardo ad alcune delle aziende rappresentate nel consiglio di amministrazione della Camera, appendice 6]

Il Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) è stato costituito nel 1995 dal Ministero del Commercio Statunitense e dalla Commissione Europea, nel tentativo di “servire come dialogo ufficiale tra imprenditori americani ed europei e sottosegretari del Governo americano e commissari europei“, composto da amministratori delegati delle multinazionali europee e statunitensi.

Il Colonialismo Transatlantico Aziendale in azione: Orientare le priorità

Come per ogni accordo di “libero scambio” (leggi: accordo di consolidamento aziendale cosmopolitico), le società devono essere consultate durante l’intero processo per permettere loro di dar forma al programma e di incoraggiare politiche specifiche, allo scopo di garantire che i loro interessi siano soddisfatti. I think tank impiegano gli accademici e le élite della politica estera per intraprendere studi e produrre relazioni che sostengano le politiche favorevoli alla dominazione politica ed economica occidentale del mondo.
I grandi gruppi d’affari organizzano la comunità delle corporation intorno ad agende e forniscono una “voce” diretta con il mondo delle imprese.

I consigli dei think tank sono dominati dalle élite politiche e aziendali, e una volta che i think tank iniziano a creare consenso intorno alle agende, accademici e altri funzionari delle organizzazioni scrivono articoli o vengono intervistati spesso sui media (che sono di proprietà delle stesse aziende), per garantire che quel poco che venga detto in pubblico su tali accordi sia, di fatto, positivo e incoraggiante.

Quando il Consiglio Economico Transatlantico (CET) creò il Gruppo di Lavoro ad Alto Livello su Occupazione e Crescita nel mese di novembre del 2011, annunciò la sua intenzione di ‘consultarsi‘ con le organizzazioni del settore privato sul processo di integrazione transatlantica.

Il Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) è stato una delle prime grandi organizzazioni aziendali a supportare l’annuncio del Gruppo di Lavoro ad Alto Livello. Nel gennaio del 2012, il TABD si è incontrato con funzionari europei e americani di alto rango al World Economic Forum, il meeting annuale di Davos, in Svizzera. Hanno pubblicato un rapporto, Visione per il futuro delle relazioni economiche UE-USA, che ha istituito un consenso “volto a far pressione per un intervento urgente su un agenda lungimirante e ambiziosa“, così come per la creazione di una “Task Force di Amministratori Delegati“, che avrebbe “fornito un contributo diretto e avrebbe supportato il Gruppo di Lavoro di Alto Livello.“

Alla riunione hanno partecipato non solo i 21 membri del consiglio esecutivo del TABD (tutti dirigenti d’azienda), ma funzionari in rappresentanza del Consiglio Atlantico, del Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), della Camera di Commercio degli Stati Uniti,  Pascal Lamy, Direttore generale dell’Organizzazione Mondiale del Commercio, Ron Kirk, Rappresentante del Commercio statunitense, Karel De Gucht, Commissario europeo per il Commercio, Joaquin Almunia, Commissario europeo per la Concorrenza,  Jon Leibowitz, presidente della Federal Trade Commission, e Michael Froman, vice consigliere alla Sicurezza Nazionale per gli Affari Economici Internazionali di Obama.

Nello stesso mese, il TABD e la Business Roundtable (BRT), hanno rilasciato una dichiarazione congiunta che delinea la loro “visione” di un Partenariato Transatlantico (TAP) – modellato lungo linee simili a quelle del Partenariato TransPacifico (TPP) – che richiederebbe un ulteriore “apertura” del mercato transatlantico, che sia in grado di “competere” con le altre grandi economie (come la Cina), e “approfondisca l’impegno multilaterale ad aprire i mercati.” Come principali amministratori delegati e dirigenti, recitava la dichiarazione: “abbiamo bisogno niente meno” che di una “visione strategica e una struttura [che] dovrà servire da modello globale“.

Nel febbraio del 2012, il German Marshall Fund ha pubblicato un rapporto della Task Force Transatlantica per il Commercio e gli Investimenti dal titolo, Una nuova era per la leadership del commercio transatlantico. La task force è stata co-presieduta da Ewa Bjorling, ministro svedese del commercio, e da Jim Kolbe, ex membro del Congresso degli Stati Uniti e Senior Transatlantic Fellow presso il German Marshall Fund. [Per gli altri membri della Task Force, appendice 7]

La task force è stata avviata come sforzo di cooperazione tra il German Marshall Fund e il Centro Europeo per la Politica Economica Internazionale (ECIPE) nel maggio del 2011.

Il rapporto invita l’UE e gli Stati Uniti a perseguire “una più profonda integrazione economica transatlantica” come elemento “essenziale alla ripresa dall’attuale crisi economica.” Il rapporto ha chiesto “un’impegno di alto livello da parte dei leader politici di entrambe le sponde dell’Atlantico” e “richiederà il coinvolgimento attivo delle parti interessate del settore privato“, o in altre parole, delle multinazionali.

Nel marzo del 2012, BusinessEurope ha pubblicato un rapporto: Occupazione e Crescita: Attraverso un Partenariato Economico e Commerciale Transatlantico, a contributo del Gruppo di Lavoro ad Alto Livello euro-statunitense, denominato Occupazione e Crescita, nel quale si consigliava di eliminare tariffe e barriere, di commerciare nei servizi, di garantire l’accesso e la protezione degli investimenti, di “aprire i mercati“, di stabilire “standard globali” per i diritti di proprietà intellettuale, e di lavorare sul Consiglio Economico Transatlantico (CET) per la cooperazione normativa.

Nello stesso mese, la Camera di Commercio Statunitense ha inviato una lettera al Congresso, nella quale la Camera degli Stati Uniti, BusinessEurope, la Camera di Commercio Americana presso l’Unione Europea, il Business Roundtable Council, l’European-American Business, il Business Dialogue Trans-Atlantic, e diverse altre associazioni del grande business hanno chiamato i leader politici “a passare rapidamente ad approfondire il rapporto economico e commerciale transatlantico attraverso un ambizioso commercio, investimenti e iniziative di regolamentazione.” Così, nel bel mezzo di una crisi economica e sociale, creata da numerose multinazionali e banche che queste associazioni rappresentano, e con l’emergere di nuovi giganti economici come Cina e India, “crediamo che sia ora il momento di creare un mercato transatlantico libero da barriere per guidare alla creazione di occupazione e di crescita” di cui Europa e America hanno “urgente bisogno“.

Il Gruppo di Lavoro ad Alto Livello – presieduto dal Rappresentante del Commercio statunitense, Ron Kirk e dal commissario Ue al commercio, Karel De Gucht – [recitava la dichiarazione] – dovrebbe avere un ordine del giorno “di vasta portata“, che riguardi: “barriere con tariffe e non per gli scambi di beni e servizi, investimenti, cooperazione normativa, tutela della proprietà intellettuale e innovazione, appalti pubblici, flussi di dati transfrontalieri, e mobilità del business.“

La dichiarazione osservava che loro avevano ricevuto “il sostegno” di Angela Merkel, di David Cameron, e dell’allora presidente della Francia, Nicolas Sarkozy, oltre che del Consiglio Europeo (presieduto da Herman Van Rompuy). Da parte americana, il sostegno venne dato da Hillary Clinton.

Nel maggio del 2012, la Business Roundtable, la European Round Table of Industrialists e il Trans Atlantic Business Dialogue hanno inviato una lettera congiunta al presidente Obama, al presidente francese Francois Hollande, alla cancelliera tedesca Merkel, al premier italiano Mario Monti, al primo ministro britannico David Cameron, al presidente della Commissione Europea José Manuel Barroso, al presidente del Consiglio europeo Herman Van Rompuy, al commissario Ue al Commercio De Gucht e al Rappresentante del Commercio statunitense, Ron Kirk. La lettera osservava che tre organizzazioni di dirigenti aziendali provenienti da oltre Atlantico “si sono riunite per tracciare una visione strategica per un nuovo Partenariato Transatlantico (TAP),” e hanno prodotto insieme la relazione, Forgiare un Partenariato Transatlantico per il 21° secolo, allo scopo di creare proprio questo. La relazione chiamava i funzionari degli Stati Uniti e dell’Unione Europea ad avviare “trattative su commerci, investimenti e regolamentazioni transatlantiche ambiziose e globali, entro la fine di quest’anno.“

Quello stesso mese, giusto per premere sul messaggio, i presidenti della Camera del Commercio statunitense, la Business Roundtable, e l’Associazione Nazionale dei Costruttori hanno inviato una lettera congiunta a Obama chiedendogli di avviare dei negoziati perché “venisse tracciata una strada verso un autentico commercio, investimento, e iniziativa cooperativa di regolamentazione del 21° secolo” che oltre a un’ulteriore integrazione delle economie, “porterebbe anche benefici importanti nella difesa e nella cooperazione militare.“

Nel giugno del 2012, il Consiglio per l’Esportazione di Obama gli ha inviato una lettera che plaudiva al presidente per la creazione del Gruppo di Lavoro ad Alto Livello dell’anno precedente, ma lo esortava a “fare il prossimo cruciale passo, di concerto con il settore privato, per andare avanti velocemente nella definizione e nell’avvio di ampie e ambiziose trattative per un Partenariato Transatlantico (TAP).” Loro hanno consigliato, tra le varie cose, le solite protezioni per i diritti di proprietà intellettuale, la liberalizzazione dei servizi, “l’eliminazione delle tariffe sui beni industriali e agricoli“. La lettera è stata firmata dal presidente del Consiglio sull’Esportazione Jim McNerney, presidente e amministratore delegato della Boeing Company.

Il Consiglio sull’Esportazione del Presidente degli Stati Uniti (PEC) “è il principale comitato consultivo nazionale per il commercio internazionale“, fondato nel 1973, composto da 28 membri del settore privato, così come da membri del Congresso e da segretari di gabinetto. Il PEC riferisce al presidente, tramite il Segretario del Commercio degli Stati Uniti. [Per un elenco delle aziende rappresentate dal PEC, vedi appendice 8]

Senza perdere tempo, il Gruppo ad Alto Livello su Occupazione e Crescita ha emesso il suo rapporto intermedio ai propri leader, nel giugno del 2012 da parte dei co-presidenti, De Gucht e Kirk. Tra le altre cose, loro hanno consigliato l’”eliminazione” degli “ostacoli agli scambi” di beni, servizi e investimenti. Hanno consigliato un “accordo globale“, che “potrebbe promuovere un programma lungimirante per la liberalizzazione del commercio multilaterale.“ L’”obiettivo” dei negoziati, hanno scritto, sarebbe quello di “vincolare” Unione Europea e Stati Uniti”, attraverso “un più alto livello di liberalizzazione” e “il raggiungimento di nuovi mercati.” Stavano prendendo sul serio le raccomandazioni provenienti dai gruppi aziendali e spingevano affinché quelle parole si traducessero in politiche.

Paula Dobriansky, eminente accademico presso l’Istituto Atlantico, è stata co-autrice di un articolo per il Wall Street Journal nel quale chiedeva “un accordo di libero scambio transatlantico” tra UE e Stati Uniti, per “rafforzare la leadership americana ed europea per i decenni a venire.“ Frances Burwell, vice presidente del Consiglio Atlantico e direttore del Programma sulle Relazioni Transatlantiche ha pubblicato un articolo su US News & World Report, nel novembre del 2012, nel quale scriveva che “la creazione di un mercato unico transatlantico… rappresenta un grande affare di buon senso.“

Nel novembre del 2012, l’allora Segretario di Stato Hillary Clinton ha tenuto un discorso alla Brookings Institution intitolato, Stati Uniti ed Europa: un partenariato globale rivitalizzato, nel quale ha osservato: “dobbiamo realizzare il potenziale non sfruttato del mercato transatlantico … è tanto un imperativo strategico quanto economico.” Informando il pubblico che l’amministrazione Obama stava “discutendo su possibili trattative” con l’UE su tale accordo, la Clinton ha detto che “puntellerebbe la nostra competitività a livello mondiale per il prossimo secolo.“

Sempre a novembre, membro del direttivo del Consiglio Atlantico, James L. Jones (ex Consigliere per la Sicurezza Nazionale statunitense di Barack Obama) e Thomas J. Donohue (Presidente e Amministratore Delegato della Camera di Commercio degli Stati Uniti), sono stati co-autori di un articolo per Investor Business Daily nel quale suggerivano che le crisi economiche simultanee in Europa e negli Stati Uniti – che essi descrivevano come “fiacca competitività, insostenibile autorizzazione di spesa e bomba a orologeria di un debito sovrano oltre misura” – erano una minaccia per il futuro della capacità della NATO di “affrontare le pressanti minacce alla sicurezza” e che ciò rappresenta “la più grande sfida per il futuro della comunità transatlantica dopo la guerra fredda.“

La crescita sostenibile, essi hanno scritto, “proviene solamente da un luogo – dal settore privato.“ I governi hanno una “responsabilità… creare le condizioni nelle quali il settore privato possa guidare l’espansione economica, investimenti e creazione di occupazione.“
Un “ambizioso patto commerciale ed economico transatlantico” si adatterebbe certamente a questa necessità di “crescita” e “competitività“ crescente. Sarebbe ora, hanno scritto, “di passare con decisione al prossimo livello di integrazione economica trans-atlantica.“

A pochi giorni dalla vittoria di Obama alla sua rielezione, leader europei come David Cameron e Angela Merkel lo hanno esortato ad andare avanti con l’accordo, e perfino il New York Times sottolineava che “anche corporations e gruppi economici di entrambe le sponde dell’Atlantico stanno facendo una forte pressione per un accordo.” L’ex vice Rappresentante del Commercio degli Stati Uniti e attuale vice presidente della General Electric, Karan Bhatia, osservò: “Questo potrebbe essere di gran lunga il più grande, il più prezioso accordo di libero scambio, anche se producesse solo un aumento marginale nel commercio“.

Il Financial Times ha detto che una “partnership transatlantica” produrrebbe “vantaggi geostrategici,” dal momento che l’Unione Europea e gli Stati Uniti rappresentano la metà dell’economia mondiale e, quindi, “saranno in possesso della leva per impostare standard globali che altri, tra cui la Cina, probabilmente seguiranno.“

Dal momento che “l’Unione Europea e gli Stati Uniti sono alla disperata ricerca di nuova crescita“, ha scritto Edward Luce, “l’unica via realistica è attraverso una maggiore produttività“, che implica costi più bassi e maggiori profitti per le multinazionali. Sarebbe “un’agenda ambiziosa verso l’integrazione del mercato transatlantico“, che includa regolamenti per l’armonizzazione e standard di prodotto. In altre parole, ha scritto Luce: “se un farmaco fosse approvato dall’Agenzia Europea per i medicinali, pure la Food and Drug Administration dovrebbe accettarlo.“

Lo stesso varrebbe per il “regolamento finanziario” (o la sua assenza), così come per gli standard agricoli (OGM), una questione fondamentale, dal momento che l’UE ha un divieto su tali prodotti. L’UE ha recentemente mostrato il suo entusiasmo per un cambiamento, quando “ha abbassato le sue obiezioni verso le importazioni di carni statunitensi provenienti da macelli [mattatoi] decontaminati con acido lattico.“ Nella UE, “il clima di austerità dovrebbe funzionare a loro favore” per la riduzione delle protezioni che riguardano l’agricoltura.

Nel gennaio del 2013, la Brookings Institution ha inviato un ‘memorandum al presidente‘ Barack Obama dal titolo, Libero Scambio Cambio di Gioco, nel quale gli autori hanno raccomandato di perseguire sia Il Partenariato TransPacifico (TPP) che l’Accordo di Libero Scambio Trans-Atlantico (TAFTA ) come “il modo più realistico per rivendicare la leadership economica degli Stati Uniti.“ Gli accordi hanno “implicazioni strategiche profonde” in quanto fornirebbero agli Stati Uniti un importante “ruolo nel definire le regole globali del percorso.” Mentre il TPP “dovrebbe aiutare nella definizione dello standard per l’integrazione economica in Asia,” il TAFTA “fornirebbe alle imprese americane ed europee un vantaggio nel fissare gli standard industriali per l’economia globale del futuro.“

Mentre “l’erosione del sostegno per gli FTA [gli Accordi di Libero Scambio] nel Congresso e tra il pubblico è tale da ostacolare questo sforzo,” il memorandum ha ricordato ad Obama che l’opinione pubblica deve essere ignorata nell’interesse aziendale: “è giunto il momento di avviare nuove iniziative in questi ambiti“.

Nei primi mesi del 2013, il Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue si è fuso con il Business Council euro-americano per diventare il Consiglio Economico Transatlantico (TBC), un gruppo composto da dirigenti aziendali che tiene “incontri semestrali con i segretari di gabinetto degli Stati Uniti e dei Commissari europei (a Davos e altrove),” in qualità di “consulente aziendale presso il Consiglio Economico Transatlantico (CET)“. Rappresenta circa 70 grandi aziende, tra cui: AIG, AT & T, BASF, BP, Deutsche Bank, EADS, ENI, Ford, GE, IBM, Intel, Merck, Pfizer, Siemens, TOTALE, Verizon, e Xerox, tra le altre.

Nel gennaio del 2013, il Consiglio d’Affari Transatlantico (TBC) si è riunito a Davos, in Svizzera durante l’annuale World Economic Forum, tenendo un incontro con funzionari di alto livello statunitensi e dell’Unione Europea, con Michael Froman, vice Consigliere per la Sicurezza Nazionale per gli affari economici internazionali del presidente Obama, che ha parlato nel corso della riunione TBC, dichiarando che “l’economia transatlantica sta per diventare un punto di riferimento mondiale per gli standard in un mondo globalizzato“. Froman e i leader del Consiglio d’Affari Transatlantico (TBC) “hanno convenuto che il sostegno da parte delle corporation che operano su entrambe le sponde dell’Atlantico è fondamentale per promuovere il commercio transatlantico“.

Tim Bennett, il direttore generale del TBC, ha dichiarato che la struttura del Consiglio d’Affari Transatlantico (TBC) “tiene conto della combinazione di un forte messaggio affaristico per i responsabili delle politiche, nonché di un input sostanziale attraverso gruppi di lavoro“, riferendosi a incontri ad alto livello a Washington e Bruxelles. Altri partecipanti alla riunione del Consiglio d’Affari Transatlantico (TBC) comprendevano il Segretario Generale dell’OCSE, Angel Gurria, il primo ministro irlandese Enda Kenny, direttore generale per il commercio della Commissione europea, Jean-Luc Demarty, il funzionario della Commissione Europea per il commercio, Marc Vanheukelen, e un ex dirigente di Citigroup.

Sul sito web del Consiglio d’Affari Transnazionale (TBC), essi promuovono specifici think tank come fornitori di “risorse”: il Consiglio Atlantico, la Bertelsmann Foundation, il Brookings Institution, il Center for Transatlantic Relations, Chatham House, il German Marshall Fund, e l’Istituto Peterson per le Relazioni Internazionali.

Il report finale: è tempo di fare ciò che le corporations domandano!

In data 11 febbraio 2013, il Gruppo di Lavoro ad Alto Livello euro-statunitense (HLWG) su Crescita e Occupazione ha pubblicato il suo rapporto finale nel quale, in maniera prevedibile, raccomandava standard e regolamenti di armonizzazione entro “un accordo di commercio e investimento globale.“

Il rapporto raccomandava inoltre “di incrementare l’integrazione economica … per ottenere un pacchetto di accesso al mercato che vada al di là di quello che Stati Uniti ed Unione europea hanno conseguito nei precedenti accordi“. Il rapporto ha inoltre raccomandato l’aumento di “appalti governativi“, un eufemismo per privatizzazioni e sovvenzioni statali alle società, rilevando che: “l’obiettivo dei negoziati dovrebbe essere quello di migliorare le opportunità di business attraverso un accesso, notevolmente migliorato, alle opportunità di appalti pubblici a tutti i livelli di governo.“

Due giorni dopo la pubblicazione della presente relazione, il 13 febbraio 2013, fu rilasciata da Barack Obama, dal presidente del Consiglio Europeo Herman Van Rompuy e dal presidente della Commissione Europea José Manuel Barroso, una dichiarazione congiunta che affermava: “Noi, leader degli Stati Uniti e dell’Unione Europea, siamo lieti di annunciare che… gli Stati Uniti e l’Unione europea avvieranno le reciproche procedure interne necessarie ad avviare i negoziati su Commercio Transatlantico e Parternariato d’Investimento“.

All’annuncio del TTIP (EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) a febbraio, l’allora Rappresentante del Commercio Statunitense Ron Kirk dichiarò che, “per noi, tutto è sul tavolo, in tutti i settori, compreso tutto il settore agricolo, se si tratta su OGM o su altri problemi.” Ha spiegato che “dobbiamo essere ambiziosi e dovremmo occuparci di tutti questi problemi.“ João Vale de Almeida, ambasciatore dell’Unione Europea negli Stati Uniti, ha scritto in un articolo che “un accordo economico ambizioso tra noi avrebbe mandato un messaggio forte al resto del mondo riguardante la nostra leadership nel dare forma ad una governance economica globale, in linea con i nostri valori“, che equivale a dire, “valori aziendali“.

I media tedeschi – e i funzionari governativi – sono esplosi d’ammirazione per le potenzialità, per questa “NATO economica“, di creare “la più grande zona di libero scambio del mondo“. Un giornale tedesco osservava che “una nuova alleanza economica” tra le potenze della NATO era appropriata, dal momento che “le vecchie nazioni industrializzate temevano di cadere dietro la potenza economica emergente cinese.” Un’altra pubblicazione tedesca notava che non solo una “zona di libero scambio trans-atlantico” avrebbe importanti “benefici” e implicazioni economiche, “ma renderebbe anche evidente che solo un Occidente sempre più stretto può avere successo in modo decisivo nel contribuire a determinare la politica globale“.

Il mondo delle imprese ha espresso immediata ammirazione per i negoziati annunciati, attraverso il presidente e amministratore delegato di Caterpillar “che raccomandava” ai leader di Stati Uniti e Unione europea e al Gruppo di Lavoro d’Alto Livello “di promuovere la tanto necessaria crescita economica e la creazione di occupazione.” Il presidente della Business Roundtable (BRT), John Engler, ha osservato che la Tavola rotonda stessa “è stata uno dei primi sostenitori” di un tale accordo, e che “i negoziati dovrebbero essere avviati prima possibile.“

C. Boyden Gray, membro del consiglio direttivo del Consiglio Atlantico ed ex ambasciatore degli Stati Uniti presso l’Unione Europea, ha pubblicato un rapporto per il Consiglio Atlantico, nel febbraio del 2013 dal titolo, Una NATO Economica: una nuova alleanza per un nuovo ordine globale. Gray ha avvertito che a meno che le potenze atlantiche non “raccolgano insieme la sfida … dell’era post-recessione … rischiano di cedere alle potenze emergenti la loro influenza economica e politica.” Questo non deve essere semplicemente un “accordo di libero scambio“, ma deve piuttosto “porre la cooperazione economica” di Stati Uniti e Unione europea “sullo stesso solido piano della sicurezza militare … abbiamo bisogno di creare una ‘NATO economica’.”

Il Wall Street Journal ha osservato che l’annuncio “rappresenta l’abbassare la testa di Obama agli interessi economici,” notando che riguardava meno lo ‘scambio‘ e più come stabilire standard globali. Il Presidente della Commissione Europea Barroso si è espresso in modo simile quando ha detto, “questo sarà l’accordo di libero scambio più grande mai fatto, [e] avrà certamente un impatto sugli standard globali.“

Michael Froman, consulente sulla politica economica internazionale di Obama, ha osservato che l’accordo dovrebbe “integrare ulteriormente le nostre economie e contribuire a impostare regole globali“. Il commissario al Commercio della Ue, Karel de Gucht ha aggiunto: “Quello che vogliamo fare è creare un mercato interno tra Stati Uniti e Unione Europea.“

Il Financial Times ha sottolineato che, mentre era “luogo comune“  immaginare che il futuro appartenesse alle economie emergenti, “le vecchie potenze economiche possono ancora tenerlo in pugno.” L’accordo “promette un premio il cui valore politico è ancora più grande rispetto al suo considerevole beneficio economico“. Quindi, dobbiamo intendere questi “accordi di libero scambio“, come, in realtà, accordi di consolidamento aziendale cosmopolitico.

Mentre il segretario di Stato americano John Kerry si recava a Berlino a fine febbraio, appoggiava l’accordo, suggerendo che esso “può sollevare l’economia dell’Europa, rafforzare la nostra economia, creare occupazione per gli americani, per i tedeschi, per tutti i cittadini europei e creare uno dei mercati alleati più grandi nel mondo“.

La stampa tedesca ha avvertito che gli attivisti di internet, i gruppi ambientalisti, del lavoro e dei consumatori si stavano “preparando a combattere il trattato con tutti i mezzi a loro disposizione“, poiché temevano che “cattivi compromessi saranno effettuati a spese dei consumatori in negoziati segreti tra Comunità Europea e amministrazione Obama.“

L’applicazione di uguali standard per i prodotti alimentari preoccupa molti nell’UE in merito ai prodotti alimentari americani geneticamente modificati, come mais, soia e barbabietole, mentre le questioni sui diritti di proprietà intellettuale minacciano sempre più la libertà di Internet a beneficio di interessi aziendali e finanziari, come ad esempio nel caso del fallito Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), che è stato sopraffatto da ampie campagne e proteste su Internet.

Uno degli organizzatori per il movimento anti-ACTA, Jérémie Zimmermann, ha dichiarato: “Milioni di cittadini si possono mobilitare se le loro libertà sono minacciate“. Eppure, nonostante un’inquietudine e un’opposizione crescente verso un tale accordo, che sarebbe stato basato principalmente attorno a questioni altamente controverse invece che su un reale “scambio” o sulle tariffe, il cancelliere tedesco Angela Merkel ha definito l’accordo come “il nostro progetto di gran lunga più importante per il futuro.“

Baucus, il presidente della commissione Finanze del Senato degli Stati Uniti, ha scritto un articolo per il Financial Times in cui affermava che l’accordo era “un’intesa che deve essere fatta, deve essere fatta ora, e deve essere fatta bene … Come presidente del Comitato di Sorveglianza del Commercio degli Stati Uniti, sosterrò un accordo solo se darà ai produttori americani l’opportunità di competere nel più grande mercato del mondo“.

Parlando ad Harvard all’inizio di marzo, Karel de Gucht ha definito l’accordo come “il pacchetto di stimolo più a buon prezzo che si possa immaginare“, aggiungendo che era “il laboratorio politico per le nuove regole di commercio di cui abbiamo bisogno – su questioni come barriere normative, politiche di concorrenza, requisiti di localizzazione, materie prime ed energia.“

Barack Obama ha dichiarato di essere “moderatamente ottimista” in merito all’accordo, poichè gli Stati Uniti si muovevano “aggressivamente“, mentre l’Unione Europea era “più desiderosa di un accordo di quanto non lo sia stata in passato.“ Parlando al Consiglio sull’Esportazione del Presidente, composto da dirigenti di grandi aziende in veste di ‘consiglieri,’ Obama ha ribadito, “vogliamo che le nostre 500 compagnie di Fortune vendano il più possibile.“ John Kerry ha detto a un gruppo di imprenditori francesi che, “se ci muoviamo rapidamente … [l'accordo] può avere un profondo impatto sul resto del mondo“.

Robert Zoellick, ex presidente della Banca Mondiale, ha avallato l’accordo, sottolineando che potrebbe “creare un precedente” nella definizione di standard per l’economia globale, aggiungendo: “abbiamo bisogno di creare una nuova struttura per il sistema globale“, tuttavia, ha avvertito, l’agricoltura è stata e “sarà uno dei problemi più difficili“, a causa della preoccupazione per gli organismi geneticamente modificati. Barroso ha avvertito che, “solo l’UE andrà così lontano.“ Lori Wallach, direttore del Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch ha osservato: “Tutta questa trattativa riguarda l’eliminazione dei ‘contrasti commerciali’, ma nel movimento dei consumatori degli Stati Uniti ci invidiano e ammirano e cercano di emulare gli standard europei di sicurezza alimentare, mentre l’industria sta cercando di ucciderli“.

Nel mese di aprile del 2013, è stato avviata una “coalizione” per promuovere il Commercio Transatlantico e Partenariato d’Investimento chiamata Coalizione d’Affari per il Commercio Transatlantico (BCTT), che “mira a promuovere crescita, occupazione e competitività su entrambe le sponde dell’Atlantico attraverso un accordo ambizioso, globale e di alto livello per il commercio e gli investimenti”.

Il Comitato direttivo per la BCTT consta di un certo numero di società multinazionali e associazioni di imprese, e la segreteria è la Camera di Commercio degli Stati Uniti.
I co-presidenti aziendali per la coalizione comprendono Amway, Chrysler, Citi, Dow, Fedex, Ford, GE, IBM, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, MetLife, UPS e JPMorgan Chase. Le associazioni partner del BCTT includono la Business Roundtable, la Coalition of Service Industries, il Comitato di Emergenza per il Commercio americano, l’Associazione Nazionale dei Costruttori, il Consiglio Nazionale per il Commercio Estero, il Consiglio d’Affari Transatlantico (TBC), la Camera di Commercio degli Stati Uniti e il Consiglio per il Commercio Internazionale Statunitense. L’obiettivo iniziale del BCTT era quello di sollecitare l’avvio formale di negoziati entro giugno o luglio del 2013, così come “appoggiare un ampio sostegno bipartisan e fornire input dettagliati una volta che siano in corso le trattative.“

In occasione dell’avvio del BCTT, il vice presidente della Camera di Commercio Statunitense e Capo degli Affari Internazionali, Myron Brilliant, ha osservato che non vi era “grande sostegno” all’accordo, “sia nel governo che nel settore privato.” La comunità aziendale, ha spiegato, “è impegnata ad assistere la negoziazione di un accordo transatlantico … e continueremo i nostri sforzi per incoraggiare entrambi i governi per far sì che questo accordo sia fatto in fretta.“ La Business Roundtable, membro del BCTT, ha approvato la nuova coalizione in un comunicato di John Engler, che ha spiegato, “non vediamo l’ora di lavorare con il Congresso e l’Amministrazione per garantire un accordo globale e ambizioso.“

Mentre si parla di un gruppo d’affari americano, l’ambasciatore britannico per gli Stati Uniti, ha detto che anche i servizi finanziari sarebbero “coperti da questi negoziati“, notando che Stati Uniti e Regno Unito sono sede dei “due più significativi centri finanziari internazionali su entrambe le sponde dell’Atlantico“, Wall Street e la City di Londra.

Secondo un funzionario dell’amministrazione Obama coinvolto nei colloqui, l’accordo “avrebbe concesso alle corporation nuovo potere politico per sfidare una serie di regolamenti, sia in patria che all’estero.“ Ambientalisti, consumatori, e altri gruppi di interesse temono che l’accordo “porterà ad una riduzione di regole importanti e metterà le multinazionali sullo stesso piano politico delle nazioni sovrane.” Questo sarebbe facilitato da una “procedura” di risoluzione delle controversie tra stato e investitore, il che significa che le aziende potrebbero citare in giudizio direttamente i governi su ciò che percepiscono come “barriera agli investimenti“- possibilmente attraverso un tribunale internazionale (magari anche attraverso la Banca Mondiale). A tale tribunale “sarebbe stata data l’autorità di imporre sanzioni economiche contro qualsiasi paese che violasse il suo verdetto.“

Tali disposizioni, ha notato uno specialista di commercio con Sierra Club, “eleva le corporation al livello di Stati nazionali e consente loro di citare in giudizio i governi su quasi qualunque legge o politica che riduca i loro profitti futuri.” Questi meccanismi sono “terribilmente rischiosi per le comunità, l’ambiente e il clima.” Il “piccolo sporco segreto“, ha osservato Lori Wallach di Public Citizen, “è che non riguardano principalmente il commercio, ma piuttosto avrebbero come obiettivo l’eliminazione delle più forti politiche di interesse pubblico in merito a consumo, salute, sicurezza, privacy, ambiente e altre su entrambe le sponde atlantiche“.

Thomas Donohue, presidente della Camera di Commercio degli Stati Uniti, non poteva essere più felice. “Se facessero un accordo domani“, ha detto nel mese di aprile del 2013, “le aziende statunitensi ed europee sarebbero sedute su una barca di soldi e che farebbero avanzare questa cosa più velocemente di quanto sia possibile.“

Le aziende sarebbero in grado di realizzare un profitto più rapidamente del previsto, ha osservato: “Apri una porta e dici ci sono soldi dall’altra parte, c’è l’opportunità di espandersi, di esportare, di vendere i loro prodotti, di avviare partnership … Pensi che abbiano intenzione di aspettare fino al 2027? Passeranno attraverso la porta prima che si sappia.“
Donohue ha incoraggiato le trattative a iniziare il più presto possibile, “essi devono, ne hanno bisogno“, aggiungendo: “Non abbiamo bisogno di prendere altro tempo.“

Un agenda transatlantica su l’austerità, sfruttamento e consolidamento aziendale

Il 22 aprile 2013, c’è stata una conferenza, ospitata presso la Federal Reserve Bank di New York, in collaborazione con la Direzione Generale della Commissione Europea per gli Affari Economici e Finanziari, “che ha messo assieme ideatori delle politiche, funzionari di controllo, analisti di mercato e docenti universitari euro-statunitensi“. L’obiettivo della conferenza è stato quello di “valutare le prospettive di una crescita economica sostenibile e la stabilità finanziaria, e discutere le sfide per le relazioni economiche transatlantiche poste dai recenti episodi di crisi economica.” Tra gli oratori figuravano il presidente della Fed di New York William Dudley e il Vice Presidente della Commissione Europea, Olli Rehn. [Per un elenco degli altri partecipanti, vedi Appendice 9]

William Dudley è stato presidente della Fed di New York dal 2009, quando il precedente presidente – Timothy Geithner – è diventato Segretario del Tesoro di Obama. Prima della sua nuova posizione, Dudley era socio e amministratore delegato di Goldman Sachs, e attualmente presta servizio anche come presidente del Comitato sul Sistema Finanziario Globale presso la Banca dei Regolamenti Internazionali (BRI), ed è vice presidente del Club Economico di New York.

Dudley ha aperto l’evento “esclusivo” suggerendo, “in un’economia globale con un sistema finanziario globale … regolamentazione e vigilanza hanno un orientamento decisamente nazionale.” Così, ha spiegato, “noi [dobbiamo] cercare di bilanciare le nostre esigenze nazionali con i benefici di avere un sistema globale armonizzato e integrato“. Ciò che è necessario, ha detto Dudley, è la “crescita“. Ma non c’era “una buona nuova” negli Stati Uniti, il settore immobiliare si stava ri-gonfiando – cosa che si chiama “risanamento“, il “settore immobiliare” della classe media era alle prese con il pesante fardello del debito (denominato “riduzione del livello di indebitamento“), ma il settore bancario era “sano” (nel senso di più redditizio), e “il settore delle imprese è altamente redditizio e inondato di liquidità.” Questa è la “buona notizia“.

Un articolo di Bloomberg del 2010 si riferiva alla Federal Reserve Bank di New York come ad “un gruppo per black-ops della banca centrale della nazione“, notando che era in realtà un “ente semi-governativo“, la cui leadership viene nominata dalle principali banche di Wall Street per rappresentare i loro interessi, ed è stata “lo strumento preferito per molti dei programmi di salvataggio della Fed“. La Fed di New York è in realtà una banca privata con una grande quantità di funzioni pubbliche, ed è oggetto di una “cultura della segretezza” che è stata descritta come “pervasiva“. Nel consiglio di amministrazione della Fed di New York c’è Jamie Dimon, amministratore delegato di JPMorgan Chase, così come molti altri banchieri.

Nel suo discorso, Dudley ha spiegato di aver guidato la Fed di New York all’acquisto di titoli del Tesoro USA a lungo termine (il debito pubblico statunitense) e di titoli garantiti da ipoteca (gli stessi acquisti che hanno contribuito a creare la precedente bolla immobiliare), per la somma di 85 miliardi di dollari “ogni mese“. Notando che gli Stati Uniti iniziavano il percorso di austerità nazionale – “di consolidamento fiscale” – e dovevano continuare più a fondo, c’era “un braccio di ferro” tra l’avere una buona economia e avere austerità, che è un modo fine per dire che le misure di austerità distruggeranno l’economia (cosa che gli europei già conoscono molto bene).

Così, come ha spiegato Dudley, con immensi profitti aziendali e bancari, una bolla speculativa, e una pilotata austerità economica che sopraggiunge in picchiata “il livello di incertezza, riguardo le prospettive a breve termine negli Stati Uniti, resta molto elevata.” Ma gli Stati Uniti non sono orientati “ad un percorso di crescita” basato su “investimenti d’impresa” e “commercio“, poichè si sono invece concentrati solo su consumi basati sul debito.

In Europa, tuttavia, la prospettiva era “meno brillante.” Ma ancora una volta, vi erano “buone notizie“, dal momento che i “paesi periferici” come Grecia, Spagna, Italia, Portogallo, Irlanda, e altri, stavano imponendo con successo dure misure di austerità, nonostante l’opposizione della popolazione che ne veniva impoverita. Questi, Dudley li chiama, “sforzi notevoli per ridurre i loro disavanzi strutturali di bilancio.” C’è stato anche un progresso nel miglioramento della loro “competitività internazionale“, come a dire che si aprono allo sfruttamento e al saccheggio, sebbene ci fosse ancora “l’occasione per ulteriori riforme strutturali nel mercato del lavoro e dei prodotti.“  Anche se, naturalmente, questo non dovrebbe essere fatto “solo in periferia“, quel tipo di “opportunità” esiste ovunque, per rendere efficiente lo sfruttamento, e, quindi, per maggiori profitti: “per aumentare la produttività e rafforzare le prospettive di crescita a lungo termine.“

Purtroppo, ha osservato Dudley, c’erano anche “cattive notizie” nell’UE, dato che l’economia era “ancora in una fase di recessione” – o cosa che potrebbe essere più accuratamente descritta come una profonda depressione dei cosiddetti paesi “periferici” – dove  diveniva sempre più difficile imporre misure di austerità e impoverire le popolazioni: “il sostegno politico per ulteriori giri di vite sul bilancio è nettamente diminuito“. Senza “crescita” poi – che significa senza profitti di aziende e banche – “il sostegno politico per un continuo aggiustamento fiscale e strutturale potrebbe ulteriormente erodersi.” L’Europa inoltre aveva la necessità di perseguire “una maggiore integrazione” a livello di governance, e lo sviluppo di una “unione bancaria pan-europea con la BCE [Banca Centrale Europea] come sorvegliante principale” era un “importante e cruciale prossimo passo”.

Questo ovviamente richiederà a ciascun paese dell’Unione Europea “la rinuncia a una piccola porzione di sovranità sulla supervisione bancaria” e la sua consegna alla BCE, che è irresponsabile e rimane una forza che spinge verso austerità e programmi di aggiustamento. Dudley si è riferito a questa con il concetto “una moneta, un mercato“.

Olli Rehn, vicepresidente della Commissione Europea e Commissario per gli Affari Economici e Monetari – motore trainante principale dell’austerità e dei programmi di aggiustamento – ha fatto il discorso di apertura alla conferenza della Federal Reserve di New York. Ha iniziato col salutare positivamente l’appena annunciato Parternariato d’Investimento e Commercio Transatlantico, spiegando che si deve lavorare sodo per renderlo “una realtà“.  L’Europa, tuttavia, sta operando “una riduzione del debito“, – vale a dire che il continente viene schiacciato dal peso di un grave debito i cui creditori domandano ‘austerità’ e ‘aggiustamento’ in aggiunta ai salvataggi – e questo “processo di riduzione del debito sta prendendo tempo, e abbiamo bisogno di trovare nuove fonti di crescita per alleviare l’onere dell’aggiustamento.” In questo senso, ha spiegato Rehn, “l’apertura di nuove opportunità commerciali a livello mondiale è così importante“. Mentre molti paesi dell’Unione continuavano con dure misure di austerità, “riforme strutturali“, – che facilitano lo sfruttamento del lavoro e delle risorse – “esse sono la chiave per accrescere il potenziale di crescita dell’economia europea“.

Ha concluso il suo discorso, affermando: “dobbiamo mantenere la rotta delle riforme. Dobbiamo pronunciarci in termini di libero scambio, di riforma del settore finanziario, di riforme strutturali che aumentino il potenziale di crescita, e il consolidamento costante delle finanze pubbliche. Dobbiamo fare così per creare le basi per una crescita sostenibile e la creazione di occupazione. Di fronte a queste sfide, siamo di fatto partner su entrambe le sponde dell’Atlantico.“

Un appello per la Resistenza Transatlantica alla Tirannia Aziendale

L’Europa mangia sé stessa con l’austerità, cacciando la sua popolazione nella povertà e contemporaneamente intraprendendo “riforme strutturali” volte a facilitare lo sfruttamento senza ostacoli delle risorse, dei mercati e del lavoro da parte delle imprese transnazionali. Anche gli Stati Uniti stanno attuando misure di austerità, sebbene scegliendo, invece, di creare fallaci ‘drammi del debito‘ cosa che coinvolge una pomposa parata di parole senza senso – ‘dirupo fiscale‘ [fiscal cliff] e ‘sequestro‘ – allo scopo di evitare la palese promozione dell’austerità, che potrebbe incoraggiare la gente a pensare correttamente alla Grecia come esempio.

I cosiddetti accordi di “libero scambio” funzionano come trattati di austerità transnazionale e di ‘riforme strutturali‘: concedono alle corporation accesso illimitato ai mercati, li proteggono dalla concorrenza, li sovvenzionano pesantemente, privatizzano tutto e di più, deregolamentano il più possibile, distruggono l’ambiente, e facilitano il saccheggio senza ostacoli delle risorse e lo sfruttamento del lavoro.

Non commettere errori: il Parternariato d’Investimento e Commercio Transatlantico (TTIP) è poco più di un colpo di stato aziendale transatlantico. Le corporation hanno creato la domanda per l’accordo, hanno incitato e promosso l’agenda con le élite politiche, e dirigono l’intero processo, assicurando che i loro interessi siano soddisfatti.

Sembrerebbe, quindi, che sia il momento per gli attivisti, gli intellettuali, e le comunità e le organizzazioni di stendere le braccia attraverso l’Atlantico, nel tentativo di creare una resistenza organizzata alla tirannia aziendale transatlantica, alla fusione e alla colonizzazione.

Le corporation stanno intraprendendo spinte senza precedenti per l’accumulazione di profitto e di potere, per la promozione di programmi e progetti che ri-modellano il mondo a loro immagine, trattando i governi come giocattoli, l’ambiente come un nemico, e impoverendo le popolazioni di tutto il mondo. Siamo testimoni di un progetto transnazionale di ingegneria sociale, guidato da grandi aziende, volto ad agevolare una concentrazione economica, finanziaria, politica e sociale nelle loro mani.

Benvenuti nell’era della Colonizzazione e della Fusione Aziendale Cosmopolitica.

Volete accettare questa come una cosa legittima? Volete accettare un tale accordo? Chi l’ha stipulato? Voi l’avete fatto? Siete stati consultati? Ne avete mai sentito parlare prima?

La vera domanda è: staremo seduti passivamente mentre veniamo guidati alla Estinzione Inc., o resisteremo per davvero, ci organizzeremo e faremo qualcosa al riguardo?

Appendice 1: La leadership del Consiglio Atlantico

Tra le leadership nel consiglio di amministrazione del Consiglio Atlantico c’è Brent Scowcroft, l’ex consigliere per la sicurezza nazionale (per i presidenti Ford e Bush Sr.), Richard Armitage, James E. Cartwright, Wesley Clark, Paula Dobriansky, Christopher Dodd, Stephen Hadley, Michael Hayden, James L. Jones, Henry Kissinger, Thomas Pickering, Anne-Marie Slaughter, James Steinberg, John C. Whitehead, e con un gruppo di consiglieri onorari tra cui: Madeleine Albright, James Baker, Harold Brown, Frank Carlucci, Robert Gates, Michael Mullen, William Perry, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, James Schlesinger, George Shultz, e John Warner, tra gli altri.

A capo del Business and Economics Advisors Group al Consiglio Atlantico, ci sono dirigenti delle seguenti aziende e istituzioni: Deutsche Bank, Institute of International Finance, Center for Global Development, AIG, BNP-Paribas, Rock Creek Global Advisors, la Stern Gruppo, Harvard, e il Peterson Institute for International Economics. L’Advisory Board Internazional del Consiglio Atlantico comprende Josef Ackermann (Presidente di Zurich Insurance), Shaukat Aziz (ex primo ministro del Pakistan), Jose Maria Aznar (ex primo ministro della Spagna), Zbigniew Brzezinski (ex consiglire per la Sicurezza Nazionale Statunitense), e alti dirigenti della Occidental Petroleum, SAIC, Coca-Cola Company, PwC, News Corporation, Royal Bank of Canada, BAE Systems, del Gruppo Blackstone, Thomson Reuters, Lockheed Martin, Bertelsmann, Novartis, e Investor AB, tra gli altri.

Appendice 2: Leadership del Marshall Fund tedesco

Il consiglio di amministrazione della GMF include una serie di dirigenti aziendali e commentatori di notizie, e i loro fondi provengono anche da una consorteria di governi, grandi fondazioni, e multinazionali tra cui: Bank of America Foundation, BP, Daimler, Eli Lilly & Company, General Dynamics, IBM, la NATO, il Rockefeller Brothers Fund, e USAID, tra molti altri.

Appendice 3: Direzione del Business Roundtable

Gli altri membri del comitato esecutivo sono gli amministratori delegati di Honeywell, Dow Chemical, Procter & Gamble, MasterCard, Xerox, American Express, Eaton, JPMorgan Chase, Wal-Mart, General Electric, Caesars Entertainment, Caterpillar, McGraw-Hill, State Farm Insurance , AT & T, Frontier Communications, e ExxonMobil.

Appendice 4: La leadership del ERT

A partire dal 2013, i membri della ERT includevano gli amministratori delegati di Ericsson, Siemens, Telecom Italia, la BASF, la Nestlé, Repsol, ThyssenKrupp, TOTALE, Rio Tinto, Fiat, Nokia, EADS, ABB, Lafarge, GDF SUEZ, BMW, Eni, BP , Royal Dutch Shell e Investor AB, tra molti altri.

Appendice 5: Corporate Partner di BusinessEurope

BusinessEurope conta tra le sue “aziende partner” notevoli conglomerati multinazionali che compongono la Corporate Advisory e il Gruppo di sostegno che “godono di uno status importante all’interno di BusinessEurope”, tra cui: Accenture, Alcoa, BASF, Bayer, BMW, BP, Caterpillar, Diamler, DuPont , ExxonMobil, GDF Suez, GE, IBM, Microsoft, Pfizer, Shell, Siemens, Total, e Unilever, tra molti altri.

Appendice 6: Le aziende rappresentate in seno al consiglio della Camera di Commercio degli Stati Uniti

Il consiglio di amministrazione della Camera comprende dirigenti e rappresentanti delle seguenti istituzioni e aziende: Accenture, Allianz of America, AT & T, Pfizer, FedEx, The Charles Schwab Corporation, Xerox, Rolls-Royce Nord America, Dow Chemical, Alcoa, UPS , Caterpillar, New York Life Insurance Company, Deloitte, il Carlyle Group, 3M, Duke Energy, Siemens, Verizon, IBM, e Allstate Insurance, tra molti altri.

Appendice 7: Membri della Task Force

Altri membri della task force rappresentavano istituzioni come: Tufts University, la rivista Foreign Policy, Standard Chartered Bank, Comitato Consultivo per il Commercio e le Imprese per l’OCSE, Facebook, un ex ambasciatore UE degli Stati Uniti, un ex vicepresidente senior della Banca Mondiale, Deloitte Touche e Susan Schwab, un ex Rappresentante del Commercio Statunitense.

Appendice 8: Rappresentanti Aziendali nel PEC

Il PEC di Obama comprende gli amministratori delegati e dirigenti di Boeing, Xerox, Dow Chemical, UPS, Walt Disney Company, Warburg Pincus, Caesars Entertainment, Ford, Verizon, JPMorgan Chase, Ernst & Young, e Archer Daniels Midland, tra gli altri.

Appendice 9: I partecipanti a New York Fed Conference

Il programma della manifestazione prevedeva il discorso di apertura del presidente della Federal Reserve di New York, William Dudley, e includeva anche l’ambasciatore dell’UE negli Stati Uniti, Joao Vale de Almdeida; il direttore generale della Commissione Europea per gli Affari economici e finanziari, Marco Buti, e individui della Columbia University, la Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, il MIT, la Brookings Institution, l’Università di Cambridge, il think tank europeo Bruegel, Morgan Stanley, la European Banking Authority, l’ex presidente della Federal Reserve Paul Volcker che era presidente della tavola rotonda su “Dimensioni Transatlantiche della riforma finanziaria“, e Olli Rehn, vicepresidente della Commissione Europea e Commissario per gli Affari Economici e Monetari (una figura centrale della gerarchia dell’austerità’) come oratore ‘chiave’.

Andrew Gavin Marshall, 26 anni, è un ricercatore indipendente e scrittore con sede a Montreal, Canada. Egli è Project Manager del The People’s Book Project, capo della divisione geopolitica dell’Istituto Hampton, direttore di ricerca per Occupy.com s ‘Global Power Project e tiene una rassegna settimanale in podcast su BoilingFrogsPost.

http://andrewgavinmarshall.com/2013/05/12/large-corporations-seek-u-s-european-free-trade-agreement-to-further-global-dominance/

The People’s Book Project has been ongoing for some time now. I recently attempted a fundraising campaign (aimed at raising $2,000) to support work on the Book Project for March and April. I never met the funding goal, but came very close, due to the extremely generous support of readers.

That support has led to significant progress on the project: no new chapters are being started currently. Rather, I am now focusing on finishing the existing chapters and beginning the process of editing together the first volume of the People’s Book Project, focused on issues related to the global economic crisis: the food crisis, land grabs, global poverty, slums, trade, so-called “free trade” agreements, corporate power, bank domination and profits, austerity policies, debt crises, and resistance to economic and corporate tyranny.

Over the next two months, the first volume of the book project should be nearing the first complete edit. But for that to happen, I need to again ask for support from readers to contribute to making this project a reality.

Check out the newly-designed website for The People’s Book Project!

Don’t forget to ‘like’ the Facebook page!

Please consider being a contributor and patron to The People’s Book Project. I am aiming to reach the fundraising goal of $2,000 to support the remaining research, writing, and editing for the first volume of the ‘global economic order.’

This project aims to expose global power structures in order to arm the people with enough information to try to change them. Help contribute to redistributing power by empowering the people with information and knowledge!

Contribute today!

Thank you,

Andrew Gavin Marshall

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is the latest plan of conglomerates to strengthen their grip over the planet.

By: Andrew Gavin Marshall

Originally posted at: AlterNet

Recently, I have been writing about the European debt crisis, focusing on the role played by a major business lobby group known as the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT), who shape and monitor the policies pursued by the EU; the new Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, the largest “free trade” agreement in the world to be negotiated between the US and EU; global “free trade” agreements and the new global corporate order being constructed; the G20 and its role in shaping global governance as well as the corporations and banks that shape its policies; the actions and roles played by central banks in advancing and shaping elite agendas, and much much more!

I’ve been quite productive on the book, and also have been working on a number of other initiatives simultaneously. By narrowing the focus of the first volume to that related to the economy, corporate, financial and poverty-related issues, I will be able to speed up the completion of the first volume in the next couple months. This has only been – and will only remain – possible due to the generous support from readers, so thank you for that continuous investment in my research and writing!

On top of the book, I have been working on the early stages of a continuous research project for Occupy.com called the ‘Global Power Project,’ analyzing the names and influence wielded by the global elite, through a variety of different institutions. I have also been involved in the starting stages of a new progressive and radical think tank as chair of the Geopolitics Division for the Hampton Institute, named after Chicago Black Panther Party leader Fred Hampton. On top of that, I have been doing a few commissioned articles for publications like AlterNet, am preparing research for an article I was asked to write for an academic journal, and I have begun work with some friends and colleagues on the creation of our own non-profit organization, dedicated to starting projects which aim to expand understanding and interaction between activists, intellectuals, and interested individuals from around the world in helping to create a new world for the benefit of all.

So, I’ve been quite busy, which helps explain the lack of updates on the Book Project, but rest assured, I have been putting in a lot of time and effort on the book, and am getting much closer to the point where I can finish the initial writing stage and begin editing it together into a more coherent and consistent narrative.

For work to proceed, I of course must return to asking my generous readers for their continued investments and support for the People’s Book Project. If you have the means, please consider investing and helping the Project move forward (and fast!) in the near future.

Cheers!

Andrew Gavin Marshall

By: Andrew Gavin Marshall

Peter Brabeck, Chairman of Nestlé

In the 2005 documentary, We Feed the World, then-CEO of Nestlé, the world’s largest foodstuff corporation, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, shared some of his own views and ‘wisdom’ about the world and humanity. Brabeck believes that nature is not “good,” that there is nothing to worry about with GMO foods, that profits matter above all else, that people should work more, and that human beings do not have a right to water.

Today, he explained, “people believe that everything that comes from Nature is good,” marking a large change in perception, as previously, “we always learnt that Nature could be pitiless.” Humanity, Brabeck stated, “is now in the position of being able to provide some balance to Nature, but in spite of this we have something approaching a shibboleth that everything that comes from Nature is good.” He then referenced the “organic movement” as an example of this thinking, premising that “organic is best.” But rest assured, he corrected, “organic is not best.” In 15 years of GMO food consumption in the United States, “not one single case of illness has occurred.” In spite of this, he noted, “we’re all so uneasy about it in Europe, that something might happen to us.” This view, according to Brabeck, is “hypocrisy more than anything else.”

Water, Brabeck correctly pointed out, “is of course the most important raw material we have today in the world,” but added: “It’s a question of whether we should privatize the normal water supply for the population. And there are two different opinions on the matter. The one opinion, which I think is extreme, is represented by the NGOs, who bang on about declaring water a public right.” Brabeck elaborated on this “extreme” view: “That means that as a human being you should have a right to water. That’s an extreme solution.” The other view, and thus, the “less extreme” view, he explained, “says that water is a foodstuff like any other, and like any other foodstuff it should have a market value. Personally I believe it’s better to give a foodstuff a value so that we’re all aware that it has its price, and then that one should take specific measures for the part of the population that has no access to this water, and there are many different possibilities there.” The biggest social responsibility of any CEO, Brabeck explained:

is to maintain and ensure the successful and profitable future of his enterprise. For only if we can ensure our continued, long term existence will we be in the position to actively participate in the solution of the problems that exist in the world. We’re in the position of being able to create jobs… If you want to create work, you have to work yourself, not as it was in the past where existing work was distributed. If you remember the main argument for the 35-hour week was that there was a certain amount of work and it would be better if we worked less and distributed the work amongst more people. That has proved quite clearly to be wrong. If you want to create more work you have to work more yourself. And with that we’ve got to create a positive image of the world for people, and I see absolutely no reason why we shouldn’t be positive about the future. We’ve never had it so good, we’ve never had so much money, we’ve never been so healthy, we’ve never lived as long as we do today. We have everything we want and we still go around as if we were in mourning for something.

While watching a promotional video of a Nestlé factory in Japan, Brabeck commented, “You can see how modern these factories are; highly robotized, almost no people.” And of course, for someone claiming to be interested in creating jobs, there appears to be no glaring hypocrisy in praising factories with “almost no people.”

It’s important to note that this is not simply the personal view of some random corporate executive, but rather, that it reflects an institutional reality of corporations: the primary objective of a corporation – above all else – is to maximize short-term profits for shareholders. By definition, then, workers should work more and be paid less, the environment is only a concern so much as corporations have unhindered access to control and exploit the resources of the environment, and ultimately, it’s ‘good’ to replace workers with automation and robotics so that you don’t have to pay fewer or any workers, and thus, maximize profits. With this institutional – and ideological – structure (which was legally constructed by the state), concern for the environment, for water, for the world and for humanity can only be promoted if it can be used to advance corporate profits, or if it can be used for public relations purposes. Ultimately, it has to be hypocritical. A corporate executive cannot take an earnest concern in promoting the general welfare of the world, the environment, or humanity, because that it not the institutional function of a corporation, and no CEO that did such would be allowed to remain as CEO.

This is why it matters what Peter Brabeck thinks: he represents the type of individual – and the type of thinking – that is a product of and a requirement for running a successful multinational corporation, of the corporate culture itself. To the average person viewing his interview, it might come across as some sort of absurd tirade you’d expect from a Nightline interview with some infamous serial killer, if that killer had been put in charge of a multinational corporation:

People have a ‘right’ to water? What an absurd notion! Next thing you’ll say is that child labour is bad, polluting the environment is bad, or that people have some sort of ‘right’ to… life! Imagine the audacity! All that matters is ‘profits,’ and what a wonderful thing it would be to have less people and more profits! Water isn’t a right, it’s only a necessity, so naturally, it makes sense to privatize it so that large multinational corporations like Nestlé can own the world’s water and ensure that only those who can pay can drink. Problem solved!

Sadly, though intentionally satirical, this is the essential view of Brabeck and others like him. And disturbingly, Brabeck’s influence is not confined to the board of Nestlé. Brabeck became the CEO of Nestlé in 1997, a position he served until 2008, at which time he resigned as CEO but remained as chairman of the board of directors of Nestlé. Apart from Nestlé, Brabeck serves as vice chairman of the board of directors of L’Oréal, the world’s largest cosmetics and ‘beauty’ company; vice chairman of the board of Credit Suisse Group, one of the world’s largest banks; and is a member of the board of directors of Exxon Mobil, one of the world’s largest oil and energy conglomerates.

He was also a former board member of one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical conglomerates, Roche. Brabeck also serves as a member of the Foundation Board for the World Economic Forum (WEF), “the guardian of [the WEF’s] mission, values and brand… responsible for inspiring business and public confidence through an exemplary standard of governance.” Brabeck is also a member of the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT), a group of European corporate CEOs which directly advise and help steer policy for the European Union and its member countries. He has also attended meetings of the Bilderberg group, an annual forum of 130 corporate, banking, media, political and military elites from Western Europe and North America.

Thus, through his multiple board memberships on some of the largest corporations on earth, as well as his leadership and participation in some of the leading international think tanks, forums and business associations, Brabeck has unhindered access to political and other elites around the world. When he speaks, powerful people listen.

Brabeck’s Brain

Brabeck has become an influential voice on issues of food and water, and not surprisingly so, considering he is chairman of the largest food service corporation on earth. Brabeck’s career goes back to when he was working for Nestlé in Chile in the early 1970s, when the left-leaning democratically-elected president Salvador Allende was “threatening to nationalize milk production, and Nestlé’s Chilean operations along with it.” A 1973 Chilean military coup – with the support of the CIA – put an end to that “threat” by bringing in the military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, who murdered thousands of Chileans and established a ‘national security state’, imposing harsh economic measures to promote the interests of elite corporate and financial interests (what later became known as ‘neoliberalism’).

In a 2009 article for Foreign Policy magazine, Brabeck declared: “Water is the new gold, and a few savvy countries and companies are already banking on it.” In a 2010 article for the Guardian, Brabeck wrote that, “[w]hile our collective attention has been focused on depleting supplies of fossil fuels, we have been largely ignoring the simple fact that, unless radical changes are made, we will run out of water first, and soon.” What the world needs, according to Brabeck, is “to set a price that more accurately values our most precious commodity,” and that, [t]he era of water at throwaway prices is coming to an end.” In other words, water should become increasingly expensive, according to Brabeck. Countries, he wrote, should recognize “that not all water use should be regarded as equal.”

In a discussion with the Wall Street Journal in 2011, Brabeck spoke against the use of biofuels – converting food into fuel – and suggested that this was the primary cause of increased food prices (though in reality, food price increases are primarily the result of speculation by major banks like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase). Brabeck noted the relationship between his business – food – and major geopolitical issues, stating: “What we call today the Arab Spring… really started as a protest against ever-increasing food prices.” One “solution,” he suggested, was to provide a “market” for water as “the best guidance that you can have.” If water was a ‘market’ product, it wouldn’t be wasted on growing food for fuel, but focus on food for consumption – and preferably (in his view), genetically modified foods. After all, he said, “if the market forces are there the investments are going to be made.” Brabeck suggested that the world could “feed nine billion people,” providing them with water and fuel, but only on the condition that “we let the market do its thing.”

Brabeck co-authored a 2011 article for the Wall Street Journal in which he stated that in order to provide “universal access to clean water, there is simply no other choice but to price water at a reasonable rate,” and that roughly 1.8 billion people on earth lack access to clean drinking water “because of poor water management and governance practices, and the lack of political will.” Brabeck’s job then, as chairman of Nestlé, is to help create the “political will” to make water into a modern “market” product.

Now before praising Brabeck for his ‘enlightened’ activism on the issue of water scarcity and providing the world’s poor with access to clean drinking water (which are very real and urgent issues needing attention), Brabeck himself has stressed that his interest in the issue of water has nothing to do with actually addressing these issues in a meaningful way, or for the benefit of the earth and humanity. No, his motivation is much more simple than this.

In a 2010 interview for BigThink, Brabeck noted: “If Nestlé and myself have become very vocal in the area of water, it was not because of any philanthropic idea, it was very simple: by analyzing… what is the single most important factor for the sustainability of Nestlé, water came as [the] number one subject.” This is what led Brabeck and Nestlé into the issue of water “sustainability,” he explained. “I think this is part of a company’s responsibility,” and added: “Now, if I was in a different industry, I would have a different subject, certainly, that I would be focusing on.”

Brabeck was asked if industries should “have a role in finding solutions to environmental issues that affect their business,” to which he replied: “Yes, because it is in the interest of our shareholders… If I want to convince my shareholders that this industry is a long-term sustainable industry, I have to ensure that all aspects that are vital for this company are sustainable… When I see, like in our case, that one of the aspects – which is water, which is needed in order to produce the raw materials for our company – if this is not sustainable, then my enterprise is not sustainable. So therefore I have to do something about it. So shareholder interest and societal interest are common.”

Thus, when Brabeck and Nestlé promote “water sustainability,” what they are really promoting is the sustainability of Nestlé’s access to and control over water resources. How is that best achieved? Well, since Nestlé is a large multinational corporation, the natural solution is to promote ‘market’ control of water, which means privatization and monopolization of the world’s water supply into a few corporate hands.

In a 2011 conversation with the editor of Time Magazine at the Council on Foreign Relations, Brabeck referred to a recent World Economic Forum meeting where the issue of “corporate social responsibility” was the main subject of discussion, when corporate executives “started to talk about [how] we have to give back to society,” Brabeck spoke up and stated: “I don’t feel that we have to give back to society, because we have not been stealing from society.” Brabeck explained to the Council on Foreign Relations that he felt such a concept was the purview of philanthropy, and “this was a problem for the CEO of any public company, because I personally believe that no CEO of a public company should be allowed to make philanthropy… I think anybody who does philanthropy should do it with his own money and not the money of the shareholders.” Engaging in corporate social responsibility, Brabeck explained, “was an additional cost.”

At the 2008 World Economic Forum, a consortium of corporations and international organizations formed the 2030 Water Resources Group, chaired by Peter Brabeck. It was established in order to “shape the agenda” for the discussion of water resources, and to create “new models for collaboration” between public and private enterprises. The governing council of the 2030 WRG is chaired by Brabeck and includes the executive vice president and CEO of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the investment arm of the World Bank, the administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the chief business officer and managing director of the World Economic Forum, the president of the African Development Bank, the chairman and CEO of The Coca-Cola Company, the president of the Asian Development Bank, the director-general of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the president of the Inter-American Development Bank, and the chairman and CEO of PepsiCo, among others.

At the World Water Forum in 2012 – an event largely attended by the global proponents of water privatization, Nestlé among their most enthusiastic supporters – Brabeck suggested that the 2030 Water Resources Group represents a “global public-private initiative” which could help in “providing tools and information on best practice” as well as “guidance and new policy ideas on water resource scarcity.”

Brabeck and Nestlé had been in talks with the Canadian provincial government of Alberta in planning for a potential “water exchange,” to – in the words of Maclean’s magazine – “turn water into money.” In 2012, the University of Alberta bestowed an honorary degree upon Peter Brabeck “for his work as a responsible steward for water around the world.” Protests were organized at the university to oppose the ‘honor,’ with a representative from the public interest group, the Council of Canadians, noting: “I’m afraid that the university is positioning themselves on the side of the commodifiers, the people who want to say that water is not a human right that everyone has the right to, but is just a product that can be bought and sold.” A professor at the university stated: “I’m ashamed at this point, about what the university is doing and I’m also very concerned about the way the president of the university has been demonizing people who oppose this.” As another U of A professor stated: “What Nestlé does is take what clean water there is in which poor people are relying on, bottle it and then sell it to wealthier people at an exorbitant profit.”

The Global Water Privatization Agenda

Water privatization is an extremely vicious operation, where the quality of – and access to – water resources diminishes or even vanishes, while the costs explode. When it comes to the privatization of water, there is no such thing as “competition” in how the word is generally interpreted: there are only a handful of global corporations that undertake massive water privatizations. The two most prominent are the French-based Suez Environment and Veolia Environment, but also include Thames Water, Nestlé, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola, among others. For a world in which food has already been turned into a “market commodity” and has been “financialized,” leading to massive food price increases, hunger riots, and immense profits for a few corporations and banks, the prospect of water privatization is even more disturbing.

The agenda of water privatization is organized at the international level, largely promoted through the World Water Forum and the World Water Council. The World Water Council (WWC) was established in 1996 as a French-based non-profit organization with over 400 members from intergovernmental organizations, government agencies, corporations, corporate-dominated NGOs and environmental organizations, water companies, international organizations and academic institutions.

Every three years, the WWC hosts a World Water Forum, the first of which took place in 1997, and the 6^th conference in 2012 was attended by thousands of participants from countries and institutions all over the world get together to decide the future of water, and of course, promote the privatization of this essential resource to human life. The 6^th World Water Forum, hosted in Marseilles, France, was primarily sponsored by the French government and the World Water Council, but included a number of other contributors, including: the African Development Bank, African Union Commission, Arab Water Council, Asian Development Bank, the Council of Europe, the European Commission, the European Investment Bank, the European Parliament, the European Water Association, the Food and Agricultural Organization, the Global Environment Facility, Inter-American Development Bank, Nature Conservancy, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Organization of American States (OAS), Oxfam, the World Bank, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the World Health Organization, the World Wildlife Fund; and a number of corporate sponsors, including: RioTinto Alcan, EDF, Suez Environment, Veolia, and HSBC. Clearly, they have human and environmental interests at heart.

The World Bank is a major promoter of water privatization, as much of its aid to ‘developing’ countries was earmarked for water privatization schemes which inevitably benefit major corporations, in co-operation with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the U.S. Treasury. One of the first major water privatization schemed funded by the World Bank was in Argentina, for which the Bank “advised” the government of Argentina in 1991 on the bidding and contracting of the water concession, setting a model for what would be promoted around the world. The World Bank’s investment arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), loaned roughly $1 billion to the Argentine government for three water and sewage projects in the country, and even bought a 5% stake in the concession, thus becoming a part owner. When the concession for Buenos Aires was opened up, the French sent representatives from Veolia and Suez, which formed the consortium Aguas Argentinas, and of course, the costs for water services went up. Between 1993, when the contract with the French companies was signed, and 1997, the Aguas Argentinas consortium gained more influence with Argentine President Carlos Menem and his Economy Minister Domingo Cavallo, who would hold meetings with the president of Suez as well as the President of France, Jacques Chirac. By 2002, the water rates (cost of water) in Buenos Aires had increased by 177% since the beginning of the concession.

In the 1990s, the amount of World Bank water privatization projects increased ten-fold, with 31% of World Bank water supply and sanitation projects between 1990 and 2001 including conditions of private-sector involvement, despite the fact that the projects consistently failed in terms of providing cheaper and better water to larger areas. But of course, they were highly profitable for large corporations, so naturally, they continued to be promoted and supported (and subsidized).

One of the most notable examples of water privatization schemes was in Bolivia, the poorest country in South America. In 1998, an IMF loan to Bolivia demanded conditions of “structural reform,” the selling off of “all remaining public enterprises,” including water. In 1999, the World Bank told the Bolivian government to end its subsidies for water services, and that same year, the government leased the Cochabamba Water System to a consortium of multinational corporations, Aguas del Tunari, which included the American corporation Bechtel. After granting the consortium a 40-year lease, the government passed a law which would make residents pay the full cost of water services. In January of 2000, protests in Cochabamba shut down the city for four days, striking and establishing roadblocks, mobilizing against the water price increases which doubled or tripled their water bills. Protests continued in February, met with riot police and tear gas, injuring 175 people.

By April, the protests began to spread to other Bolivian cities and rural communities, and during a “state of siege” (essentially martial law) declared by Bolivian president Hugo Banzer, a 17-year old boy, Victor Hugo Daza, was shot and killed by a Bolivian Army captain, who was trained as the U.S. military academy, the School of the Americas. As riot police continued to meet protesters with tear gas and live ammunition, more people were killed, and dozens more injured. On April 10, the government conceded to the people, ending the contract with the corporate consortium and granting the people to control their water system through a grassroots coalition led by the protest organizers.

Two days later, World Bank President James Wolfensohn stated that the people of Bolivia should pay for their water services. On August 6, 2001, the president of Bolivia resigned, and the Vice President Jorge Quiroga, a former IBM executive, was sworn in as the new president to serve the remainder of the term until August of 2002. Meanwhile, the water consortium, deeply offended at the prospect of people taking control of their own resources, attempted to take legal action against the government of Bolivia for violating the contract. Bechtel was seeking $25 million in compensation for its “losses,” while recording a yearly profit of $14 billion, whereas the national budget of Bolivia was a mere $2.7 billion. The situation ultimately led to a type of social revolution which brought to power the first indigenous Bolivian leader in the country’s history, Evo Morales.

This, of course, has not stopped the World Bank and IMF – and the imperial governments which finance them – from promoting water privatization around the world for the exclusive benefit of a handful of multinational corporations. The World Bank promotes water privatization across Africa in order to “ease the continent’s water crisis,” by making water more expensive and less accessible.

As the communications director of the World Bank in 2003, Paul Mitchell, explained, “Water is crucial to life – we have to get water to poor people,” adding: “There are a lot of myths about privatization.” I would agree. Though the myth that it ‘works’ is what I would propose, but Mitchell instead suggested that, “[p]rivate sector participation is simply to manage the asset to make it function for the people in the country.” Except that it doesn’t. But don’t worry, decreasing water standards, dismantling water distribution, and rapidly increasing the costs of water to the poorest regions on earth is good, according to Mitchell and the World Bank. He told the BBC that what the World Bank is most interested in is the “best way to get water to poor people.” Perhaps he misspoke and meant to say, “the best way to take water from poor people,” because that’s what actually happens.

In 2003, the World Bank funded a water privatization scheme in the country of Tanzania, supported by the British government, and granting the concession to a consortium called City Water, owned by the British company Biwater, which worked with a German engineering firm, Gauff, to provide water to the city of Dar es Salaam and the surrounding region. It was one of the most ambitious water privatization schemes in Africa, with $140 million in World Bank funding, and, wrote John Vidal in the Guardian, it “was intended to be a model for how the world’s poorest communities could be lifted out of poverty.”

The agreement included conditions for the consortium to install new pipelines for water distribution. The British government’s Department for International Development gave a 440,000-pound contract to the British neoliberal think tank, Adam Smith International, “to do public-relations work for the project.” Tanzania’s best-known gospel singer was hired to perform a pop song about the benefits of privatization, mentioning electricity, telephones, the ports, railways, and of course, water. Both the IMF and World Bank made the water scheme a condition for “aid” they gave to the country. Less than one year into the ten-year contract, the private consortium, City Water, stopped paying its monthly fee for leasing the government’s pipes and infrastructure provided by the public water company, Dawasa, while simultaneously insisting that its own fees be raised. An unpublished World Bank report even noted: “The primary assumption on the part of almost all involved, particularly on the donor side, was that it would be very hard, if not impossible, for the private operator [City Water] to perform worse than Dawasa. But that is what happened.” The World Bank as a whole, however, endorsed the program as “highly satisfactory,” and rightly so, because it was doing what it was intended to do: provide profits for private corporations at the expense of poor people.

By 2005, the company had not built any new pipes, it had not spent the meager investments it promised, and the water quality declined. As British government “aid” money was poured into privatization propaganda, a video was produced which included the phrase: “Our old industries are dry like crops and privatization brings the rain.” Actually, privatization attaches a price-tag to rain. Thus, in 2005, the government of Tanzania ended the contract with City Water, and arrested the three company executives, deporting them back to Britain. As is typical, the British company, Biwater, then began to file a lawsuit against the Tanzanian government for breach of contract, wanting to collect $20-25 million. A press release from Biwater at the time wrote: “We have been left with no choice… If a signal goes out that governments are free to expropriate foreign investments with impunity,” investors would flee, and this would, of course, “deal a massive blow to the development goals of Tanzania and other countries in Africa.”

The sixth World Water Forum in Marseilles in 2012 brought together some 19,000 participants, where the French Development Minister Henri de Raincourt proposed a “global water and environment management scheme,” adding: “The French government is not alone in its conviction that a global environment agency is needed more than ever.” A parallel conference was held – the Alternative World Water Forum – which featured critics of water privatization. Gustave Massiah, a representative of the anti-globalization group Attac, stated, “Should a global water fund be in control, giving concessions to multinational companies, then that’s not a solution for us. On the contrary, that would only add to the problems of the current system.”

Another member of Attac, Jacques Cambon, used to be the head of SAFEGE’s Africa branch, a subsidiary of the water conglomerate Suez. Cambon was critical of the idea of a global water fund, warning against centralization, and further explained that the World Bank “has almost always financed large-scale projects that were not in tune with local conditions.” Maria Theresa Lauron, a Philippine activist, shared the story of water privatization in the Philippines, saying, “Since 1997, prices went up by 450 to 800 percent… At the same time, the water quality has gone down. Many people get ill because of bad water; a year ago some 600 people died as a result of bacteria in the water because the private company didn’t do proper water checks.” But then, why would the company do such a thing? It’s not like it’s particularly profitable to be concerned with human welfare.

In Europe, the European Commission had been pushing water privatization as a condition for development funds between 2002 and 2010, specifically in several central and eastern European countries which were dependent upon EU grants. Since the European debt crisis, the European Commission had made water privatization a condition for Greece, Portugal, and Italy. Greece is privatizing its water companies, Portugal is being pressured to sell its national water company, Aguas do Portugal, and in Italy, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Commission were pushing water privatization, even though a national referendum in July of 2011 saw the people of Italy reject such a scheme by 95%.

In this context, among the global institutions and corporations of power and influence, it is perhaps less surprising to imagine the chairman of Nestlé suggesting that human beings having a “right” to water is rather “extreme.” And for a very simple reason: that’s not profitable for Nestlé, even though it might be good for humanity and the earth. It’s about priorities, and in our world, priorities are set by multinational corporations, banks, and global oligarchs. As Nestlé would have us think, corporate and social interests are not opposed, as corporations – through their ‘enlightened’ self-interest and profit-seeking motives – will almost accidentally make the world a better place. Now, while neoliberal orthodoxy functions on the basis of people simply accepting this premise without investigation (like any religious belief), perhaps it would be worth looking at Nestlé as an example for corporate benefaction for the world and humanity.

Nestlé’s Corporate Social Responsibility: Making the World Safe for Nestlé… and Incidentally Destroying the World

As a major multinational corporation, Nestlé has a proven track record of exploiting labour, destroying the environment, engaging in human rights violations, but of course – and most importantly – it makes big profits. In 2012, Nestlé was taking in major profits from ‘emerging markets’ in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. However, some emerging market profits began to slow down in 2013. This was partly the result of a horsemeat scandal which required companies like Nestlé to intensify the screening of their food products.

Less than a year prior, Nestlé was complaining that “over-regulation” of the food industry was “undermining individual responsibility,” which is another way of saying that responsibility for products and their safety should be passed from the producer to the consumer. In other words, if you’re stupid enough to buy Nestlé products, it’s your fault if you get diabetes or eat horsemeat, and therefore, it’s your responsibility, not the responsibility of Nestlé. Fair enough! We’re stupid enough to accept corporations ruling over us, therefore, what right do we have to complain about all the horrendous crimes and destruction they cause? A cynic could perhaps argue such a point.

One of Nestlé’s most famous PR problems was that of marketing artificial baby milk, which sprung to headlines in the 1970s following the publication of “The Baby Killer,” accusing the company of getting Third World mothers hooked on formula. As research was proving that breastfeeding was healthier, Nestlé marketed its baby formula as a way for women to ‘Westernize’ and join the modern world, handing out pamphlets and promotional samples, with companies hiring “sales girls in nurses’ uniforms (sometimes qualified, sometimes not)” in order to drop by homes and sell formula. Women tried to save money on the formula by diluting it, often times with contaminated water. As the London-based organization War on Want noted: “The results can be seen in the clinics and hospitals, the slums and graveyards of the Third World… Children whose bodies have wasted away until all that is left is a big head on top of the shriveled body of an old man.” An official with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) blamed baby formula for “a million infant deaths every year through malnutrition and diarrheal diseases.”

Mike Muller, the author of “The Baby Killer” back in 1974, wrote an article for the Guardian in 2013 in which he mentioned that he gave Peter Brabeck a “present” at the World Economic Forum, a signed copy of the report. The report had sparked a global boycott of Nestlé and the company responded with lawsuits.

Nestlé has also been implicated for its support of palm-oil plantations, which have led to increased deforestation and the destruction of orangutan habitats in Indonesia. A Greenpeace publication noted that, “at least 1500 orangutans died in 2006 as a result of deliberate attacks by plantation workers and loss of habitat due to the expansion of oil palm plantations.” A social media campaign was launched against Nestlé for its role in supporting palm oil plantations, deforestation, and the destruction of orangutan habitats and lives. The campaign pressured Nestlé to decrease its “deforestation footprint.”

As Nestlé has been expanding its presence in Africa, it has also aroused more controversy in its operations on the continent. Nestlé purchases one-tenth of the world’s cocoa, most of which comes from the Ivory Coast, where the company has been implicated in the use of child labour. In 2001, U.S. legislation required companies to engage in “self-regulation” which called for “slave free” labeling on all cocoa products. This “self regulation,” however, “failed to deliver” – imagine that! – as one study carried out by Tulane University with funding from the U.S. government revealed that roughly 2 million children were working on cocoa-related activities in both Ghana and the Ivory Coast. Even an internal audit carried out by the company found that Nestlé was guilty of “numerous” violations of child labour laws. Nestlé’s head of operations stated, “The use of child labor in our cocoa supply goes against everything we stand for.” So naturally, they will continue to use child labour.

Peter Brabeck stated that it’s “nearly impossible” to end the practice, and he compared the practice to that of farming in Switzerland: “You go to Switzerland… still today, in the month of September, schools have one week holiday so students can help in the wine harvesting… In those developing countries, this also happens,” he told the Council on Foreign Relations. While acknowledging that this “is basically child labor and slave labor in some African markets,” it is “a challenge which is not very easy to tackle,” noting that there is “a very fine edge” of what is acceptable regarding “child labor in [the] agricultural environment.” He added: “It’s almost natural.” Thus, Brabeck explained, “you have to look at it differently,” and that it was not the job of Nestlé to tell parents that their children can’t work on cocoa plantations/farms, “which is ridiculous,” he suggested: “But what we are saying is we will help you that your child has access for schooling.” So clearly there is no problem with using child slavery, just so long as the children get some schooling… presumably, in their ‘off-hours’ from slavery. Problem solved!

While Brabeck and Nestlé have made a big issue of water scarcity, which again, is an incredibly important issue, their solutions revolve around “pricing” water at a market value, and thus encouraging privatization. Indeed, a global water grab has been a defining feature of the past several years (coupled with a great global land grab), in which investors, countries, banks and corporations have been buying up vast tracts of land (primarily in sub-Saharan Africa) for virtually nothing, pushing off the populations which live off the land, taking all the resources, water, and clearing the land of towns and villages, to convert them into industrial agricultural plantations to develop food and other crops for export, while domestic populations are pushed deeper into poverty, hunger, and are deprived of access to water. Peter Brabeck has referred to the land grabs as really being about water: “For with the land comes the right to withdraw the water linked to it, in most countries essentially a freebie that increasingly could be seen as the most valuable part of the deal.” This, noted Brabeck, is “the great water grab.”

And of course, Nestlé would know something about water grabs, as it has become very good at implementing them. In past years, the company has been increasingly buying land where it is taking the fresh water resources, bottling them in plastic bottles and selling them to the public at exorbitant prices. In 2008, as Nestlé was planning to build a bottling water plant in McCloud, California, the Attorney General opposed the plan, noting: “It takes massive quantities of oil to produce plastic water bottles and to ship them in diesel trucks across the United States… Nestlé will face swift legal challenge if it does not fully evaluate the environmental impact of diverting millions of gallons of spring water from the McCloud River into billions of plastic water bottles.” Nestlé already operated roughly 50 springs across the country, and was acquiring more, such as a plan to draw roughly 65 million gallons of water from a spring in Colorado, despite fierce opposition to the deal.

Years of opposition to the plans of Nestlé in McCloud finally resulted in the company giving up on its efforts there. However, the company quickly moved on to finding new locations to take water and make a profit while destroying the environment (just an added bonus, of course). The corporation controls one-third of the U.S. market in bottled water, selling it as 70 different brand names, including Perrier, Arrowhead, Deer Park and Poland Spring. The two other large bottled water companies are Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, though Nestlé had earned a reputation “in targeting rural communities for spring water, a move that has earned it fierce opposition across the U.S. from towns worried about losing their precious water resources.” And water grabs by Nestlé as well as opposition continue to engulf towns and states and cities across the country, with one more recent case in Oregon.

Nestlé has aroused controversy for its relations with labour, exploiting farmers, pollution, and human rights violations, among many other things. Nestlé has been implicated in the kidnapping and murder of a union activist and employee of the company’s subsidiary in Colombia, with a judge demanding the prosecutor to “investigate leading managers of Nestle-Cicolac to clarify their likely involvement and/or planning of the murder of union leader Luciano Enrique Romero Molina.” In 2012, a Colombian trade union and a human rights group filed charges against Nestlé for negligence over the murder of their former employee Romero.

More recently, Nestlé has been found liable over spying on NGOs, with the company hiring a private security company to infiltrate an anti-globalization group, and while a judge ordered the company to pay compensation, a Nestlé spokesperson stated that, “incitement to infiltration is against Nestlé’s corporate business principles.” Just like child slavery, presumably. But not to worry, the spokesman said, “we will take appropriate action.”

Peter Brabeck, who it should be noted, also sits on the boards of Exxon, L’Oréal, and the banking giant Credit Suisse, warned in 2009 that the global economic crisis would be “very deep” and that, “this crisis will go on for a long period.” On top of that, the food crisis would be “getting worse” over time, hitting poor people the hardest. However, propping up the financial sector through massive bailouts was, in his view, “absolutely essential.” But not to worry, as banks are bailed out by governments, who hand the bill to the population, which pays for the crisis through reduced standards of living and exploitation (which we call “austerity” and “structural reform” measures), Nestlé has been able to adapt to a new market of impoverished people, selling cheaper products to more people who now have less money. And better yet, it’s been making massive profits. And remember, according to Brabeck, isn’t that all that really matters?

This is the world according to corporations. Unfortunately, while it creates enormous wealth, it is also leading to the inevitable extinction of our species, and possibly all life on earth. But that’s not a concern of corporations, so it doesn’t concern those who run corporations, who make the important decisions, and pressure and purchase our politicians.

I wonder… what would the world be like if people were able to make decisions?

There’s only one way to know.

Andrew Gavin Marshall is an independent researcher and writer based in Montreal, Canada, with a focus on studying the ideas, institutions, and individuals of power and resistance across a wide spectrum of social, political, economic, and historical spheres. He has been published in AlterNet, CounterPunch, Occupy.com, Truth-Out, RoarMag, and a number of other alternative media groups, and regularly does radio, Internet, and television interviews with both alternative and mainstream news outlets. He is Project Manager of The People’s Book Project, Research Director of Occupy.com’s Global Power Project, and has a weekly podcast show with BoilingFrogsPost.

Please consider making a donation to The People’s Book Project

Pulling back the curtain on how intent the wealthiest Americans have been on establishing a propaganda tool to subvert democracy.

By: Andrew Gavin Marshall

Originally posted at AlterNet

Where there is the possibility of democracy, there is the inevitability of elite insecurity. All through its history, democracy has been under a sustained attack by elite interests, political, economic, and cultural. There is a simple reason for this: democracy – as in true democracy – places power with people. In such circumstances, the few who hold power become threatened. With technological changes in modern history, with literacy and education, mass communication, organization and activism, elites have had to react to the changing nature of society – locally and globally.

From the late 19th century on, the “threats” to elite interests from the possibility of true democracy mobilized institutions, ideologies, and individuals in support of power. What began was a massive social engineering project with one objective: control. Through educational institutions, the social sciences, philanthropic foundations, public relations and advertising agencies, corporations, banks, and states, powerful interests sought to reform and protect their power from the potential of popular democracy.

Yet for all the efforts, organization, indoctrination and reformation of power interests, the threat of democracy has remained a constant, seemingly embedded in the human consciousness, persistent and pervasive.

In his highly influential work, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, French social psychologist Gustav Le Bon suggested that middle class politics were transforming into popular democracy, where “the opinion of the masses” was the most important opinion in society. He wrote: “The destinies of nations are elaborated at present in the heart of the masses, and no longer in the councils of princes.” This was, of course, a deplorable change for elites, suggesting that, “[t]he divine right of the masses is about to replace the divine right of kings.” Le Bon suggested, however, that the “crowd” was not rational, but rather was driven by emotion and passion.

An associate and friend of Le Bon’s, Gabriel Tarde, expanded upon this concept, and articulated the idea that “the crowd” was a social group of the past, and that “the public” was “the social group of the future.” The public, argued Tarde, was a “spiritual collectivity, a dispersion of individuals who are physically separated and whose cohesion is entirely mental.” Thus, Tarde identified in the growth of the printing press and mass communications a powerful medium through which “the public” was shaped, and that, if managed appropriately, could bring a sense of order to a situation increasingly chaotic. The newspaper, Tarde explained, facilitated “the fusion of personal opinions into local opinions, and this into national and world opinion, the grandiose unification of the public mind.”

The development of psychology, psychoanalysis, and other disciplines increasingly portrayed the “public” and the population as irrational beings incapable of making their own decisions. The premise was simple: if the population was driven by dangerous, irrational emotions, they needed to be kept out of power and ruled over by those who were driven by reason and rationality, naturally, those who were already in power.

The Princeton Radio Project, which began in the 1930s with Rockefeller Foundation funding, brought together many psychologists, social scientists, and “experts” armed with an interest in social control, mass communication, and propaganda. The Princeton Radio Project had a profound influence upon the development of a modern “democratic propaganda” in the United States and elsewhere in the industrialized world. It helped in establishing and nurturing the ideas, institutions, and individuals who would come to shape America’s “democratic propaganda” throughout the Cold War, a program fostered between the private corporations which own the media, advertising, marketing, and public relations industries, and the state itself.

‘A Genuinely Democratic Propaganda’

World War I popularized the term “propaganda” and gave it negative connotations, as all major nations involved in the war effort employed new techniques of modern propaganda to mobilize their populations for war. In the United States, the effort was led by President Woodrow Wilson in the establishment of the Committee on Public Information (CPI) as a “vast propaganda ministry.” The central theme of the CPI was to promote U.S. entry into the war on the basis of seeking “to make a world that is safe for democracy.” This point was specifically developed by the leading intellectual of the era, Walter Lippmann, who by the age of 25 was referred to by President Theodore Roosevelt as “the most brilliant man of his age.” Lippmann was concerned primarily with the maintenance of the state-capitalist system in the face of increased unrest, resistance, and ideological opposition, feeling that the “discipline of science” would need to be applied to democracy, where social engineers and social scientists “would provide the modern state with a foundation upon which a new stability might be realized.” For this, Lippmann suggested the necessity of “intelligence and information control” in what he termed the “manufacture of consent.”

Important intellectuals of the era then became principally concerned with the issue of propaganda during peacetime, having witnessed its success in times of war. Propaganda, wrote Lippmann, “has a legitimate and desirable part to play in our democratic system.” A leading political scientist of the era, Harold Lasswell, noted: “Propaganda is surely here to stay.” In his 1925 book, The Phantom Public, Lippmann wrote that the public was a “bewildered herd” of “ignorant and meddlesome outsiders” who should be maintained as “interested spectators of action,” and distinct from the actors themselves, the powerful. Edward Bernays, the ‘father of public relations’ and nephew of Sigmund Freud got his start with Wilson’s CPI during World War I, and had since become a leading voice in the fields of propaganda and public relations. In his 1928 book, Propaganda, Bernays wrote: “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.” Modern society was dominated by a “relatively small number of persons… who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses,” and this was, in Bernays’ thinking, “a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized.” Bernays referred to this – “borrowing” from Walter Lippmann – as the “engineering of consent.”

For the leading intellectuals and social engineers of the era, “propaganda” was presented as distinctly “democratic” and as a necessity to the proper functioning of society. John Marshall of the Rockefeller Foundation focused on what he called the “problem of propaganda” and sought to create, as he wrote in 1938, a “genuinely democratic propaganda.” Marshall pursued this objective through the Rockefeller Foundation, and specifically with the Princeton Radio Project in the late 1930s under the direction of Hadley Cantril and Frank Stanton, though including other intellectuals such as Paul Lazarsfeld and Harold Lasswell.

In 1936, Marshall wrote that the best way to expand the use of radio and film was for the Rockefeller Foundation to give “a few younger men with talent for these mediums an opportunity for relatively free experimentation… men interested primarily in education, literature, criticism, or in disseminating the findings of the social or natural sciences.”

In 1939, with the war in Europe under way, the Rockefeller Foundation had organized several conferences and published several papers on the issue of mass communication, directed by what was called the Communications Group, headed by Marshall and other Foundation officials, and with the participation of Lasswell, Lazarzfeld, Cantril, and several others. Early on, the Communications Group noted that with “an increasing degree of [government] control… in regard to all phases of communication, such as in the schools, the radio, the films, the press, and even eventually in all public discussion,” it was necessary to arrive at a consensus – among the “experts” – as to what role they should play as the state expands its authority over communication. Sociologist Robert Lynd took a page from Lippmann and wrote that a “goal” of experts in communication should “be that of persuading the people that there are many issues too complicated for them to decide, which should be left to experts.” One other participant commented on Lynd’s suggestion: “Mr. Lynd feels we need a restructuring of democratic action in terms of the capacity of different groups of the population and an abandonment of the American idea of the responsibility and capacity of the man on the street.” In 1940, John Marshall wrote:

In a period of emergency such as I believe we now face, the manipulation of public opinion to meet emergency needs has to be taken for granted. In such a period, those in control must shape public opinion to support courses of action which the emergency necessitates… No one, I think, can blame them for that impulse.

In a 1940 memo for the Communications Group, Marshall wrote that, “We believe… that for leadership to secure that consent will require unprecedented knowledge of the public mind and of the means by which leadership can secure consent… We believe… that we gave available today methods of research which can reliably inform us about the public mind and how it is being, or can be, influenced in relation to public affairs.” The memo concerned some officials at the Rockefeller Foundation, noting that it could be misinterpreted and that such research should be careful about becoming a mere tool of the state, with one official noting: “Public opinion and vested interests are… violently opposed to such a development which would be labeled as fascist or authoritarian.” Another official suggested that the memo “looks to me like something that [Nazi propaganda chief] Herr Goebbels could put out with complete sincerity.” While one Foundation official referred to the memo as resembling “the methods by which democracy has been destroyed,” he added that, “finding out regularly and completely what the mass of the people feel and believe and think about things and policies is a necessary part of the modern democratic process.” Marshall and the Communications Group refined their approach from a more overt authoritarianism of “one-way” communication between the state and the population, to a more Lippmann-centered concept of “manufacturing consent” and what has been referred to as “democratic elitism.” In the final report of the Communications Group in 1940, it was noted that two-way communication between the government and population was essential, as without it, “democracy is endangered,” and that it was required for the population to give “consent.”

Frank Stanton, along with Hadley Cantril, was one of the co-directors of the Princeton Project since its inception. As Michael J. Socolow wrote in the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Frank Stanton had “devoted much of his life to understanding the cultural, social, and psychological effects of the mass media.” Stanton was the president of CBS from 1946 until 1973, during which he “proved to be an effective corporate strategist” and “a skillful political operator,” not least of all because he “collaborated closely with the U.S. government, performing propaganda tasks during the Second World War and the ensuing Cold War.”

Stanton’s first job was in the advertising industry, beginning in 1929 and cut short by the market crash, though Stanton maintained that advertising “was the greatest thing since sliced bread.” In school, Stanton studied business administration and psychology, being particularly influenced by John B. Watson, the developer of behaviorism, who himself went to go work for an advertising agency. Throughout his own life and career, Stanton viewed himself as “a behaviorist, a social scientist valuing the application of psychological technique across a variety of human endeavors.”

Behaviorism was a brand of psychology which emerged in response to the development of the field by social scientists seeking to make “scientific” what was previously the realm of philosophy and spirituality, drawing in political scientists, economists, sociologists, and others. The field of psychology had become more prominent following World War I, after having proved its worth to power interests in mobilizing, manipulating, and studying populations and their perceptions. In 1929, the president of Yale, James Agnell, announced the creation of the Yale Institute of Human Relations (IHR), with a generous grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. Agnell explained that the IHR was “directly concerned with the problems of man’s individual and group conduct,” out of which the purpose was “to correlate knowledge and coordinate technique in related fields that greater progress may be made in the understanding of human life.”

The IHR helped facilitate the rise of behaviorism in psychology, as in the 1920s and 30s, social unrest was a growing problem, and so psychologists attempted to promote themselves and their field as a possible solution to these problems, as a “scientific psychology” – or “social psychology” – could “be instrumental for attaining democratic social order and control.” Such a theory was based upon the view that the individual was not well “adjusted” to a rapidly changing environment, and therefore, with the help of psychology, the individual could be “adjusted” successfully. Of course, the notion that there is something inherently problematic with society and the social order (and the hierarchy upon which it was built) went unquestioned. In other words, it was not society which needed to “adjust” to individuals and the population, but rather the opposite. Psychologists and Yale’s Institute of Human Relations would promote themselves as the solution to this complex problem. Behaviorism was thus concerned with environmental and behavior control in human relations. This influenced not only Frank Stanton, but other key officials who were involved in the Princeton Radio Project, including Paul Lazarsfeld.

Frank Stanton eventually got a job at CBS following some research he had done on radio audiences and had sent to CBS headquarters. In 1935, Stanton was the third employee hired by CBS for the research division, concerned largely with the ability of advertisers to sell to radio listeners. As Stanton explained in 1936, the contribution of psychology to radio research “should be largely one of technique,” adding: “It isn’t enough to know what programs are heard and preferred. We want to know why they are listened to and liked, and furthermore, we want to quantify influence.” Weeks later, Stanton – with the suggestion of Hadley Cantril – wrote a draft memo of a research proposal for the Rockefeller Foundation, out of which would come to Office of Radio Research at Princeton.

The Princeton Radio Project, established with Rockefeller funding and directed by Paul Lazarsfeld, Cantril, and Stanton, focused on studying the uses and effects of radio communications upon the population, and almost exclusively led to the field of mass communications research. Theodor Adorno, a critical theorist whom Lazarsfeld invited to join the Princeton Radio Project ran into several problems during his research with his associates. Lazarsfeld brought Adorno into the project hoping that he could bridge the gap between American and European approaches to research. Adorno, however, sought to understand not simply the effects of radio in mass communications, but the role played by the “researcher” – or “expert” – in the social order itself. This put him in direct conflict with the project and its philosophy. For Adorno, wrote Slack and Allor, “not only the processes of communication but the practice of communication research itself had to be viewed critically.” Reflecting upon his experience some decades later, Adorno wrote that, “there appeared to be little room for such social research in the framework of the Princeton Project.” He noted: “Its charter, which came from the Rockefeller Foundation, expressly stipulated that the investigations must be performed within the limits of the commercial radio system prevailing in the United States.” Thus, “the system itself, its cultural and sociological consequences and its social and economic presuppositions were not to be analyzed… I was disturbed.”

Shortly after World War II and into the 1950s, the U.S. State Department became increasingly interested in the subject of propaganda, or what was termed “information management” and “public diplomacy.” Television was of particular interest in promoting American state interests, specifically those defined by the Cold War. Francis Russell, the director of the State Department’s Public Affairs (PA) division from 1945 to 1953, noted that “propaganda abroad is indispensable” in the Cold War, but that the State Department had “diligently cultivated the concept of PA as a service to the American people, a place where the public can come to obtain information.” He explained his worry that, “if the American people ever get the idea that the same high-powered propaganda machine” used abroad was “also at work on them, the result will be disaster fir both the domestic and overseas programs.” The role of the PA was not in a censorship bureau, but as a dispenser of “information,” to which the media – largely privately owned – would use as a consistent source for reporting, re-printing press releases, and seeking official sources for comment. Edward Barrett, another top official in the PA division, later noted: “We really tried to stick to the truth and tell nothing but the truth, but we didn’t always tell the whole truth.”

Nancy Bernhard, writing in the journal Diplomatic History, explained this contradiction aptly: “While Americans defended commercial broadcasting because it was free from Communistic government control, commercial broadcasters voluntarily collaborated with the government information services in the name of anticommunism. “Free” broadcasters volunteered as a virtually official information agency.” It was no surprise, then, that government “information programs” used the specific talents of corporate tycoons in the media world, bringing in talent from networks, advertising agencies, public relations agencies, and marketing bureaus. The State Department established a number of “advisory boards” to monitor its “public affairs” operations, largely made up of industry and corporate officials. Among the influential board members was Frank Stanton.

When Eisenhower came to power, a new agency was created to handle information and cultural programs previously undertaken by the State Department, the US Information Agency (USIA), established in 1953. In attempting to create a terminology to describe the activities of the USIA and its relationship to foreign policy goals – without using the obvious term “propaganda” – the term “public diplomacy” was commonly used. Frank Stanton, who left CBS in 1973, subsequently chaired a research report by the prominent American think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in 1975, entitled, International Information Education and Cultural Relations – Recommendations for the Future. The report recommended “that the international information and cultural programs [of the U.S. government] deserve all possible support in the years ahead, that they have demonstrated their success and are therefore an exceptional investment of government energy and the taxpayer’s dollar.”

While head of CBS, Stanton developed relationships with American presidents, whose Cold War strategies he would help promote through his network. When Kennedy became president, he offered Frank Stanton the job as head of the United States Information Agency (USIA), which Stanton declined (though recommended the appointment of Edward R. Murrow, a prominent journalist with CBS, whom Stanton had no lack of problems with). In fact, in 1958, Edward R. Murrow delivered a speech before the Radio-Television News Directors Association in which he “implicitly indicted Stanton” for the way in which he managed CBS, stating: “The top management of the networks… has been trained in advertising, research, or show business… by the nature of the corporate structure, [these managers] also make the final and crucial decisions having to do with news and public affairs. Frequently they have neither the time nor the competence to do this.”

Stanton developed a reputation as a trustworthy propagandist for the Cold War, but was not unwilling to flex his own power when confronted with state power, such as when President Lyndon Johnson, angry at specific coverage of Vietnam on CBS, called up Stanton and stated, “Frank, are you trying to fuck your country?” Stanton refused to budge on his coverage under pressure from the president. Yet still, he remained a propagandist, and even participated in the CIA’s program to infiltrate the domestic media, with general knowledge of the Agency’s program with CBS, though according to one CIA agent involved in the matter, he didn’t “want to know the fine points.”

Stanton, however, was ultimately a corporation man. Not only did he help in the development of the government’s official propaganda systems, but he was a key figure in the promotion of the “corporatization” of news and information. Thus, for Stanton, “information management” was not simply to be done in the interests of the state, but also – and arguably primarily – in the interests of corporations. In Stanton’s own words, “since we are advertiser supported we must take into account the general objectives and desires of advertisers as a whole.” Stanton was not the only executive to voice such views, as one executive at NBC as early as 1940, declared, “we should make money on our news.”

The ‘Social Control’ Society: A Background to ‘Democratic Propaganda’

One of the primary institutions of social control is the educational system. For primary and secondary educational institutions, the original objective was to foster a strong sense of national identity, bringing a cohesive world view to the development of a national citizenry, and thus, to establish a system of social control. For university education, the original and evolving intend had been to develop an elite capable of managing society, and thus, to produce the controllers and technicians of society, itself. As the modern university underwent a major transformation in late 19th century America, it sought to apply the potential of the “sciences” to the social world, and thus, in a society undergoing rapid industrialization, urbanization, poverty, immigration, labour unrest, and new forms of communication, the “social sciences” were developed with an objective of producing social engineers and technicians for a new society of “social control.”

The major industrial and financial elites had a direct role to play in the transformation of this educational system, and a substantial interest in the ideologies which would emerge from them. As Andrew Carnegie wrote in 1889, at the top of the list of “charitable deeds” to undertake was “the founding of a university by men enormously rich, such men as must necessarily be few in any country.” It was in this context, of robber barons seeking to remake education, that we see the founding of several of America’s top universities, many of which were named after their robber baron founders, such as Stanford (after Leland Stanford), Cornell (after Ezra Cornell), and Johns Hopkins, who owned the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad.

This new class of industrialists, who emerged out of the Civil War in America, “challenged the position of the old propertied, pre-industrial elite. This struggle crystallized in particular around the reform of the educational system that had legitimated the old elite’s domination.” The modern university was born out of this struggle between elites, with the old educational system based upon religious and moral values, “and the making of gentlemen,” while the “new education” focused on “the importance of management or administration” as well as “public service, [and] the advancement of knowledge through original investigation.”

John D. Rockefeller founded the University of Chicago in 1891, and the President of the University, “initiated a new disciplinary system, which was enormously influential.” Ultimately, it “led to the formation of the department structure of the American university, which was internationally unique,” and was later exported around the world “with the help of American foundations.” This disciplinary system consisted of separating politics from economics (rejecting the notion of “political economy” and its “ideologies”), as ideology was “deemed unscientific and inappropriate in social sciences and political scientists have increasingly seen their function as service to the powerful, rather than providing leadership to populist or socialist movements.”

Nicolas Guilhot wrote in the journal Critical Sociology that since “social reform was inevitable,” these industrialists “chose to invest in the definition and scientific treatment of the ‘social questions’ of their time,” and subsequently, they “promoted reformist solutions that did not threaten the capitalistic nature of the social order,” and instead constructed a “private alternative to socialism.” Social control was not simply seen as the means through which a society – as it exists – could be maintained, but more often sought to preserve elements of that society (such as its hierarchical structure, the position of the elites) through periods of profound social change. In this sense, the question was “whether the processes of social control are able to maintain the social order [hierarchy] while transformation and social change take place.”

The United States was viewed “as the laboratory for the study of transitional society in the framework of a rapidly changing social structure,” and therefore, at a time when sociology was being established as an intellectual and academic discipline, “the United States could be viewed as a microcosm of social change and disorder.” The sociologist Edward A. Ross was the first to popularize the concept of social control in the American Journal of Sociology in 1896 and 1898, and later in his 1901 book, Social Control. Ross “viewed individuals as objects of society’s domination,” and suggested that society had to establish order “by channeling the behavior of its members into orderly relations.” Ross, largely influenced by Gabriel Tarde, did not believe that individuals were rational, but rather, that they would need to be “controlled” in one fashion or another. As some sociologists lamented in the 1920s, “all social problems turn out finally to be problems of social control,” and “the study of society was the study of social control.”

Sociology largely emerged from the University of Chicago (founded by John D. Rockefeller), with the world’s first department of sociology founded in 1892. The sociologists who rose within and out of the University of Chicago made up what was known as the “Chicago School of Sociology.” The school developed the most influential sociologists in the nation, including George Herbert Mead and W.I. Thomas, two scholars who had profound influence on the development of the concept of “social control,” and sociologists became “reform-oriented liberals, not radical revolutionaries or conservative cynics.”

The American Journal of Sociology was founded out of the University of Chicago by Albion Small, who was the head professor of the department of sociology, and became the editor of the journal for thirty years from 1895-1925. Between 1915 and 1940, the University of Chicago was the dominant force in sociology in the United States, and “the dominance of the Sociology Department was representative of the social sciences at Chicago during that period.” The school was largely made the center of not only sociology, but many areas of the social sciences, due to funding from outside sources, namely the major philanthropic foundations created by the Robber Baron industrialists in the early 20th century. The foundations became, in effect, engines of social engineering and perhaps the most effective institutions in the application of social control in modern society.

The Foundations of Social Control

The new industrial elite accumulated millions and even hundreds of millions by the end of the 19th century: Andrew Carnegie was worth roughly $300 million after he sold Carnegie Steel to J.P. Morgan in 1901, and by 1913, John D. Rockefeller was estimated to have a personal worth of $900 million. In the late 1880s, Rockefeller met Frederick T. Gates, a minister, educator, and administrator in the Baptist Church when they were negotiating the founding of a new university, which resulted with a pledge of $600,000 from Rockefeller to found the University of Chicago in 1889. At this time, Rockefeller hired Gates as his associate in charge of Rockefeller’s philanthropic ventures. Gates became central in inculcating the notion of “scientific benevolence” within Rockefeller’s philanthropies. As Gates wrote in his autobiography, “I gradually developed and introduced in all his charities the principle of scientific giving.” Gates advised Rockefeller to form a series of “self-perpetuating” philanthropies.

The circumstances in which the Rockefeller Foundation emerged are notable. In 1913, a coal strike began at a Colorado mine owned by the Rockefellers in the small mining town of Ludlow, where roughly 11,000 workers (mostly Greek, Italian, and Serbian immigrants) went on strike against the “feudal domination of their lives in towns completely controlled by the mining companies.” Repression quickly followed, culminating in what became known as the Ludlow Massacre in 1914, with the Rockefellers hiring the National Guard to attack the strikers and destroy their tent city, machine gunning the crowd and setting fire to tents, one of which was discovered to have housed eleven children and two women, all of whom were killed by the fire.

The Congressional Walsh Commission was founded to investigate the activities which led to violent labour repression at the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company in Ludlow, though the scope of the Commission was expanded to study philanthropic foundations themselves. The Commission’s founder, Frank P. Walsh, explained:

…the creation of the Rockefeller and other foundations was the beginning of an effort to perpetuate the present position of predatory wealth through the corruption of sources of public information… [and] that if not checked by legislation, these foundations will be used as instruments to change to form of government of the U.S. at a future date, and there is even a hint that there is a fear of a monarchy.

In 1916, the Walsh Commission produced its final report, the Manly Report (after the research director, Basil M. Manly), which concluded that the foundations were so “grave a menace” to society, that “it would be desirable to recommend their abolition.” Frank Walsh referred to foundations as “a menace to the welfare of society.”

As the Walsh Commission began their work, the Rockefeller Foundation sought to join forces with other major corporate leaders to advance their formation of ideology, and attended a conference “held between representatives of some of the largest financial interests” in the United States. This conference resulted in two approaches being pushed forward in terms of seeking to “educate the citizenry in procapitalistic ideology and thus relieve unrest.” One view was the interpretation that the public was provided with “poor quality of facts and interpretation available on social and economic issues.” Thus, they felt there was a need for a “publicity bureau” to provide a “constant stream of correct information” targeted at the lower and middle classes. The Rockefeller Foundation agreed that a publicity bureau was a good strategy, but added that what was also needed was “a permanent research organization to manufacture knowledge on these subjects.” A publicity bureau would “correct popular misinformation,” while a research organization would study the “causes of social and economic evils,” though of course avoiding problematic considerations of institutional analysis or radical critiques. They were instead to focus on “disinterested” and “detached” studies of social problems, portraying themselves as scientists and technicians for society, focused on reform and social control.

Rockefeller interests quickly undertook both strategies. While the Foundation was engaged in the manufacture of ideology (which specifically states that it is “non-ideological,” meaning that it supports power), the corporate arm of the Rockefeller empire hired the first public relations man, Ivy Lee, a Progressive era journalist. The Foundation hired the Canadian labour expert, William Lyon Mackenzie King (who would later become Canada’s longest-serving Prime Minister) to manage “labour relations,” promoting “company unions” over “autonomous unions,” thus undermining the freedom of labour to organize and oppose the social order as a whole, bringing them firmly within the corporate-state ideology and institutions.

Ivy Lee, for his part, attempted to undertake “damage control” for the Rockefellers, who were widely despised at the time, acting as a PR man, disseminating communiqués to media and educators attempting “to cultivate middle-class allies.” His efforts at stemming animosity toward the Rockefellers following Ludlow failed, but for years he continued to present “the human side of the Rockefellers,” earning him the rather unfavourable nickname “Poison Ivy.”

While Lee’s specific efforts were unsuccessful, the ideas behind them continued to grow and evolve. Two major social engineering projects were underway: one, the manufacture of ideology, largely the initiative of philanthropic foundations (and the social sciences), and the other, public relations as a modern form of propaganda. Both of these social engineering projects were designed to ensure social control through social engineering, and both were to have a profound impact upon both the definition and function of modern “democracies.”

Through the educational system, the social sciences, philanthropic foundations, public relations, advertising, marketing, and the media, America and the industrialized states of the world developed a unique and complex system of social control and propaganda for the 20th century and into the 21st. It is imperative to recognize and understand this complex system if we are to challenge and change it.

Andrew Gavin Marshall is an independent researcher and writer based in Montreal, Canada, with a focus on studying the ideas, institutions, and individuals of power and resistance across a wide spectrum of social, political, economic, and historical spheres. He has been published in AlterNet, CounterPunch, Occupy.com, Truth-Out, RoarMag, and a number of other alternative media groups, and regularly does radio, Internet, and television interviews with both alternative and mainstream news outlets. He is Project Manager of The People’s Book Project, Research Director of Occupy.com’s Global Power Project, and has a weekly podcast show with BoilingFrogsPost.

Please consider making a donation to The People’s Book Project

By: Andrew Gavin Marshall

Photograph: Mido Ahmed/AFP/Getty Images

The following is a first draft sample from a chapter currently being written for The People’s Book Project. Read more about The People’s Book Project here, and please consider donating to help the Project continue.

The American imperial system incorporates much more than supporting the occasional coup or undertaking the occasional war. Coups, wars, assassinations and other forms of overt and covert violence and destabilization, while relatively common and consistent for the United States – compared to other major powers – are secondary to the general maintenance of a system of imperial patronage. A “stable” system is what is desired most by strategic planners and policy-makers, but this has a technical definition. Stability means that the populations of subject nations and regions are under “control” – whether crushed by force or made passive by consent, while Western corporate and financial interests have and maintain unhindered access to the “markets” and resources of those nations and regions. Since the 19^th century development of America’s overseas empire, this has been referred to as the “Open Door” policy: as in, the door opens for American and other Western economic interests to have access to and undertake exploitation of resources and labour.

As the only global imperial power, and by far the world’s largest military power, America does not merely rely upon the “goodwill” of smaller nations or the threat of force against them in order to maintain its dominance, it has established, over time, a large and complex network of imperial patronage: supplying economic aid, military aid (to allow its favoured regimes to control their own populations or engage in proxy-warfare), military and police training, among many other programs. These programs are largely coordinated by and between the Defense Department, State Department, and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Arms sales are a major method through which the United States – and other powerful nations – are able to exert their hegemony, by arming and strengthening their key allies, directly or indirectly fueling civil wars and conflicts, and funneling money into the world’s major weapons manufacturers. The global economic crisis had “significantly pushed down purchases of weapons” over 2009 to the lowest level since 2005. In 2009, worldwide arms deals amounted to $57.5 billion, dropping 8.5% from the previous year. The United States maintained its esteemed role as the main arms dealer in the world, accounting for $22.6 billion – or 39% of the global market. In 2008, the U.S. contribution to global arms sales was significantly higher, at $38.1 billion, up from $25.7 billion in 2007. In 2009, the second-largest arms dealer in the world was Russia at $10.4 billion, then France at $7.4 billion, followed by Germany, Italy, China and Britain.[1]

There are two official ways in which arms are sold to foreign nations: either through Foreign Military Sales (FMS), in which the Pentagon negotiates an agreement between the U.S. government and a foreign government for the sale and purchase of arms, and through Direct Commercial Sales (DCS), in which arms manufacturers (multinational corporations) negotiate directly with foreign governments for the sale and purchase of arms, having to apply for a license from the State Department.

Between 2005 and 2009, U.S. arms sales totaled roughly $101 billion, with direct commercial sales (DCS) accounting for more than half of the total value, at $59.86 billion, and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) accounting for $40.85 billion. The top seven recipients of U.S. arms sales between 2005 and 2009 were: Japan at $13.14 billion, the United Kingdom at $8.32 billion, Israel at $8 billion, South Korea at $6.53 billion, Australia at $4.17 billion, Egypt at $4.07 billion, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) at $3.98 billion.[2]

The United States experienced a slight decline in global arms sales over 2009, though it maintained its position as the world’s number one arms dealer, holding 30% of the global market. However, the Obama administration in 2010 decided to change certain “export control regulations” in order to make arms deals easier and increase the U.S. share of the global market. The stated reason for the legal change was “to simplify the sale of weapons to U.S. allies,” though it had the added benefit of “generating business for the U.S. defense industry.” The U.S. National Security Advisor at the time, General James Jones, claimed that without the changes, the existing system of arms sales “poses a potential national security risk based on the fact that its structure is overly complicated.”[3]

In early 2010, the Obama administration began pressuring Saudi Arabia and other Gulf dictatorships (aka: “allies”) to increase their purchases of U.S. arms, upgrade their defense of oil installations and threaten Iran with overwhelming military superiority. In the lead were Saudi Arabia and the UAE in undertaking a regional “military buildup” – or arms race – resulting in more than $25 billion in U.S. arms sales to the region over the previous two years. A senior U.S. official in the Obama administration commented: “We’re developing a truly regional defensive capability, with missile systems, air defense and a hardening up of critical infrastructure… All of these have progressed significantly over the past year.” Another senior official stated, “It’s a tough neighborhood, and we have to make sure we are protected,” adding that Iran was the “number one threat in the region.”[4]

Of course, Iran is actually a nation that exists within the region, and thus has the right to defend itself, whereas the United States cannot “defend” itself in a region in which it does not exist. But then, geographical trivialities have never been a concern to imperialists who believe that the world belongs to them and it was a mere accident of history that all the resources exist outside of the empire’s home country. Therefore, with such a rationalization, the United States – and the West more broadly – have a “right” to “defend” themselves (and their economic and political interests) everywhere in the world, and against everyone in the world. Any other nation which poses a challenge to Western domination of the world and its resources is thus a “threat” to whichever region it belongs, as well as to U.S. “national security.”

Iran is of course not the only competition for the United States and the West in its unhindered access to and control of the world, but China is another and arguably much more significant threat (though not an officially sanctioned U.S. enemy, as of yet). Around the same time the U.S. was pushing for increased arms sales to the Persian Gulf dictatorships (no doubt, to advance the causes of “democracy” and “peace”), the Obama administration secured an arms deal with Taiwan worth over $6 billion, incurring the frustration of China. The deal included the sale of 114 Patriot missiles, 60 Black Hawk helicopters, and communications equipment for Taiwan’s fleet of F-16s, with the possibility of future sales of F-16 fighter jets.[5]

The Chinese vice foreign minister expressed “indignation” to the U.S. State Department in response to the arms deal, adding: “We believe this move endangers China’s national security and harms China’s peaceful reunification efforts [with Taiwan]… It will harm China-U.S. relations and bring about a serious and active impact on bilateral communication and cooperation.” In response, the U.S. National Security Advisor General James Jones stated that the announcement shouldn’t “come as a surprise to our Chinese friends.”[6]

In September of 2010, the Obama administration announced the intention to undertake the largest arms deal in U.S. history, the sale of advanced aircraft to Saudi Arabia worth up to $60 billion for fighter jets and helicopters (84 F-15s, 70 Apaches, 72 Black Hawks, and 36 Little Birds), as well as engaging “in talks with the [Saudi] kingdom about potential naval and missile-defense upgrades that could be worth tens of billions of dollars more,” according to the Wall Street Journal, with “a potential $30 billion package to upgrade Saudi Arabia’s naval forces.” The stated objective was to counter the role of Iran in the region, though no agreement had been initially reached. The U.S. was selling the idea to Congress as a means of creating “jobs,” a political euphemism for corporate profits. One official involved in the talks noted, “It’s a big economic sale for the U.S. and the argument is that it is better to create jobs here than in Europe.”[7]

The arms deal would purchase equipment and technology from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, and United Technologies. In recent years, Saudi Arabia had been purchasing more European and Russian-made arms from companies like BAE Systems. U.S. officials were also attempting to ease the fears of Israel while massively building up the arsenal of a close neighbor, ensuring that the planes sold to the Kingdom wouldn’t have long-range weapons systems and further, that the Israelis would purchase the more advanced F-35 jet fighters. The Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, commented, “We appreciate the administration’s efforts to maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge.” The potential $60 billion arms deal with the Saudis would be stretched out over several years, though there was talk that the Saudis might only guarantee a purchase of at least $30 billion, at least, initially.[8]

The Financial Times reported that the Arab dictatorships in the Gulf “have embarked on one of the largest re-armament exercises in peacetime history, ordering US weapons worth some $123 billion as they seek to counter Iran’s military power.” Saudi Arabia’s $60 billion was the largest, with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) signing arms deals worth between $35 and $40 billion in purchases of a “high altitude missile defence system” known as THAAD, developed by Lockheed Martin, as well as purchasing upgrades of its Patriot missile defense systems, produced by Raytheon. Oman was expected to purchase $12 billion and Kuwait $7 billion in arms and military technology. The CEO of Blenheim Capital Partners, a consultancy firm which helps arrange arms deals, noted that Middle Eastern and Southeast Asian countries were replacing Western European nations as the largest arms purchasers, adding: “They are the big buyers.”[9]

Anthony Cordesman from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) said that the United States was seeking to create a “new post-Iraq war security structure that can secure the flow of energy exports to the global economy.” These massive arms sales would then “reinforce the level of regional deterrence” – or in other words, expand American hegemony over the region through local proxy powers and dictatorships – and thus, “help reduce the size of forces the US must deploy in the region.” As a Saudi defense analyst noted, “[t]he Saudi aim is to send a message especially to the Iranians – that we have complete aerial superiority over them.”[10]

According to three of four members of an ‘Expert Roundup’ published by the Council on Foreign Relations, the $123 billion arms deals with the Arab dictatorships are “a good idea for the United States and the Middle East.” One of the “experts” is Anthony Cordesman, the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at CSIS, former director of intelligence assessment in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as well as having served in several other State Department and NATO staffs, and has been a regular consultant to the Afghan and Iraqi occupation commands, U.S. embassies, and was a member of the Strategic Assessment Group which advised General Stanley McChrystal in developing a new strategy in Afghanistan for 2009. He also regularly consults with the U.S. State and Defense Departments and the intelligence community. Cordesman wrote that the US “shares critical strategic interests with Saudi Arabia,” notably the control of oil for “the health” of the global economy.[11]

Cordesman also emphasized the role of pliant dictatorships in carrying out U.S imperial objectives in the region, writing that the U.S. “needs allies that have interoperable forces that can both fight effectively alongside the United States and ease the U.S. burden by defending themselves,” meaning, to defend America’s interests, which then become the interests of America’s proxies – or “allies.” The arms sales would be a helpful counter to Iran in the region, and secure a strong relationship between “the current Saudi government as well as Saudi governments for the next fifteen to twenty years,” the suggested timeline for delivery of all purchases, providing Saudi Arabia with a “strong incentive to work with the United States” over the long-term.[12]

Loren B. Thompson, the Chief Operating Officer of the Lexington Institute, also participated in the Council on Foreign Relations ‘Roundup’ report, writing that the arms deal “appears to be a careful reconciliation of Saudi requirements with Israeli fears, while also offering a strategic balance against Iran.” Whatever the differences between Saudi Arabia and the United States, he wrote, casting aside the fact that the Kingdom is one of the most brutal and dictatorial regimes in the world, “the Saudis have been reliable allies of America for decades and have exercised a moderating influence on the behavior of other oil-producing states.” Helping the Saudis, Thompson wrote, “means helping ourselves.”[13]

F. Gregory Gause III, Professor and Chair of the Political Science Department at the University of Vermont wrote that the arms deal “will not buy much security in the long run in the Persian Gulf,” but, he added, “there are no good reasons not to sell the Saudis those weapons, and there are some potentially positive results (besides the economic benefits to the US),” such as opposing the “Iranian regional challenge,” with which he included Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Occupied Territories of Palestine, “various Iraqi parties,” Syria, and “Shia activists in the Gulf monarchies.” One could not object to the arms sale on the basis of supporting a regime with a horrible record on democracy, women’s rights, Islam, and human rights, Gause wrote, adding: “Moral purity would be purchased at the price of reduced American regional influence.” In other words, it’s a terrible regime, but it’s America’s terrible regime, and thus, challenging or changing the nature of the regime could undermine and erode America’s influence through the dictatorship and over the region.[14]

William Hartung, the director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation, was another “expert” in the Council on Foreign Relations ‘Roundup’ report, providing the one “cautionary note” on the arms deal on the basis that it could amount to fueling an arms race in the region, building up the forces of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchs, and Israel, thus providing pressure on Iran “to ratchet up its own military capabilities.” The Saudi deal “consists primary of offensive weapons,” though it is stated to be for defensive purposes, and if Saudi Arabia were to undertake aggressive military actions in the region, such as in Yemen (as it has), it would more likely “inflame passions” against Saudi Arabia instead of solving security problems.[15]

The United States has for years dominated the arms market of the Persian Gulf, supplying military equipment to Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Bahrain, all members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a regional governance association. A Middle East “defense analyst” with Forecast International, stated: “The U.S. arms sales to these countries are meant to improve the defense capabilities of the recipient nations, reinforce the sense of U.S. solidarity with its GCC partners and, finally, create a semblance of interoperability with American forces.” After the United States, the largest arms dealers to the region are France, Russia, Britain and China. Russian and Chinese arms mostly went to Iran, while Israel received $2.78 billion in U.S. military aid in 2010.[16]

In October of 2010, the United States assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, Andrew Shapiro, formally announced the intended Saudi arms deal for the U.S. Congress to approve for a program to last from 15 to 20 years. Shapiro stated that, “This is not solely about Iran… It’s about helping the Saudis with their legitimate security needs… they live in a dangerous neighbourhood and we are helping them preserve and protect their security.”[17]

For an average of $13 billion per year in arms sales between 1995 and 2005, the Department of Defense announced in 2010 that it intended to sell up to $103 billion, though presumably achieving a lower number, such as $50 billion, over the course of the year. A defense industry consultant, Loren Thompson, stated that, “Obama is much more favorably disposed to arms exports than any of the previous Democratic administrations.” Jeff Abramson of the Arms Control Association stated that there was “an Obama arms bazaar going on.” While the discussion about the massive arms sales in most of the press and political discourse was focused upon supporting 200,000 workers in the ‘defense’ industry, industry consultant Thompson was less ambiguous: “It’s about U.S. allies, it’s about maintaining jobs, and it’s about America’s broader role in the world – and what you have to do to maintain that role;” the role being – of course – that of the global imperial hegemon.[18]

Military contractors spread their factories and workforce out across several U.S. states in order to use their leverage as “major employers” with the U.S. Congress and other political powers. Boeing has facilities in over 20 U.S. states, and the corporation’s head of business development for military aircraft, Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kohler, was previously responsible for overseeing arms exports for the Pentagon. The entire industry of military contractors is entirely dependent upon massive state subsidies to survive, doing 80-90% of their business with the Pentagon. And, as CNN Money reported, “business recently has been good,” with the U.S. more than doubling its military spending since 2001 to roughly $700 billion, nearly as much as the rest of the entire world spends combined.[19]

Congress agreed in December of 2010 to spend $725 billion on ‘defense’ for 2011. Military contractors were largely seeking “growth” – a euphemism for exploitation and profit – by turning to foreign arms sales. The military contractor EADS sought to establish a headquarters in Asia, Honeywell created a new “international sales” division, and Lockheed Martin was planning to increase its revenue share acquired outside the United States from 14 to 20% by 2012, Boeing aimed to increase international sales from 17-25%, and Raytheon had the largest percentage of revenue from overseas at 23%. But sadly, for the arms dealers, it’s not so easy to sell weapons to foreign governments, since each deal requires a license from the U.S. State Department, a pesky barrier to “growth.” The countries with the “biggest appetite for U.S weapons” are “oil-rich nations in the Middle East,” with roughly 50% of foreign military sales by U.S. contractors between 2006 and 2009 being sold to countries in the region, with Boeing reaping the most overall profits. Mark Kronenberg, the head of Boeing’s international business development, noted: “The last time we had a period like this in the Middle East was the early ‘90s,” during the lead up to and aftermath of the first Gulf War, adding, “Here we are, 20 years later, and they’re recapitalizing.”[20]

A report prepared by the U.S. Congressional Research Service and published in December of 2011 detailed Foreign Military Sales (FMS) agreements between the United States and other nations for the period of 2003 to 2010. Between 2003 and 2006, the top ten largest recipients of U.S. arms through FMS (and excluding Direct Commercial Sales and Foreign Military Aid programs) were: Egypt ($4.5 billion), Saudi Arabia ($4.2 billion), Poland ($4.1 billion), followed by Australia, Japan, Greece, South Korea, Kuwait, Turkey, and Israel. For the years 2007 to 2010, the top ten recipients were: Saudi Arabia ($13.8 billion), UAE ($10.4 billion), Egypt ($7.8 billion), followed by Taiwan, Australia, Iraq, Pakistan, UK, Turkey, and South Korea. In 2010, the top ten purchases of U.S. arms were: Taiwan ($2.7 billion), Egypt ($1.8 billion), Saudi Arabia ($1.5 billion), followed by Australia, UK, Israel, Iraq, Jordan, South Korea, and Singapore.[21]

In April of 2011, Leslie H. Gelb, the President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote that in light of “the possible consequences of the new popular awakenings” across the Middle East, and the fact that as dictatorships increasingly “crack down even harder against the protesters… enabled by Western arms,” Americans “don’t like thinking of themselves or having others think of them as merchants of death.” The “nightmares” of Western policy-makers “comes from their hopes for Arab democracy” – that is, the emergence of “stable democracies over time” – and “their fears that fledgling Arab democracies will go awry.”[22] So naturally, arms deals are a good means to secure U.S. interests in the region.

In May of 2011, Andrew Shapiro, the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, spoke to the U.S. Department of State’s Defense Trade Advisory Group, at which he said the “demand” for U.S. arms and military technology “will remain strong because the U.S. has longstanding defense commitments to allies around the world,” and “we will remain very busy no matter the fluctuations of the global market.” The “dynamic nature of the geopolitical landscape” would require the U.S. “to adapt to changing situations.” Shapiro stated that, “we are witnessing another geopolitical shift, which may have broad implications for U.S. foreign policy,” referencing the popular uprisings across the Middle East as “perhaps the most significant geopolitical development since the end of the Cold War.” In his speech, Shapiro praised his audience at the Defense Trade Advisory Group (DTAG) as “valuable” in “giving us a formal channel to the private sector,” enabling the State Department “to better evaluate U.S. laws and regulations, especially during times of immense change.”[23]

The members of the DTAG included top executives and officials from such companies as BAE Systems, ITT Defense, Boeing, Booz Allen Hamilton, EADS North America, Intel, General Electric, General Dynamics, United Technologies, Tyco, Northrop Grumman, Honeywell International, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin, among a total of 45 individuals.[24] According to its website, the DTAG advises the State Department Bureau of Political-Military Affairs “on its support for and regulation of defense trade to help ensure that impediments to legitimate exports are reduced while the foreign policy and national security interests of the U.S. continue to be protected and advanced.”

Shapiro told these corporate representatives that, “It is important to emphasize that arms transfers are a tool to advance U.S. foreign policy. And therefore when U.S. foreign policy interests, goals, and objectives shift, evolve, and transform over time, so will our arms transfer policy.” As always, stated Shapiro, “we urge you to provide your thoughts and ideas over how we should move forward.” Foreign military sales – especially to the Middle East – will continue as “a critical foreign policy instrument” allowing the U.S. to “gain influence and leverage, which can be used to help advance our foreign policy goals and objectives.”[25]

As an example, the United States approved $200 million in military sales from U.S. corporations to the government of Bahrain in 2010, just months before pro-democracy protests erupted in the country, resulting in “a harsh crackdown on protesters,” killing at least 30 and injuring hundreds of more people in a matter of months.[26]

In December of 2011, Andrew Shapiro announced the formal signing with Saudi Arabia to sell the dictatorship $30 billion in F-15 fighter jets to be delivered by 2015, as well as other plans to sell $11 billion in arms to Iraq. The Saudi deal was the result of extensive lobbying efforts by top government officials, including Obama making several phone calls to Saudi King Abdullah, and the U.S. National Security Advisor, Thomas E. Donilon, twice traveling to Riyadh while Vice President Joe Biden led a “high-level delegation” to a funeral for a Saudi Prince in October of 2011.[27]

Embracing the World with Open “Arms”

In 2009, worldwide arms sales stood at $65.2 billion, dropping by 38% to $40.4 billion in 2010, the lowest number since 2003, with the United States contributing $21.4 billion – or 52.7% – of the global arms deals, Russia in second place at $7.8 billion over 2010, followed by France, Britain, China, Germany and Italy, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service. Over 75% of global arms sales in 2010 were for ‘developing’ countries, with India in top place at $5.8 billion in arms deals, followed by Taiwan at $2.7 billion, Saudi Arabia at $2.2 billion, Egypt, Israel, Algeria, Syria, South Korea, Singapore and Jordan.[28]

This relative decline in global arms sales over 2010 was not to be repeated for 2011, with the number skyrocketing to $85.3 billion, with the U.S. contribution tripling to $66.3 billion, accounting for more than three-quarters of global arms deals.[29] Russia stood in a distant second place with $4.8 billion in arms sales.[30] While the United States controls roughly 75% of the global arms trade, it would be wrong to ignore the role of the other major players, though they are far from even competing with the U.S.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reported that the rise in arms sales had increased by 60% in real terms since 2002, with the total sales of the top 100 arms companies reaching $411.1 billion in 2010. The arms industry is “increasingly concentrated” to the point where the top ten firms account for 56% of all sales, with Lockheed Martin at the top with sales of $35.7 billion in 2010, followed by Britain’s BAE Systems at $32.8 billion, Boeing at $31.3 billion, and Northrop Grumman at $28.5 billion.[31] Other major companies on the top 100 list of arms manufacturers include: General Dynamics, Raytheon, EADS, L-3 Communications, United Technologies, Thales, SAIC, Honeywell, Rolls-Royce, General Electric, KBR, Hewlett-Packard, and DynCorp.[32]

Following the beginning of the Arab Spring and the toppling of the Western-backed dictators in Tunisia and Egypt, British Prime Minister David Cameron continued with a pre-planned tour of the Middle East in February of 2011, leading what the British Green Party leader called a “delegation of arms traders,” with almost 75% of the businessmen accompanying the Prime Minister on his trip to the region representing the defense and aerospace industries.[33] As the first Western leader to visit Egypt following the fall of Mubarak, Cameron praised the pro-democracy movement: “Meeting the young people and the representatives of the groups in Tahrir Square [in Cairo] was genuinely inspiring,” adding: “These are people who have risked a huge amount for what they believe in.” Immediately after praising Egypt’s revolution and expressing his own ‘beliefs’ in democracy, Cameron flew to Kuwait with his arms dealer delegation to sell weapons to other Arab dictatorships. When criticized for the excessive hypocrisy of his democracy-praising and dictatorship arms-dealing tour of the Middle East, Cameron simply asserted that Britain had “nothing to be ashamed of,” as there was nothing wrong with such transactions.[34]

As dictators across the region were becoming increasingly belligerent toward protesters, seeking to violently crush resistance after the successful examples of Tunisians and Egyptians toppling their long-standing dictators, increasing arms shipments to the region’s despots seemed to be only natural for Western imperial powers seeking stability and control. Kevan Jones, the British Shadow Defence Minister noted: “The defence industry is crucially important to Britain but many people will be surprised that the prime minister in this week of all weeks may be considering bolstering arms sales to the Middle East.” Accompanying David Cameron on his trip were 36 corporate representatives, including Ian King, the CEO of BAE Systems, as well as Victor Chavez of Thales UK, Alastair Bisset of Qinetiq, and Rob Watson of Rolls Royce. When questioned about his ‘arms dealer delegation,’ Cameron stated: “I have got a range of business people on the aeroplane, people involved in infrastructure and people involved in the arts and cultural exchanges. Yes, we have defence manufacturers as well. Britain does have a range of defence relationships with countries in the region. I seem to remember that we spent a lot of effort and indeed life in helping to defend Kuwait. So it is quite right to have defence relationships with some of these countries.”[35]

As Cameron was hopping around the region selling weapons, the largest arms fair in the Middle East – the Index 2011 – was taking place in Abu Dhabi, bringing thousands of arms dealers to an exhibition hall with fighter jets flying overhead, tanks in the sand, with Predator drones and assault rifles on display, models fully dressed in the latest riot police outfits, and all choreographed to a hip-hop soundtrack. Meanwhile, not very far from the booming arms fair, protesters in Bahrain were being violently repressed by a dictatorship armed and supported by the West. The British delegation to the arms fair was led by the Defence Minister, Gerald Howarth, helping represent British companies which were displaying and selling their latest tools for ‘crowd control,’ showcasing teargas grenades, stun grenades, and rubber bullets.[36]

A British officer from the government’s Trade and Industry stand at the arms fair was explaining the benefits of a particular fragmentation bomb to a top military official from the Algerian dictatorship. Howarth explained, “I am here as the minister for national security strategy, supporting this important exhibition.” While in 2011 the British had to revoke export licenses to Bahrain and Libya following the violence erupting in both countries, over the previous year the British issued 20 licenses for exports of “riot control weapons,” such as teargas, smoke and stun grenades, to Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman, as well as nearly 200 million pounds in “crowd control ammunition” to the government of Libya.[37]

Weapons manufacturers stated that they felt the increased criticism inflicted upon their industry following the start of the Arab Spring had left them “battered and bruised.” One arms trader, commenting less than two weeks after Mubarak was toppled, stated that, “[t]he Middle East was a growing market until a few weeks ago,” while a representative from BAE agreed that the market for arms was insecure: “It is too early to say where it will end up… Given what is going on at the moment, nobody is likely to be talking about how to spend their defence procurement budget.” When a representative for the British arms exporter Chemring was questioned about selling CS gas shotgun cartridges and stun grenades, he explained, “we have an ethical policy in place and look closely at the countries we are considering exporting to and see if they fit that.” A representative for Primetake, a British firm selling rubber ball shot, teargas, and rubber baton rounds, defended his firm: “We are a very respectable organization and we take very careful advice from the Ministry of Defense and the business department.”[38]

Between October of 2009 and October of 2010, the British exported arms and military equipment to multiple countries in the Middle East and North Africa, including over 270 million pounds in materials to Algeria, including combat helicopters, roughly 6.4 million pounds in arms deals with Bahrain, nearly 17 million pounds with Egypt, 477 million pounds with Iraq, 27 million pounds with Israel, 21 million pounds with Jordan, 14.5 million pounds with Kuwait, 6.2 million pounds with Lebanon, 215 million pounds with Libya, 2.2 million pounds with Morocco, 14 million pounds with Oman, 13 million pounds with Qatar, 140 million pounds with Saudi Arabia, 2.6 million pounds with Syria, 4.5 million pounds to Tunisia, and 210 million pounds to the UAE. These sales included assault rifles, tear gas, ammunition, bombs, missiles, body armour, gun parts, gas mask filters, signaling and radar equipment, armoured vehicles, anti-riot shields, patrol boats, military software, shotguns, “crowd-control equipment,” tank parts, military cargo vehicles, air surveillance equipment, armoured personnel carriers, small arms ammunition, heavy machine guns, and a plethora of other products, almost exclusively delivered to dictatorships (with the exception of Israel).[39]

Germany, which stood as the world’s third-largest arms exporter in previous years (after the US and Russia), had doubled its share of the global arms trade over the previous decade to 11%, totaling roughly 6 billion euros in arms deals for 2008 alone, with companies like EADS, Rheinmetall and Heckler & Koch leading the way. Even Russia was becoming a big customer for German military equipment, purchasing armoured plating and tanks.[40]

In 2009, the European Union had established new export rules for arms and military technology, much-praised as preventing the export of arms that “might be used for undesirable purposes such as internal repression or international aggression or contribut[ing] to regional instability.” With the EU rules in place, member countries were free to completely disregard them. A European Commission study leaked to Der Spiegel in 2012 revealed that combined exports from EU nations made the European Union “the world’s largest exporter of weapons” to Saudi Arabia, delivering at least $4.34 billion in equipment in 2010 alone. Sweden helped the Saudi dictatorship build a missile factory, Finland delivered grenade launchers, Germany sold tanks and Britain provided fighter jets. The arms exporters were unfazed by the fact that equipment such as the tanks were used by Saudi Arabia in its “invitation” to invade Bahrain and help the Bahraini dictatorship crush the pro-democracy movement in early 2011. An official with the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society noted that the Swedish support for building a missile factory in Saudi Arabia has meant that, “we are legitimizing one of the most brutal regimes in the world.” Pakistan had meanwhile become China’s biggest customer for arms exports, while India purchased 10% of the world’s arms exports in 2010 “to defend itself against neighbor and arch enemy Pakistan.”[41]

When German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke at the Munich Security Conference in 2011, she mentioned the “obligation to pursue value-based foreign policy,” and has often argued that “no compromises” can be made on issues of human rights. As part of Merkel’s respect for “human rights” and “value-based foreign policy,” weapons sales have increased as a significant factor in Germany’s foreign policy strategy, quietly changing the rules for arms exports to increase weapons sales to “crisis regions” as “a major pillar of the country’s security policy.” The objective would be to strengthen countries within “crisis regions” and therefore reduce the possibility that the German military would itself have to participate in “international missions.”[42]

The German publication Der Spiegel referred to this as the “Merkel doctrine” of “tanks instead of soldiers.” Among the key countries to support, identified by Merkel and eight other ministers who met behind closed doors under the aegis of the Federal Security Council, were Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Qatar, India, and Angola. Merkel explained her doctrine in a speech at an event in Berlin in September of 2011 where she stated that if the West lacks the will and ability to undertake direct military intervention, “then it’s generally not enough to send other countries and organizations words of encouragement. We must also provide the necessary means to those nations that are prepared to get involved. I’ll say it clearly: This includes arms exports.” This, of course, Merkel added, would nicely manifest as a foreign policy “that is aligned with respect for human rights.”[43]

As part of the “Merkel doctrine” of engaging in a “value-based foreign policy” with “respect for human rights,” Germany increased its arms sales to the Algerian dictatorship from 20 million euros in 2010 to nearly 400 million euros in 2012, with German military manufacturer Rheinmetall planning to produce 1,200 armored personnel carriers for Algeria over the next ten years.[44] According to published European Union documents, over 2011, the top five arms exporting countries in the EU were France, the U.K., Germany, Italy, and Spain, collectively exporting over 80% of 37.5 billion euros in arms from EU countries. The European Union, winner of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize, increased its arms exports by 18.3% since the previous year, with an increase in export licenses to Asia, the Middle East, and sub-Saharan Africa. There were arms licenses issued to Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and over 300-million euros-worth of arms for Egypt. The EU increased its arms exports to “areas of tension,” including India, Pakistan, and a record 465 million euros in arms to Afghanistan, “a country still under partial arms embargo.”[45] However, ‘partial’ is apparently debatable.

With the United States reaching a record-breaking $60 billion in arms deals over 2011, Andrew Shapiro at the State Department stated that 2012 was set to be an equally – if not larger – bonanza for arms dealers. Revealing the role of diplomats and top government officials as glorified lobbyists and corporate representatives, Shapiro told a group of defense writers in the Summer of 2012: “We’ve really upped our game in terms of advocating on behalf of U.S. companies,” adding, “I’ve got the frequent-flyer miles to prove it.” Shapiro had traveled to more than 11 countries over 2012 promoting arms deals, noting that sales were at a record level for the third quarter of 2012, already passing $50 billion. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had made “advocacy” for arms dealers “a key priority” for U.S. diplomats and State Department officials who “were now expected to undertake such efforts on all trips abroad.” Shapiro and others had been lobbying for American military contractors in deals ranging from Japan’s $10 billion purchase of aircraft from Lockheed Martin to India’s increased arms purchases, where Shapiro saw “tremendous potential” for U.S. arms sales, and to Brazil, where Boeing was competing with France’s Dassault company for a multibillion-dollar defense contract, of which Shapiro stated, “We’re eager to make the best possible case for the Boeing aircraft, and we’re hopeful that it will be selected.”[46]

By March of 2013, the world’s five largest arms exporters were the U.S., Russia, Germany, France, and China overtook the UK for the first time in fifth place, having increased its arms exports by 162% between 2008 and 2012, increasing its share of the global arms trade from 2 to 5%, over 50% of which are delivered to Pakistan, with other large recipients being Myanmar, Bangladesh, Algeria, Venezuela and Morocco.[47] Li Hong, the secretary-general of the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association noted: “Military exports are one way for China to increase its international status,” explaining that, “China needs to increase its influence in regional affairs and from that perspective it needs to increase weapons exports further.” As China increased its own military budget in recent years, it had turned to developing its own weapons industries, thus moving from being the world’s number one arms importer (of conventional weapons) between 2003-2007 to taking second place behind India in the 2008-2012 period, acquiring roughly 69% of its arms imports from Russia.[48]

British Prime Minister David Cameron again traveled to the Middle East, accompanied by his Defense Secretary Philip Hammond and another delegation of arms dealers in 2012, seeking to sell up to 100 Eurofighter Typhoon jets to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, built by EADS and marketed by BAE, competing with France’s cheaper Rafale strike jet made by Dassault Aviation. The increased – and increasingly profitable – arms race in the Middle East was largely facilitated by America’s policies toward Iran. William Cohen is a former U.S. Secretary of Defense in the Clinton administration, current Counselor and Trustee to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), former member of the board of directors of the Council on Foreign Relations from 1989 to 1997, current Vice Chairman of the U.S.-China Business Council, on the board of directors of CBS Corporation, and is Chairman and CEO of The Cohen Group, an international business consulting firm. Commenting on the growing arms race in the Middle East, Cohen repeated the usual American propaganda, stating that there was “A very legitimate concern about Iran being a revolutionary country,” though also adding that terrorism, cyberattack threats, and “the implications of the Arab Spring” spurred each country in the region “to make sure it’s protected against that.” Cohen added that military contractors, information technology firms and other corporations “have an enormous opportunity” in the region.[49]

When British Defense Secretary Philip Hammond traveled to Indonesia to promote arms deals for British military contractors like BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce, he explained that increasing military ties with notoriously corrupt Indonesia, posed “manageable” risks. He commented: “From the companies I have talked to, they recognize that there is a challenge but they think that it is manageable, and they can operate here successfully while observing the UK and US legal requirements to address anti-corruption issues.” This statement came amid accusations of Rolls-Royce engaging in bribery to acquire business in China, Indonesia, and elsewhere. Hammond noted that in light of the U.S. “pivot” to Asia, Britain was “looking east in a way we have not done before.” Indonesia had recently purchased F-16 fighter jets and Apache helicopters from the U.S., Sukhoi fighters from Russia, missile systems from China, anti-aircraft missiles, Hawk jets and small arms from British companies.[50] Prime Minister David Cameron defended arms sales to oppressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia, declaring it to be “completely legitimate and right.”[51]

The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a major think tank, projected that defense spending in Asia would overtake that of Europe for the first time in 2012, noting that Asia was in the midst of an arms race between China and other states in the region. The expenditure of European members of NATO on defense spending over 2011 was just under $270 billion, whereas in Asia it had reached $262 billion (excluding Australia and New Zealand). As China announced increased defense spending, the United States announced a “shift in military strategy” which treats the Asia-Pacific region “as one of the Pentagon’s priorities at a time when forces in Europe are being sharply cut.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that large and rising powers like China “have a special obligation to demonstrate in concrete ways that they are going to pursue a constructive path.” Leon Panetta, the U.S. Defense Secretary, noted that America’s “military posture in Asia will be increased.”[52]

Indeed, in 2012, Asian defense spending surpassed that of Europe for the first time, reaching a record level of $287.4 billion, though the United States continued to account for 45.3% of total global military spending, meaning that the United States spends almost as much on military expenditures than the rest of the entire world combined.[53] The United States, as part of its Pacific ‘pivot’ in military strategy, increased its arms sales to countries neighbouring China and North Korea. Fred Downey, vice president of the U.S. trade group, Aerospace Industries Association, which includes top U.S. military contractors, noted that the Pacific pivot “will result in growing opportunities for our industry to help equip our friends.” U.S. arms sales to the region increased to $13.7 billion in 2012, up more than 5% from the previous year. There were 65 individual notifications to the U.S. Congress over the previous year regarding total foreign military sales brokered by the Pentagon with a collective value exceeding $63 billion. The State Department, responsible for issuing licenses for direct commercial sales between military contractors and foreign governments, noted that 2012 saw a new record increase with more than 85,000 license requests.[54]

As Obama set a new record for arms sales to the Middle East in 2012, Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro noted, “If countries view the United States unfavorably, they will be less willing to cooperate on security matters,” and for this reason, “the current administration has sought to revitalize U.S. diplomatic engagement, especially relating to security assistance and defense trade.” The growth in arms sales, noted Shapiro, speaking to the Defense Trade Advisory Group in November of 2012, “has been truly remarkable,” that in spite of the global economic crisis, “demand for U.S. defense sales abroad remains robust” with “significant growth both in direct commercial sales and in foreign military sales.”[55]

As part of America’s Pacific ‘pivot,’ the United States announced a $5.9 billion arms deal with Taiwan in 2011, upgrading the country’s fleet of 145 F-16 fighter jets. Zhang Zhijun, a Chinese Vice-Foreign Minister, commented: “The wrongdoing by the US side will inevitably undermine bilateral relations as well as exchanges and co-operation in military and security areas.” Upon the announcement of the arms deal, Zhijun summoned the U.S. ambassador to China, Gary Locke, and informed him that, “China strongly urges the US to be fully aware of the high sensitivity and serious harm of the issue, [to] seriously treat the solemn stance of China, honour its commitment and immediately cancel the wrong decision.” A top Obama administration official replied, “We believe that our contribution to the legitimate defense needs of Taiwan will contribute to stability across the Taiwan Strait.”[56] The Chinese Ministry of Defense warned that the arms deal “will create a serious obstacle to developing normal exchanges between the two militaries” and that the “U.S. has ignored China’s firm opposition and insisted on selling arms to Taiwan.”[57] Obviously, there are different definitions of “stability” at play.

In April of 2012, the Pentagon announced an arms deal with Japan of four F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft with an option to purchase an additional 38 F-35 jets from Lockheed Martin at an estimated cost of $10 billion.[58] In late 2011, Japan announced its intention to relax a ban on weapons exports which dated back to 1967, which, the Financial Times reported, could open “the way for Japanese companies to participate in the international development and manufacture of advanced weapon systems.” Japan’s largest business lobby, the Keidanren, praised the move as “epoch-making.”[59] Following the “relaxing” of controls, Japan and Britain announced that they would jointly develop weaponry, the first time that Japan would work with another country (apart from the United States) on constructing military equipment.[60]

In October of 2012, the United States announced an arms deal in which South Korea would get longer-range missiles capable of striking anywhere in North Korea, “altering” (or violating) a 2001 accord which barred the U.S. “from developing and deploying ballistic missiles with a range of more than 300km (186 miles),” in order to avert a regional arms race. Obviously, a decision was made to create a regional arms race, so the accord was “altered” and the US agreed to sell South Korea missiles with a range of 800km. South Korea’s defense ministry praised the new deal, stating that they would then be able to “strike all of North Korea, even from southern areas.” The 2001 accord also ensured that the U.S. would not deploy or develop missiles for the South with a payload of more than 500 kg (1,100lbs), since the “heavier a payload is, the more destructive power it can have.” So obviously, that pesky restriction also had to be “altered,” and while long-range missiles maintain the 1,100lb payload, missiles with shorter ranges will be permitted to hold much more. South Korea will also be able to operate U.S.-supplied drones, permitted to hold payloads up to 5,510lb with a range of more than 300km, and no payload restrictions on drones with a flying distance less than 300km. South Korea can also acquire cruise missiles with unlimited range, and some media reports suggested that South Korea had already deployed cruise missiles with a range of more than 1,000km, though officials “refused to confirm” if that were true. The South Korean Defense Ministry reported that North Korea had missiles that could reach South Korea, Japan, and Guam, a Pacific territory of the United States.[61] Thus, the United States intends to counter the “threat” of North Korea by instigating a massive arms race in the region.

Arms Trade Diplomacy: “Chief Commercial Officer” or Ambassador?

As the massive release of diplomatic cables from Wikileaks revealed, U.S. and other diplomats are often little more than glorified lobbyists and salesmen for the Western arms industry. Lockheed Martin got help from the U.S. State Department in selling C-130 military transport planes to the government in Chad starting in 2007. The U.S. Embassy in Chad noted that the government likely could not afford the aircraft, not to mention that it would probably use the aircraft “to defend the regime against a backlash provoked by its refusal so far to open its political system and provide for a peaceful democratic transition.” In other words, the government of Chad wanted to use the military equipment to crush a pro-democracy movement. Nevertheless, noted the U.S. Embassy, we “would concur in allowing the sale to go forward.”[62]

With Chad’s air force chief, its ambassador to the U.S. and a representative from Lockheed Martin promoting the deal with the State Department, the Embassy noted that the sale “would provide a healthy boost to U.S. exports to Chad” and “strengthen U.S. military cooperation.” While Chad told the State Department that it wanted the aircraft “to go after terrorists or help refugees,” the U.S. Embassy noted that in reality, “it needs them to support combat operations against the armed rebellion in eastern Chad,” and commented: “A decision to approve the sale would be met with dismay by many Chadian supporters of peaceful democratic change.” Our conclusion, noted a U.S. Embassy cable, “is that, like it or not, our interests line up in favor of allowing the sale in some form to go forward.” However, the U.S. would have to promote the sale with full knowledge of how Chadians will perceive it, and will have to undertake “a strategy to counter these perceptions.”[63]

Ben Berkowitz wrote for Reuters that Wikileaks cables painted “a picture of foreign service officers and political appointees willing to go to great lengths to sell American products and services,” where, “in some cases, the efforts were so strenuous they raise the question of where if anywhere the line is being drawn between diplomacy and salesmanship.” A State Department spokesperson said in response that the U.S. government “has broad, though not unlimited, discretion to promote and assist U.S. commercial interests abroad.” Such practice became official policy shortly after the end of the Cold War when U.S. Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger introduced a bill which gave corporations a direct role in foreign policy. One former U.S. diplomat in Asia noted, “Until (then), U.S. diplomats were not particularly encouraged to help U.S. business. They were busy fighting the Cold War.” Suddenly, he noted, “we were given new direction: if a single U.S. company is looking for business, we should advocate for them by name; if more than one U.S. company was in the mix, stress buying the American product.” The former diplomat added: “It was great to see how influential the right word from the U.S. ambassador was.”[64]

Former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero had informed the U.S. Embassy, “to let him know if there was something important to the (U.S. government) and he would take care of it,” according to a 2009 diplomatic cable. The embassy took up the offer when General Electric was bidding against Rolls-Royce to sell helicopters to the Spanish Ministry of Defense (MOD), with GE informing the U.S. Embassy that if it did not get the contract, it would close part of its business in Spain. The U.S. Embassy passed the information along to Zapatero’s economic adviser, and, although there was “considerable” evidence that the government was going to award the contract to Rolls Royce, the Zapatero’s office “overturned the decision and it was announced that GE had won the bid,” and the U.S. Ambassador was “convinced that Zapatero personally intervened in the case in favor of GE.”[65]

The U.S. Embassy in the United Arab Emirates promoted the interests of Halliburton to participate in a joint venture with the Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. in 2003, a time at which Halliburton’s former CEO, Dick Cheney, was Vice President of the United States. The contract was eventually awarded to Halliburton. The U.S. Ambassador to the UAE at the time, Marcelle Wahba, noted, “I can’t think of a time when a month went by when a commercial issues wasn’t on my plate… Some administrations put more of an emphasis on it than others, but now I think, regardless of who’s in power you really find it’s become an integral part of the State Department mandate.”[66]

Tom Niles, a former U.S. ambassador to Canada, the European Union and Greece, as well as former president of the “pro-trade group” the U.S. Council for International Business, stated: “By the time I was retired from the Foreign Service, which was 1998, things had changed fundamentally and being an active participant in the commercial program and promoting trade using the prestige of the ambassador and receptions held at the ambassador’s residence was an important part of what I did.” Niles suggested that a U.S. ambassador was as much a “chief commercial officer” for corporations as a diplomat. “We might have been a little bit late to the game. The Europeans understood the crucial role of foreign trade in the growth and development of their economies before we did.” A former ambassador to the UAE noted: “Oftentimes European ambassadors, that’s all they’re there for.” Of course, that’s only logical, considering that European ambassadors do not have to be concerned with managing the world in the same way the United States does. Therefore, their interests are specific: economic.[67]

In the Arms of America

With all the flowery rhetoric of “democracy” and “freedom,” American – and the Western world’s – hypocrisy can easily be revealed with a brief look at the global arms trade: supporting ruthless and repressive dictatorships, as well as creating and supporting regional arms races which increase instability and the threat of war. The objective is simple, and from the imperial perspective, very practical: support regional proxy states to do our dirty work for us. If this happens to increase regional instability and even lead to war, well, such things are inevitable within and as a result of an imperial system. So long as the final result is that the United States and the West maintain their “access” to and control over regions, resources, and populations, the means are incidental.

To put it another way: if our nations were actually interested in concepts and ideas of “democracy” and “freedom” for all people, around the world, why do we sell billions of dollars in weapons and military technology to the countries which most enthusiastically crush democracy and prevent freedom?

The answer to that question reveals the true nature of our society.

Andrew Gavin Marshall is an independent researcher and writer based in Montreal, Canada, with a focus on studying the ideas, institutions, and individuals of power and resistance across a wide spectrum of social, political, economic, and historical spheres. He has been published in AlterNet, CounterPunch, Occupy.com, Truth-Out, RoarMag, and a number of other alternative media groups, and regularly does radio, Internet, and television interviews with both alternative and mainstream news outlets. He is Project Manager of The People’s Book Project, Research Director of Occupy.com’s Global Power Project, and has a weekly podcast show with BoilingFrogsPost.

Notes

[1]       Thom Shanker, “Bad Economy Drives Down American Arms Sales,” The New York Times, 12 September 2010:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/13/world/13weapons.html

[2]       Matt Sugrue, “GAO Report on U.S. Arms Sales, 2005-2009,” Arms Control Now, 29 September 2010:

http://armscontrolnow.org/2010/09/29/gao-report-on-u-s-arms-sales-2005-2009/

[3]       Maggie Bridgeman, “Obama seeks to expand arms exports by trimming approval process,” McClatchy, 29 July 2010:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/29/98337/obama-seeks-to-expand-arms-exports.html

[4]       Joby Warrick, “U.S. steps up weapon sales to Mideast allies,” The Washington Post, 31 January 2010:

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2010-01-31/world/36894203_1_gulf-states-obama-administration-united-arab-emirates

[5]       Helene Cooper, “U.S. Approval of Taiwan Arms Sales Angers China,” The New York Times, 29 January 2010:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world/asia/30arms.html

[6]       Ibid.

[7]       Adam Entous, “Saudi Arms Deal Advances,” The Wall Street Journal, 12 September 2010:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704621204575488361149625050.html

[8]       Ibid.

[9]       Roula Khalaf and James Drummond, “Gulf states in $123bn US arms spree,” The Financial Times, 20 September 2010:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ffd73210-c4ef-11df-9134-00144feab49a.html#axzz2O8uMZ7cn

[10]     Ibid.

[11]     Anthony H. Cordesman, et. al, “Is Big Saudi Arms Sale a Good Idea?” Expert Roundup, the Council on Foreign Relations, 27 September 2010:

http://www.cfr.org/defensehomeland-security/big-saudi-arms-sale-good-idea/p23019

[12 – 15]         Ibid.

[16]     “U.S. dominates Middle East arms market,” UPI, 28 December 2010:

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2010/12/28/US-dominates-Middle-East-arms-market/UPI-52831293559959/

[17]     “US confirms $60bn Saudi arms deal,” Al-Jazeera, 20 October 2010:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2010/10/20101020173353178622.html

[18]     Mina Kimes, “America’s hottest export: Weapons – Full version,” CNN money, 24 February 2011:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/10/news/international/america_exports_weapons_full.fortune/index.htm

[19]     Ibid.

[20]     Ibid.

[21]     Richard F. Grimmett, “U.S. Arms Sales: Agreements with and Deliveries to Major Clients, 2003-2010,” U.S. Congressional Research Service, 16 December 2011, page 3.

[22]     Leslie H. Gelb, “Mideast Arms Sales Not So Bad,” The Daily Beat, 12 April 2011:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/04/12/mideast-arms-sales-soar-but-the-west-isnt-worried-for-now.html

[23]     Andrew J. Shapiro, “Remarks: Defense Trade Advisory Group Plenary,” Dean Acheson Auditorium, U.S. Department of State, 3 May 2011:

http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/rm/162479.htm

[24]     DTAG Activity 2010, “2010-2012 Membership,” The Defense Trade Advisory Group (DTAG), U.S. Department of State:

http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/dtag/index.html

[25]     Andrew J. Shapiro, “Remarks: Defense Trade Advisory Group Plenary,” Dean Acheson Auditorium, U.S. Department of State, 3 May 2011:

http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/rm/162479.htm

[26]     Agencies, “US arms sales to Bahrain surged in 2010,” Al-Jazeera, 11 June 2011:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/06/2011611144528164171.html

[27]     Mark Landler and Steven Myers, “With $30 Billion Arms Deal, U.S. Bolsters Saudi Ties,” The New York Times, 29 December 2011:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/world/middleeast/with-30-billion-arms-deal-united-states-bolsters-ties-to-saudi-arabia.html

[28]     Thom Shanker, “Global Arms Sales Dropped Sharply in 2010, Study Finds,” The New York Times, 23 September 2011:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/world/global-arms-sales-dropped-sharply-in-2010-study-finds.html

[29]     Harry Bradford, “U.S. Arms Sales Tripled In 2011 To $66.3 Billion: Report,” The Huffington Post, 27 August 2012:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/us-arms-sales-2011_n_1833602.html

[30]     Thom Shanker, “U.S. Arms Sales Make Up Most of Global Market,” The New York Times, 26 August 2012:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/world/middleeast/us-foreign-arms-sales-reach-66-3-billion-in-2011.html?_r=0

[31]     Richard Northon-Taylor, “Arms sales rise during downturn to more than $400bn, report reveals,” The Guardian, 29 February 2012:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/29/arms-sales-rise-downturn-military

[32]     Ami Sedghi, “Arms sales: who are the world’s 100 top arms producers?,” The Guardian Data Blog, 2 March 2012:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/02/arms-sales-top-100-producers

[33]     “Cameron Middle East visit ‘morally obscene’ says Lucas,” BBC News, 23 February 2011:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12582723

[34]     Benjamin Bidder and Clemens Hoges, “Democracy or Dollars?: Weapons Sales to the Arab World under Scrutiny,” Der Spiegel, 1 April 2011:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/democracy-or-dollars-weapons-sales-to-the-arab-world-under-scrutiny-a-754224.html

[35]     Nicholas Watt and Robert Booth, “David Cameron’s Cairo visit overshadowed by defence tour,” The Guardian, 21 February 2011:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/21/cameron-cairo-visit-defence-trade

[36]     Robert Booth, “Abu Dhabi arms fair: Tanks, guns, teargas and trade at Index 2011,” The Guardian, 21 February 2011:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/21/abu-dhabi-arms-fair-idex-2011

[37]     Ibid.

[38]     Ibid.

[39]     Simon Rogers, “UK arms sales to the Middle East and North Africa: who do we sell to, how much is military and how much just ‘controlled’?” The Guardian, 22 February 2011:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/feb/22/uk-arms-sales-middle-east-north-africa

[40]     Benjamin Bidder and Clemens Hoges, “Democracy or Dollars?: Weapons Sales to the Arab World under Scrutiny,” Der Spiegel, 1 April 2011:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/democracy-or-dollars-weapons-sales-to-the-arab-world-under-scrutiny-a-754224.html

[41]     “Weapons Exports: EU Nations Sell the Most Arms to Saudi Arabia,” Der Spiegel, 19 March 2012:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/eu-makes-controversial-weapons-sales-to-saudi-arabia-a-822288.html

[42]     Ulrike Demmer, Ralf Neukirch and Holger Stark, “Arming the World for Peace: Merkel’s Risky Weapons Exports,” Der Spiegel, 30 July 2012:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/merkel-s-risky-weapons-sales-signal-change-in-german-foreign-policy-a-847137.html

[43]     Ibid.

[44]     “Tanks in the Desert: Germany Plans Extensive Arms Deal with Algeria,” Der Spiegel, 12 November 2012:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-arms-sales-to-algeria-have-increased-dramatically-a-866690.html

[45]     Press Release, “Large increase in EU arms exports revealed,” Campaign Against Arms Trade, 10 January 2013:

http://www.caat.org.uk/press/press-release.php?url=20130110prs

[46]     Andrea Shalal-Esa, “U.S. government advocacy said boosting foreign arms sales,” Reuters, 27 July 2012:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/27/us-defense-exports-idUSBRE86Q1FL20120727

[47]     Michael Martina, “World’s Top 5 Arms Exporters: China Replaces UK In Weapons Trade,” Reuters, 18 March 2013:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/worlds-top-5-arms-exporters_n_2899052.html

[48]     Jamil Anderlini and Victor Mallet, “China joins top five arms exporters,” The Financial Times, 18 March 2013:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c7215936-8f64-11e2-a39b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2O8uMZ7cn

[49]     “Defense contest over major gulf arms buys,” UPI, 20 November 2012:

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2012/11/20/Defense-contest-over-major-gulf-arms-buys/UPI-49931353436670/

[50]     Ben Bland, “UK defence minister bullish on arms sales,” The Financial Times, 16 January 2013:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/5377e148-5fb8-11e2-8d8d-00144feab49a.html#axzz2OOPsqPsh

[51]     “David Cameron defends arms deals with Gulf states,” The Telegraph, 5 November 2012:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/9656393/David-Cameron-defends-arms-deals-with-Gulf-states.html

[52]     FT Reporters, “Asia defence spending to overtake Europe,” The Financial Times, 7 March 2012:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0aab435c-6846-11e1-a6cc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2O8uMZ7cn

[53]     Myra MacDonald, “Asia’s defense spending overtakes Europe’s: IISS,” Reuters, 14 March 2013:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-security-military-iiss-idUSBRE92D0EL20130314

[54]     “US Arms Sales to Asia Set to Boom on Pacific ‘Pivot’,” Reuters, 2 January 2013:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100347792

[55]     “Obama set record in 2012 for Mideast defense exports,” World Tribune, 4 December 2012:

http://www.worldtribune.com/2012/12/04/obama-set-record-in-2012-for-mideast-defense-exports/

[56]     Richard McGregor, “US agrees $5.9bn arms deal with Taiwan,” The Financial Times, 21 September 2011:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/55a1c47c-e488-11e0-92a3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2O8uMZ7cn

[57]     Kathrin Hille, “China hits at US over Taiwan arms deal,” The Financial Times, 22 September 2011:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/2ae01e5c-e4f4-11e0-9aa8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2O8uMZ7cn

[58]     “U.S. Government Says Japan’s Cost to Buy 42 F-35s Around $10 Billion,” Ottawa Citizen, 2 May 2012:

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/05/02/u-s-government-says-japans-cost-to-buy-42-f-35s-around-10-billion/

[59]     Mure Dickie, “Japan relaxes weapons export ban,” The Financial Times, 27 December 2011:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ab812ee0-3079-11e1-b96f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2O8uMZ7cn

[60]     Reuters, “Japan and Britain ‘set to agree arms deal’,” The Telegraph, 4 April 2012:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9185080/Japan-and-Britain-set-to-agree-arms-deal.html

[61]     AP, “South Korea to get longer-range missiles under new deal with US,” The Guardian, 7 October 2012:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/07/south-korea-longer-range-missiles

[62]     07NDJAMENA43, “C-130’s for Chad?”, 12 January 2007, Wikileaks Diplomatic Cables:

http://wikileaks.org/cable/2007/01/07NDJAMENA43.html

[63]     Ibid.

[64]     Ben Berkowitz, “Wikileaks reveals extent of State Department’s involvement in arms sales, oil deals,” Reuters, 4 March 2011:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/04/wikileaks_reveals_extent_of_state_department_involvement_in_arms_sales/

[65-67]   Ibid.

By: Andrew Gavin Marshall

Are you wondering why, since we are told we are in an “economic recovery,” you do not feel as if you are in an economic recovery? Did you know that the United States has bombed the Philippines using a drone? Have you heard that France recently went to war in the West African country of Mali? Remember when we bombed Libya in 2011? And how we invaded and occupied Afghanistan for over a decade… and counting? Remember how Iraq was destroyed? Corporations, banks, drug cartels, the arms industry and oil, energy, mining conglomerates are all making record profits; how are you doing?

Have you heard of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), potentially the largest “free trade” agreement ever, being negotiated with 11 countries and over 600 corporations “in secret” for several years? Did you know that Obama runs an “international assassination” campaign with military drones, bombing countries all over the world, targeting those selected for an official “kill list”? Did you know that the FBI considered ‘Occupy Wall Street’ activists to be “potential terrorists”? Did you know that there is a war against whistleblowers and civil liberties, reaching far beyond what George Bush ever attempted?

Have you heard about large protests in Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and across Europe? Have you ever wondered what’s going on there? Are you curious how the situation in Greece affects you here, wherever you are? Remember when there was talk of an “Arab Spring”, as people in far-away places like Tunisia and Egypt rose up against dictators whose names and state repression we never knew before? What happened with those ‘revolutions’? What’s going on in Syria? Did you hear that China is the next “rising” power in the world?

What does that mean to us, to our future?

We, who sit relatively comfortably within North America, or the West more generally, hear and see images of famine, war, death, disease and destruction all over the world. Is this really the way the ‘rest’ of the world is, or are we involved in making it that way?

Are you curious about the world, about contemplating and understanding the world? Well, I am! That’s why I have spent the past year and a half working on a book project, doing seemingly endless research and writing, to try to piece together what information I can, in a way that I am able to contemplate it, and pass it along to others in an approachable, well-documented, and understandable way. I am not saying I have “the answers”, but through time, energy, and research, I have collected enough information to begin to put pieces together, provide a general framework, for looking at the world and coming to your own conclusions.

I want to understand the world as best as I can, the way it really works, the way society, the economy, politics, war, corporations, banks, governments and international organizations really function. I want to understand the people who are in power, what they believe, what they think, say, and do. I want to know the ways in which populations all over the world react to or resist those in power. And I want to be able to convey the information I come across, the research I do, by writing it in such a way that it is understandable to as many people as possible.

I am not writing an ‘academic’ book, nor do I have any use for ‘academic language’, apart from noting its inability to communicate with others. I am certainly not writing a book for ‘policy-makers’, to “advise” governments on proper initiatives and programs to “better the world”. I have spent several years of my life, off and on, in the university system, attempting to (slowly) get a degree in Political Science and History. Degrees, I was told, provide legitimacy. And so while I began researching and writing for most of my time, some six years ago, I would also be periodically in school, getting an “education”.

I was, of course, fortunate enough to have found a few great professors along the way, from whom I learned a great deal and was exposed to different ideas and perspectives. But these were sadly the exceptions of a “good” education; the most enlightening and inspiring were the most rare, and frequently, were punished by the school – and faculties – for being such. What does that say about our “education” system?

Among the real benefits of a modern education is the access to information it provides, through classes and professors, certainly, but primarily through access to libraries and journals. The amount of information which exists in the world is immense, and constantly growing by large leaps and bounds. With information being digitized and shared through the Internet, more people have more access to more information than ever before in human history. If one truly wants an “education” the likes of which only the modern world can provide, look to that access, not the guardians of information from past eras, who so very often are called “professors” and “academics”.

For that reason, I took the skills and access of an “academic” education to truly begin my own personal education. I took a two-to-three year “hiatus” from school to focus on my own work, having landed a job as a paid researcher and writer. I left that job to pursue my book and, in doing so, subjected myself to the “market forces” of attempting to live as an independent researcher and writer, not connected to any institution, and dependent upon the donations and support of others, around the world.

It amazes me to this day – and every day – how I have been able to get where I am, doing what I am doing, all because of the support of people around the world, most of whom I have never met or known personally.

This was the start of The People’s Book Project, a year and a half ago.

In that time, I have undertaken extensive research and writing: one book became a long book, then many books, and seemingly had no end in sight. The process, while very rewarding, has been quite often terrifying, worrying and stressful. I even returned to school, in part to bring some structure into my life, and in part to pursue the degree I had not finished, worried about my own future on my present path. I returned to take one class, still focusing on the book as my priority, and then the students at my school went on strike. I paid little attention at first, as I barely considered myself a student. I was only physically at the school two days a week for an hour each time. And after a few years of pursuing research on my own, I found it exceedingly difficult to adapt to the more structured process of a “classroom,” with an itinerary of what I am “supposed” to read, and by which date it must be read.

Suddenly, I began to acknowledge what was going on around me, with students taking to the streets to fight a tuition increase, being beaten by riot police and arrested. I clearly wasn’t the only person who had a problem with the educational system. So I began to look closely at the situation here in Quebec, and I began to write about it, participate in the protests, and lend whatever support I could to the movement in the best way I know how: through doing the research and writing the results.

I had never before had such a surprising reception to what I was writing: my articles were going viral through social media and being referenced in newspapers and media across the country, and I was doing multiple radio and television interviews. I was afraid my ego or arrogance would get ahead of me, but I truly felt inspired by a social movement flourishing all around me. Everywhere you went and the people you interacted with – the student movement was becoming a wider social movement. And regardless of what people were saying or how the media portrayed it, everyone was talking about it. You could see it everywhere you went. Months prior, I would occasionally meet up with friends in a bar, but now I was meeting up with friends in protests and marches: these were the new forums for social interaction and engagement with others in my own generation. It was inspiring and drove me to write and work with a new dedication and purpose.

What came out of the experience was the necessity of not simply focusing (in the book and in life) on the problems of the world, on those in power, on power structures, on oppression and war and empire but – more importantly – on that which opposes (and those who resist) power and the problems of the world.

This radically changed the evolving nature of the book: resistance was a requirement.

And this pushed me to study Europe, the debt crisis, and the reactions of populations in Greece, Spain and beyond. In turn, I began to look more closely at the ‘Arab Spring’ and the unfinished and emerging revolutions across much of the world.

As the research for this book has moved forward, and the writing has progressed in kind, it has been a constant struggle in determining how best to present the information, understand and explain the results – deciding what to include, what to leave out, what chapter to go where, what chapters there should be, how I will break up the subjects, chronological or regional? If I break up the ‘war and empire’ section from the ‘corporate and economic’ section, does this re-enforce a superficial divide between these sectors? The questions and concerns go on and on.

When one is attempting to study a deeply interdependent world in which all matters interact and engage with each other, how can one legitimately and constructively break up these sections and still provide a realistic analysis? These questions have been constantly in mind and have led to frequent re-organization of the structure of the book, while the actual research and writing continues unabated by the whims of my own inability to create or adapt to a more rigid ‘structure’

But guidance and goals have also served a profound purpose: they have focused the work more, expanded the understanding, but limited the objective. I have been able to narrow into specific subjects as the focus of this, the first volume, in what I intend to be a series of books. I am still working a great deal on the first volume, adding only to that which I had already planned to research.

A great deal of the research and writing done over the past year and a half will not be included in the first volume. I have written varying amounts of what could amount to multiple books but each, on its own, would require significant work in order to complete. For that reason, I have intended to focus the first book in the series on that which I have written on the most: what is going on in the world today and in recent years? The research I have done in past years contributes to my understanding of the present world, and so it will inform the first volume; thus the efforts done so far in the book project will not be for nothing.

Perhaps not coincidentally, when the student movement in Quebec faded – as a new government came to power, promising to resolve the issues through ‘formal’ political channels – I chose not to return to school. Instead, I chose to focus exclusively on the book. After all, there seemed an odd feeling of hypocrisy in writing about subjects such as the failure of the modern educational system to provide a better understanding of the world, and yet simultaneously seeking to acquire a piece of paper which declared my own understanding to be “legitimate”. I do not seek to join that world of academics, where the more “educated” I am, the more incapable of communicating knowledge to others I become.

When once asked what the “science” aspect of Political Science was, my only reply was that it was “the science of B.S.”  – how to speak as if you know what you’re talking about, to talk about what you know nothing about, to ‘talk’ while saying nothing and think without feeling anything. There is a reason why Political Science produces politicians and policy-makers. A well-trained ‘political scientist’ can B.S. their way through most situations and justify any circumstance.

I spent several years getting this type of “education”, speaking this type of language and understanding these types of concepts. I do not seek to join that world of politicians and policy-makers. As I often tell friends and family: if I ever run for office, don’t vote for me.

It is a challenging thing to attempt to try to understand the world by detaching from some of its more prominent institutions. I do not seek to separate from the world, but to find a connection to the world which holds substance and meaning for me. I see this in people, in protests, in resistance, creativity and revolution; I see it in the potential for people. It’s something to which I feel is worth dedicating my life and work. Unfortunately, it is not something made easy to acquire, and less so to sustain. I have attempted to undertake a project with a large purview and limited resources, independent of institutional support and direction.

I won’t lie – it’s been a constant struggle, but worth every moment and all the effort.

There have been ups and downs, successes and failures, and lessons learned. There have been times where I felt lost, frustrated and incapable of proceeding. There have been times where I felt focused, dedicated and incapable of stopping. This is one of those times.

In the past few months, I have been getting work writing commissioned articles for other sites, even recently beginning a research project with Occupy.com. It has been a relief to develop other sources of income, and rewarding to make new connections and reach new audiences. But still, I must find the time and energy to focus on my book. Commissioned work is good, but it alone does not pay the bills, nor does it provide enough time to work on the book. Thus, I must come to find and establish a better balance in my work, also as I begin to work with new organizations, and even begin the planning process with a friend and associate to start our own.

Thanks to the recent donations to The People’s Book Project, I have been able to throw myself back into the book this last week. My focus, dedication and determination are as strong as ever, and my intention to finish the first volume in the book in the near future appears closer than before.

In the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal, the students are back on the streets, protesting and getting arrested, struggling against the state which stabbed them in the back (as governments tend to do), and my focus is back on the book, progressing and nearing completion. I do not have any illusions that it will take a significant amount of time and effort on my part to do so, but if the ability to do so exists, the inevitability of doing so will persist… and persevere.

I have a goal. I am narrowing my focus and strengthening my efforts. But as always, I need your help to get there.

Are you curious about trying to understand the world? Well, so am I.

The information and resources exist to build up a good capacity of understanding, though it must be in a constant state of adaptation and self-reflection as you come across new information, subjects, ideas and perspectives. I look at the views I have, the ones I’ve changed and how I got to where I am, and it seems clear that my own understanding is constantly changing. Therefore, whatever “understanding” I offer to others – at whatever time I offer it – is never going to be complete; there is always more information, there are always other perspectives, and there is always much more to learn than can ever be known.

So I do not propose that I “know” more than others, or that I have some sort of monopoly on defining “reality”. Instead, I only propose that as I have spent the past six years doing research and writing, and the past year and a half working on this book, I have developed and refined skills at utilizing the access and information that has been made available to me. This is simply a result of practice. The more you do it, the more you learn how to do it better. The more you research, the more you learn. The more you write, the more you communicate. I do not expect everyone to undertake the same research as myself, for all must live their own lives and follow their own passions, but I do think this information is necessary for all people, for as many people who want access to it.

Think of The People’s Book Project as a way to “outsource” your own research to me. I’ll put in the effort, and attempt to summarize the results in easily readable, understandable language, but not dumbed-down or made superficial.

I want to write a book with academic standards of research, but approachable to anyone. I think that the first major requirement for any progress to solving the multiplicity of problems in the world is to first start by engaging in open, direct and honest communication about the world we live in. This, I believe, can be reflected in one’s own individual life – though not without its problems – of learning to engage and interact with others on the basis of this same open, direct and honest communication. It’s easier said than done, both in personal life and the wider world. But I think it’s necessary, at all levels and capacities.

In the past year and a half, as I have made this book the central focus of my energy and efforts, often at the expense of other areas of my life, it has become as much a result of my own ideas and actions as my own beliefs and actions have resulted from it. In short, I am a product of this book as much as it is a product of me. For that reason, I intended to provide some information here about my own process, interest and evolution through the People’s Book Project, so that you may better understand the Project, itself.

I have attempted to be open, direct and honest with you here in assessing my progress, explaining my process and in asking for help with this purpose. Everything that has been done thus far is only because of the support I have received from others. Everything I continue to do will be equally derived from similar support. Nothing that has been – or will be – done with this Project would be possible without the support of many people, in many places, all over the world. And that is exactly the point: it is, after all, the People’s Book Project, made possible by – and for the benefit of – the people, not simply myself.

So, I thank all of you who have – at one or many times over – supported The People’s Book Project in any and every capacity. Thank you for the opportunity, the means and the possibility to do this. And now I ask you to continue helping, to continue your support and to continue spreading the word, for the more people who know and talk about The People’s Book project, the more potential sources of support would exist, and perhaps the less annoying I will have to be in asking for support.

Outsource to me your research, and I’ll provide to you results: a crash course in contemplating the world.

Sincerely,

Andrew Gavin Marshall

Thank you to those who have and continue to donate and support the Project, and to those who may consider doing so in the future!

Free Fundraising
Thermometers
for fundraisers

The People’s Book Project is a crowd-funded research and writing project, aimed at producing a series of books examining the ideas, institutions, and individuals of power and resistance across a wide array of political, economic, social, and historical spheres. The current fundraising effort is aimed at generating funds to finance progress on the first volume of the Book Project until May.

Several chapters will be completed and work will be done on others with the aid of the funds raised, including, but not limited to the following topics: Food crisis, land grabs, global poverty, corporate power and profits, think tanks, the development of imperial strategy, empire in the age of Obama, environmental degradation, indigenous resistance, and the encroaching police state. Some of these chapters are near completion, and some have yet to be started, focusing primarily on research at the moment.

With the help of readers and supporters, the People’s Book Project hopes to provide an easily accessible resource for activists and all who are interested in changing the world for the better by examining the function of power in institutions, the individuals who wield power, the ideologies which support it, the methods and structure of empire, war,and  economic exploitation, the causes of poverty and the evolution of resistance and revolutionary movements as a useful guide for the future.

Help the People’s Book Project move forward in aiming to complete the First Volume!

Thank you,

Andrew Gavin Marshall