AfricaFocus Bulletin
February 20, 2017 (170220)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor’s Note

“If the Bayer-Monsanto merger is approved, the new merged company
will control almost 30% of the global commercial seed market and
25% of the agrochemical market – making it the world’s largest
supplier of seeds and chemicals. In South Africa, it would control
about 30% of both markets. Already today, Monsanto is one of two
companies in South Africa that employs 80% of the private sector
breeders in maize and 100% of the breeders in soybean and sunflower
breeders. ” – African Centre for Biodiversity

For a version of this Bulletin in html format, more suitable for
printing, go to http://www.africafocus.org/docs17/ag1702.php, and
click on “format for print or mobile.”

To share this on Facebook, click on
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://www.africafocus.org/docs17/ag1702.php

The dominance of giant agribusiness multinational companies in the
supply of seeds and chemicals is not new, whether at the national
level in both developing and developing countries or on a global
scale. The vast influence of these companies is felt in policies
imposed on national governments damaging to small farmers as well as
to the environment and human health, as well as in control of
pricing for agricultural inputs.

Recent years, however, have seen a further escalation of mergers
which is accelerating concentration in the industry, of which the
merger of Bayer and Monsanto is currently under review by national
regulatory agencies in South Africa and other countries. This new
report highlights the negative consequences of this trend,
particularly for smallholder farmers.

For previous AfricaFocus Bulletins on biodiversity and related
issues, documenting this and other related critical analyses on
policies in African agriculture, visit
http://www.africafocus.org/intro-ag.php

++++++++++++++++++++++end editor’s note+++++++++++++++++

The Bayer-Monsanto merger: Implications for South Africa’s
agricultural future and its smallholder farmers

February 2017

The African Centre for Biodiversity (http://www.acbio.org.za) Rosa
Luxemburg Stiftung (http://www.rosalux.co.za)

[Excerpts only: Full paper available at http://tinyurl.com/z4pkxb9]

About This Paper

This paper explores the likely implications of an approved Bayer-
Monsanto merger for the South African agricultural system. It
outlines the trend of consolidation occurring within the seed and
agrochemical industries, provides a background to the merger,
criticises the rationale given for the merger by Bayer and Monsanto
and outlines concerns should the merger be approved in South Africa.
These concerns focus on the implications for South African farmers,
smallholder farmers in particular. The paper argues that further
consolidation of an already corporate- controlled seed sector is not
needed and that it undermines the emergence of an alternative system
that would support smallholder farmers in contributing to food
security in an egalitarian agricultural economy.

Key Findings

Context

* The proposed Bayer-Monsanto merger takes place in a context of
megamergers: China National Chemical Corporation (ChemChina)-
Syngenta; DuPont-Dow. If approved, just three corporations would
control about 60% of the global patented seed market and 64% of the
agrochemical market.

* If the Bayer-Monsanto merger is approved, the new merged company
will control almost 30% of the global commercial seed market and
25% of the agrochemical market – making it the world’s largest
supplier of seeds and chemicals. In South Africa, it would control
about 30% of both markets. Already today, Monsanto is one of two
companies in South Africa that employs 80% of the private sector
breeders in maize and 100% of the breeders in soybean and sunflower
breeders.

* The merger will need to be approved by regulatory authorities in
more than 30 countries. Authorities are viewing the merger
activities in totality to assess possible implications for the
market, farmers and consumers. They will look at whether reduced
competition will lead to reduced innovation, lowered spending on
research and development and implications for increased input costs
and reduced choice for farmers and other consumers (although the
market is already significantly consolidated).

* Merger activity is being driven by the global economic downturn
and reduced demand for products by farmers because of low commodity
prices. It is also driven by the desire to reduce operational
costs, particularly for research and development processes, and to
access proprietary knowledge enclosed in intellectual property
rights, such as patents. The merger and acquisition trend is
supported by the historically low interest rates (close to zero)
being offered in the United States, the Euro zone, Japan and the
United Kingdom.

* Both Bayer and Monsanto are already engaged in big data projects
in the agricultural sector. Bayer notes that one of its prime
reasons for acquiring Monsanto is because it owns The Climate
Corporation, which has the most powerful data science engine and
the most extensive field research network. In addition, Monsanto
has its foot in several important Genome Editing initiatives: it
owns one of the two existing CRISPR licenses and has started two
joint ventures on precision agriculture with the agrotech giants
CNH and AGCO.

* Both companies would benefit from sharing patents on genetically
modified crops and existing network and distribution models as they
both plan to expand into the African market, with a particular
focus on smallholder farmers. Bayer has been in the plant genetic
engineering arena since the early 2000s and holds more patents on
transgenic plant traits (206) than Monsanto (119) in the European
Union). Having access to each other’s proprietary knowledge would
provide them with significant cost savings, particularly as the
biotech industry shifts towards using CRISPR genome editing
technology, which revolutionises transgenic interventions through
the rewriting of whole DNA-sequences, but is not yet subject to a
comparable degree of regulatory oversight as the first generation
of genetic engineering. Both traits and germplasm is needed to
remain competitive in this market.

* South Africa is the most important African market for both
companies in terms of sales and for providing a base for African
expansion. The recent request by GrainSA, Agbiz Grain, the South
African National Seed Organization (SANSOR) and the Agricultural
Research Council for a breeding and technology levy to be imposed
on winter cereals in South Africa – with the possibility of
expanding this to other crops – would effectively mean that public
resources would be used to collect royalty payments for these
companies.

* Both Bayer and Monsanto sit on industry representative bodies,
giving them a significant degree of influence on the industry – a
combined company would enjoy benefits of greater influence.

Implications

The merger between Bayer Crop Science and Monsanto would have
possible implications for the agricultural sector and the food
system in South Africa:

* It would further reduce the competition within the South African
seed sector. Evidence from the US seed market shows that mergers of
this size will change key parameters of the seed market. Bayer-
Monsanto’s dominant market position will be further enhanced, as
will both companies’ control over traits-germplasm-crop protection
products in the country.

* Quite contrary to the claims of Bayer and Monsanto managers, the
merger is likely to decrease the amount of investment and the range
of innovations. This paper argues that the potential merger must be
analysed in the larger context of a rapid privatisation of research
and development. A particularly important tool of the potential
Bayer-Monsanto seed giant would be the instrument of licensing
rights, and increased pressure on farmers through the collection of
levies is expected.

* Serious impacts are anticipated for farmers and food consumers
alike. For farmers, evidence from the last few years at both the
South African seed market and the US seed market shows that a
further increase in seed prices is very likely. The choice of
available inputs will further decrease. Given the high amount of
sunk costs that particularly Monsanto invested in the development
of partly unsuccessful genetically modified organisms, there is a
threat that the South African market will be used as a strategic
point from where to ‘dump’ old genetically modified (GM)
technologies onto the African market. On the other hand, available
micro data from households in South Africa show how any price
increase in staple food prices might affect the income poor. An
indirect effect on food prices from the merger cannot be excluded.

* A closer look at the drivers of the Bayer- Monsanto merger reveals
that the ‘efficiency argument’ put forward by the corporations
might lead to a benefit to their shareholders, but cannot be
expected to spill over to external groups, such as farmers and food
consumers.

…

Seed and Agrochemical Markets

Global agricultural input markets (seed, fertiliser, crop protection
products, farm machinery and agri-tech markets) are already
significantly consolidated, having experienced a series of
horizontal and vertical mergers and acquisitions over the past two
decades (Figure 1).

The global and regional seed market

In 1994, the four biggest seed companies controlled 21% of the
global market (AgriPortal, 2016); today just ten companies own
about 65% of the world’s proprietary seed (seed registered for
legal protection) for major crops (Wattnem, 2016). It must be noted
that in Africa 65-100% of seed used by smallholder farmers is
farmer-saved and exchanged (varies by crop and geography) (Wattnem,
2016). The global commercial seed market has an estimated value of
about US$53 billion and is expected to grow to US$113 billion by
2020 (Marketsandmarkets, 2016) with the African market contributing
less than 2% to the current value (CTA, 2015). This presents a
potentially lucrative market, but many obstacles have to be
overcome to carry out a sustainably profitable business. Some of
the bigger ones include lack of infrastructure, specialised
knowledge, institutional arrangements and political bureaucracy.

The genetically modified seed market was worth US$15.6 billion in
2011 and is expected to grow to US$30.2 billion in 2018 (AGPRO,
2013). However, a recent market report notes that conventional
seeds are expected to be the fastest growing segment of total seed
sales (Marketsandmarkets, 2016). …  Africa presents an untapped
market but with very slow processes of regulatory and institutional
development to allow GM crops to be grown. In the meantime, market
expansion will be based on conventional certified seed and
agrochemicals.

Maize and horticulture are the two biggest seed markets on the
African continent, with the maize market valued at about US$500
million and horticulture at US$250 million; most seed company
activity takes place in this space (ACB, 2015). There is more
recent interest in commercialisation of legume seed on the
continent.

The South African seed market

South Africa has a dominant commercial seed industry, which is
primarily geared to serving the needs of large-scale commercial
farmers, with a dominant focus on hybrid, improved and genetically
modified seed (DAFF, 2015). South Africa’s marginal smallholder
farmers also rely on commercial seed as a significant source of
planting material, especially for maize and horticulture, although
indigenous crops and farmer seed varieties are also used.
Multinational corporations dominate the seed industry: Pioneer Hi-
Bred/Pannar, Sakata, Monsanto and Syngenta (GrainSA, 2015). …

The value of the South African seed market was estimated at R5.62
billion in 2012/13 (TASAI, 2015). The focus of both Bayer and
Monsanto is on commodity crops: maize, sunflower, soybean, cotton
and wheat. The value of the seed market in grain and oilseed was
about R3.9 billion (about US$285 million) for the 2014/15
production season (GrainSA, 2015). …

Maize dominates the national variety list – there are 546 maize
varieties on the official list; 308 are protected by plant
breeders’ rights and 162 are genetically modified (TASAI, 2015).
There are 41 genetically modified soybean varieties on the list and
35 non- genetically modified ones, including 19 with plant
breeders’ rights protection (TASAI, 2015). Monsanto and
DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred/Pannar own at least 85% of the seed business
for the big commodity crops – maize, soybean (the second largest
agronomic crop in the country) and sunflower. There is intense
competition between them (TASAI, 2015). DuPont is planning to merge
with Dow, which puts pressure on Monsanto to increase its scale to
continue competing in seed and agrochemical markets. Bayer’s
strength is in agrochemicals, although it has a small seed
footprint in South Africa. Bayer introduced its cotton seed to
South Africa in 2014 and a new canola seed variety in 2015
(Breytenbach, 2015). It reportedly introduced these new varieties
into South Africa in response to a direct call from farmers asking
for alternative products (Breytenbach, 2015).

Syngenta, Monsanto, Pannar-Du Pont Pioneer and Dow form SANSOR’s
committee on genetically modified organisms (SANSOR, 2016). Any
activity that is likely to increase Monsanto’s influence in this
market in South Africa is significant given the extent of
genetically modified maize planted, the country’s staple food crop.

The global and regional agrochemical market

The global agrochemical market is estimated to be worth about
US$33.4 billion (Macaskill, 2016) with the African market valued at
around US$1.1 billion (R15-20 billion) in 2014 (Odendaal, 2014).
The agrochemical market is dominated by Monsanto (US$15 billion),
Syngenta (US$13.4 billion), Bayer (US$10.4 billion), DuPont (US$9.8
billion), Dow (with sales of US$6.38 billion in 2015) and BASF
(US$5.8 billion); Chinese-owned ChemChina doesn’t make divisional
sales figures available, but total sale figures for all divisions
(of which agrochemicals is just one) were US$45 billion in 2015
(Alessi, 2016).

The South African agrochemical market

South Africa uses more agrochemicals than any other African country,
mostly for grain crop production (PR Newswire, 2015), yet it
comprises less than 2% of the global market (Macaskill, 2016).
South African farmers spent R2.3 billion on agrochemicals in the
2014/15 season (GrainSA, 2015). The South African agrochemicals
market is estimated to grow at a compound annual growth rate of
4.5% by 2020 (PR Newswire, 2015). Major agrochemical companies
operating in the country range from Bayer Cropscience and Syngenta
to Adama, Dow Agrosciences, Philagro South Africa, BASF South
Africa, Sipcam, Monsanto and Chemtura Corporation (GrainSA, 2015).
Companies such as Bayer, Syngenta SA, Dow, DuPont and Monsanto
South Africa sit on the executive council of CropLife SA, an
industry representative body (CropLife SA, 2016).

Bayer and Monsanto in South Africa

Both Bayer and Monsanto are major manufacturers of agrochemicals,
seeds and genetically modified seed (Court, 2016). Company
confidentiality makes it difficult to ascertain market-specific
market shares for any company.

Bayer Crop Science in South Africa

Most of Bayer’s African sales are generated in South Africa, and a
key part of Bayer’s strategic focus for its business in southern
Africa is ‘expanding our seed footprint – especially for soyabeans
and wheat – through further acquisitions, in-licensing agreements
and partnerships’ (Bayer, 2016). It owns a manufacturing plant in
South Africa, has established a maize competency centre in KwaZulu-
Natal (Bayer Crop Science, 2016e) and has opened its first African
SeedGrowth Centre near Johannesburg (one of 16 in the world)
(Bayer, 2016c). The Centre will train seed company production
staff, support seed companies in upscaling processes, act as a base
for research in optimising seed treatment technologies and
demonstrate how Bayer’s equipment works (Bayer, 2016c).

It is focusing on both the large-scale commercial and small-scale
farming sectors. In March 2016 Bayer launched its ‘Committed to the
Future Pledge’ at the South African Grain Congress, in which it
promised to continue to invest more than 10% of turnover into
developing new compounds (it should be noted that this is their
core business and so does not qualify as an added benefit for South
Africa). It also promised to invest in further initiatives, like
its Bayer Forward Farms project, a knowledge platform that
facilitates the sharing of knowledge between selected farms and the
combined expertise of the broader industry (Bayer, 2016d).

It is also actively pursuing the small-scale farming market. Bayer
uses demonstration farms and training centres set up by
organisations, such as the United States farm machinery giant AGCO
to showcase its inputs (Maritz, 2016). It is involved in other
projects like this in South Africa, Ghana, Ethiopia and Morocco
(Maritz, 2016). …

Monsanto in South Africa

Monsanto is a pioneer of genetic modification of agricultural crops
(ACB, 2005) and the largest maize seed company in the country by
sales (DAFF, 2015); it also supplies 90% of soybean planted
commercially in South Africa (ACB, 2016). It has been operating in
South Africa since 1968 and has licensed its genetic modification
technology to other seed companies operating in the domestic
market. In the late 1990s it purchased domestic seed companies
Sensako and Carnia, thereby taking up a major stake in local seed
and grain markets (ACB, 2005). Monsanto sells seed for alfalfa,
canola, corn, cotton, sorghum, soybean, sugarbeets and wheat
(Stucke and Grunes, 2016). Monsanto’s purchase of global seed
company Seminis gave it ownership of plant breeders’ rights to a
range of South African vegetable seed varieties (ACB, 2005) and
access to germplasm. The Sensako purchase gave Monsanto about 45%
of the South African agrochemical market for field crops (ACB,
2015b).

In November 2016 Monsanto opened its renovated breeding centre in
Petit near Benoni, South Africa (Van Wyngaardt, 2016). The 300
hectare plant breeding farm uses imported and local germplasm to
establish new breeding crosses (Van Wyngaardt, 2016). Monsanto also
pursues the small-scale farming sector through projects, such as
Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) (Monsanto, n.d.[2]). …

ACB has extensively critiqued this programme for its use of
Monsanto’s genetically modified drought tolerant maize because the
product has not been successful in the United States, and it is
inappropriate for smallholder farmers, due to its reliance on the
use of synthetic fertilisers and agrochemicals (ACB, 2015a). The
project, which is supposedly meant to benefit small-scale farmers,
leads them onto a technological treadmill with known environmental
consequences and one that is difficult to escape. Farmers have
drought tolerant varieties of their own, which are freely saved and
thus always available and adapted to localised conditions.
Genetically modified crops were also trialled in eight African
countries in 2015 (SeedWorld, 2016a) with Monsanto’s drought
tolerant maize from the WEMA project expected to be released in
field trials in Tanzania and Mozambique in 2017.

…

2016 – The year of the mega-mergers

* July 2014: Monsanto tried to buy Syngenta for US$46 billion, but
the deal was rejected by shareholders.

* November 2015: Chinese state-owned ChemChina made a US$43 billion
bid for Syngenta, which was accepted by shareholders in February
2016. This was the largest purchase of a foreign firm in Chinese
history.

– ChemChina owns Adama (formerly Maktheshim Agan Industries), the
world’s seventh largest agrochemical company.

– The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States approved
the deal in August 2016 (Bloomberg 2016b), South Africa in
September 2016 and Australia in December 2016 (Food Ingredients
First, 2016). South Africa attached the condition that Syngenta’s
formulation plant could not be relocated outside of the country for
an undefined period to avoid job losses (CCSA, 2016a). The deal was
also approved by the Common Market for East and Southern Africa
(COMESA) Competition Commission in September 2016 (Comesa
Competition Commission, 2016).

– The European Commission has requested additional information from
both companies and will announce its decision on the ChemChina-
Syngenta merger on 12 April 2017 (Produce Business UK, 2017).

– A possible obstacle to approval is ChemChina’s plans to acquire
another Chinese state- owned fertiliser company, Sinochem, which
was not mentioned in the applications for approval of its
acquisition of Syngenta (Noel and Baghdjian, 2016).

* December 2015: DuPont and Dow announced a merger that will give
the combined company an estimated value of US$130 billion.

– The deal was approved by the COMESA Competition Commission in
September 2016 (Comesa Competition Commission, 2016a), but still
awaits approval in Australia, the United States, Brazil and South
Africa.

– The deal is being held up by the European Commission, which has
launched a full investigation on the basis that insufficient
information has been provided (Reuters, 2016a). The Commission will
announce its decision on 6 February 2017 (Investopedia, 2016).

* May 2016: Bayer started the bidding process for Monsanto. The $66
billion bid was accepted in December 2016. If approved, the merged
company will be the world’s largest seed and agriculture chemicals
company. If the merger is not approved by competition regulators,
Bayer will pay a US$2 billion termination fee to Monsanto
(Begemann, 2016).

– The European Commission will decide on this merger by 15 March
2017 (European Commission, 2016).

– It has not yet been submitted to South Africa’s regulators.

* August 2016: Canadian Potash Corp. started negotiations to buy
fertiliser producer Agrium for US$30 billion. The deal is expected
to close in mid-2017 and will create the largest fertiliser company
in the world; it also plans to expand into seeds and crop chemicals
(Skerritt and Casey, 2016).

BASF has been left out of the scramble to consolidate and may well
have to buy up smaller companies, or sell, because it will not have
the strength to take on the concentrated power of its competitors
(ETC Group, 2016). Or it could benefit from forced divestitures of
the mergers. If all the proposed megamergers are approved, these
three companies (ChemChina-Syngenta, DuPont-Dow, Bayer-Monsanto)
will own and sell about 60% of the world’s patented seeds and
pesticides/herbicides (AgriPortal, 2016).

*****************************************************

AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with a
particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.

AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see
http://www.africafocus.org

By A. Shaw and James Thompson

We are talking about race and the fight against racism.

Race seems to be short hand for all of us –the human race.

Race suggests some kind of totality among people.

Racism, on the other hand, necessarily implies segments of the race that are hostile towards one another.

So, racists are hostile segments of the people. For example, some racists hate all of the human race.

These are called misanthropes. Misanthropes hate and often want to destroy everybody. They often want to destroy the human race merely because members of the human race are human.

Other races hate and often want to destroy only half of the race.

These are called misandrists. They hate and often want to destroy boys and men simply because they are boys and men.

Another type of racist hates and often wants to destroy girls and women who constitute half of the race. These are called misogynists.

How can we fight the racism whether it aims to destroy the totality of the human race or the destruction of only the males or only the females?

Today, perhaps a doctor can give them a pill or an injection or lock them up or lie them on an injection table or hang them. In Texas, it is not feasible to electrocute all the racists because it would drain all the electricity. Texas administers so many lethal injections that it sometimes has to deal with shortages of the poison that it pumps into the veins of its people so it is not a viable option.

By the way, in the USA, a misogynist can become President and reside in the White House, Donald Trump.

At some point, it became obvious to even the racists that a racism based on gender was unsatisfactory. A gender based racism requires racists to destroy some of their parents and some of their siblings. So, the racists modified their racism to be based on color more than on gender in order to protect their kinfolk.

The racists then imagined that there is a multiplicity of racists based on color chiefly of the skin. The racists thereby discovered blacks, whites, yellows and later on during the latter 19^th and 20^th centuries, browns and reds.

Initially, the division of humanity consisted of blacks and whites. Later on the racists added the yellows. The prevalence of these sexual mixtures (miscegenation)made it difficult to determine whether an individual was this color or that color. Sometimes blacks who look like they were white insisted that they were black. Vice versa, sometimes whites who look like they were white insisted they were black. When the yellows entered the mixture, the problem of determination of racial identity grew more complex and hopeless. Nobody could tell whether somebody else was white or black. Among the whites, people discovered that other whites were the principle foe, for example, yellow haired and blue eyed people who were white hated some other people who did not have yellow hair and blue eyes even though they were white. So clearly color was an inadequate basis for racism.

In order to fight racism progressive people fought a legal struggle-both judicial and legislative-in which laws were passed to prohibit racist acts called discrimination, e.g. in the USA the civil rights act in 1964 and the voting rights act in 1965. The state in the USA mildly enforced these legal measures against racism over the last 50 years but the state in the USA did not enforce these anti-racist laws with the vigor to eradicate racism.

Around the middle of the 19^th century the form of racism based on skull shape became popular among the intelligentsia and almost replaced color based racism.

Skull based racism known as phrenology became popular, advocating that there was a relationship between skull shape and psychological characteristics. Almost all phrenologists insisted that non-whites lacked the kind of skull shape that results in the development of strong and smart individuals.

People relied on other scientists to debunk the non-sense of the phrenologists and after the defeat of the Nazi racists who were enthusiastic phrenologists, people widely saw that skull based racism was non-sense. So, to fight skull based racism and the residues of color and gender racism requires war.

This brings us up to the present time where the original basis of racism, the emergence of an economic surplus or deficit, generates race hatred mostly of the misanthropic form. There is a group of highly trained racists who argue that at least 80% of the world population must be exterminated so that the 20% can strive and survive. These are basically misanthropes. These misanthropes claim that they only want to get rid of about 80% of the world’s population.

If these racists were successful in wiping out 80% of the world’s population, they would then attempt to get rid of the remaining 20%. These racists so far believe that pestilence and famine are the best ways to get rid of the 80%, but these modern day racists do not overlook the Nazi contribution to racism. This racism can be described as industrialized genocide.

Contemporary racists primarily rely on the manufacture and distribution of lethal germs to produce the pestilence that can wipe out the 80%.

And this pestilence in turn produces the famine that greatly contributes to wiping out the 80%. Research institutes around the world are developing the viruses that will accelerate the rate of mass murder that is underway.

For decades, these institutes were mostly interested in the research of deadly biological agents but today their focus is mainly on the development of these agents.

There is a consideration that impedes the use of these deadly biological agents to attack the 80%. That consideration is the existence or absence of a highly effective antidote that will cure members of the 20% if they are inadvertently infected by the biological agents distributed by modern day racists.

People who talk about the conspiracy to wipe out 80% of the world population are ridiculed as hopeless and incurable paranoids.

The information concerning wiping out the 80% has been hacked but what do you do with the documentation that demonstrates that imperialists are conspiring to wipe out the 80%? Anyone who has possession of the data that proves the imperialists are wiping out the 80% would get the same kind of treatment as Edward Snowden. You cannot take the data hacked from biological research institutes to the bourgeois media because under bourgeois law they are required to notify the state.

AfricaFocus Bulletin
January 23, 2017 (170123)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor’s Note

“Eskom, accused of overly cozy ties with the Guptas featured heavily
in the report, with 916 mentions. … it’s Eskom’s chief executive,
Brian Molefe, who comes out looking the worst. According to cell
phone records, Molefe had 58 phone calls with the eldest of the
Gupta brothers, Ajay Gupta, between August 2015 and March 2016, just
before the Guptas purchased South Africa’s Optimum coal mine for
2.15 billion rand ($160 million). Eskom, which prepaid the Gupta’s
Tegeta Exploration and Resources 600 million rand for coal, had been
accused of helping to finance the Guptas’ coal mine deal through
preferential treatment.” – Quartz Africa

For a version of this Bulletin in html format, more suitable for
printing, go to http://www.africafocus.org/docs17/saf1701.php, and
click on “format for print or mobile.”

To share this on Facebook, click on
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://www.africafocus.org/docs17/saf1701.php

In South Africa, as elsewhere in countries both large and small, the
debates about government energy policy are often framed in terms of
what is best for the “national interest.” But few doubt that behind
these choices between renewable energy options and others (fossil
fuels or nuclear energy), there are also private interests, whose
roles in the management of the state are not new but are becoming
more and more blatant (see below on links on the common stakes of
the incoming Trump administration and Russia’s Putin in promoting
fossil-fuel interests).

Concentrating on this aspect of what is termed “state capture” in
South Africa, this AfricaFocus Bulletin includes (1) brief excerpts
from the 355-page report on “State of Capture” from Public Protector
Thuli Madonsela; (2) an article with a summary of the report from
Quartz Africa, and (3) an article from The Conversation on the state
capture issue and its effects on plans for nuclear energy.

Two recent articles with background on the energy debate include:

le Cordeur, Matthew, “5 reasons why Eskom is wrong about renewables
costs – CSIR,” Jan 12, 2017 http://www.fin24.com – direct URL:
http://tinyurl.com/jmpts84

“Eskom delaying R50 billion renewable energy plan to push nuclear
goals,” Jan 10, 2017, http://businesstech.co.za – direct URL:
http://tinyurl.com/zcqku94

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Just Announced re State Capture in Mozambique

Watch live on youtube January 25
Zitamar News and Africa Research Institute present:
A Webinar on Mozambique’s Debt Crisis
Wednesday 25 January – 15:00 Maputo / 13:00 London / 08:00 New York

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Trump Election: Intersecting Explanations
http://www.noeasyvictories.org/usa/trump-win-reasons.php

Observations (second installment), Jan 23, 2017

In the period between the election and the inauguration, the
highest profile debate about reasons for the Trump electoral win was
about Putin’s intervention. But that debate produced more heat than
light, while key issues such as the common interests of Putin and
the Trump administration in promoting the fossil-fuel industry
received only marginal attention.

See http://noeasyvictories.org/usa/putin-intervention.php for  short
observations and database entries for 31 sources to date.

Articles on the fossil-fuel connection in particular include:

Joe Romm, “Did Putin help elect Trump to restore $500 billion Exxon
oil deal killed by sanctions?,” ThinkProgress, Jan 8, 2017
http://tinyurl.com/z6d45ub

Rachel Maddow, 5-minute video on ExxonMobil & Russia deal, Dec. 20,
2016 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n60SzMzjXog

Alex Steffen, “Trump, Putin and the Pipelines to Nowhere
You can’t understand what Trump’s doing to America without
understanding the ‘Carbon Bubble’,” Dec 15, 2016, http://medium.com
– Direct URL: http://tinyurl.com/hb2xnc6

++++++++++++++++++++++end editor’s note+++++++++++++++++

“State of Capture”: A Report of the Public Protector

14 October 2016

Full 355-page report in pdf available at http://tinyurl.com/jffpskt

5. Evidence and Information Obtained

Introduction

5.1. The Gupta family, originating from India, arrived in South
Africa in 1993. They  established businesses in South Africa with
their notable business being a computer  assembly and distribution
company called Sahara Computers. The family is led by  three
brothers Ajay Gupta who is the eldest, Atul Gupta and Rajesh Gupta
who is  the youngest. Rajesh is commonly known as “Tony”. According
to a letter submitted  to my office, total revenues from their
business activities for the 2016 financial year  amounted to R2,6
billion, with government contracts contributing a total of R235
million of the revenues.

5.2. They later diversified their business interests into mining
through the acquisition of  JIC Mining Services, Shiva Uranium and
Tegeta Exploration and Resources,  Optimum Coal Mine and
Koornfontein Coal Mine. They also started a media  company called
TNA Media, which publishes a newspaper called The New Age and  owns
a television channel called ANN7.

5.3. The Gupta family are known friends of the President Zuma.
President Zuma has  openly acknowledged his friendship with them,
most notably during a discussion in  the National Assembly on 19
June 2013 where he admitted that members of the  Gupta family were
his friends. Mr Ajay Gupta (“Mr A. Gupta), also admitted to being
friends with President Zuma when I interviewed him on 4 October
2016.

5.4. President Zuma’s son, Mr Duduzane Zuma (“Mr D. Zuma”) is a
business partner of  the Gupta family through an entity called
Mabengela Investments (“Mabengela”).  Mabengela has a 28.5% interest
in Tegeta Exploration and Resources (“Tegeta”).  Mr D. Zuma is a
Director of Mabengela.

5.5. Members of the Gupta family and the President Zuma’ son, Mr D.
Zuma, have  secured major contracts with Eskom, a major State owned
company, through  Tegeta. Tegeta has secured a 10 year coal supply
agreement (“CSA”) with Eskom  SOC Limited (“Eskom”) to supply coal
to the Majuba Power station. The entity has  also secured contracts
with Eskom to supply coal to the Hendrina and Arnot power  stations.

5.6.  Eskom CEO, Mr Brian Molefe (“Mr Molefe”) is friends with
members of the Gupta  family. Mr A. Gupta admitted during my
interview with him on 4 October 2016 that  Mr Molefe is his “very
good friend” and often visits his home in Saxonwold.

5.7. The New Age newspaper has also secured contracts with some
provincial  government departments and state owned entities, most
notably Eskom and South  African Airways (“SAA”).

5.8. The Gupta family recently purchased shares in an entity called
VR Laser Services  (“VR Laser”). VR Laser has major contracts with
Denel SOC Limited (“Denel”), a  State owned armaments manufacturing
company. VR Laser has also partnered with  Denel to apparently seek
business opportunities abroad.

5.9. During March this year, Mr Jonas issued a media statement
alleging that he was  offered the position of Minister of Finance by
members of the Gupta family in  exchange for executive decisions
favourable to the business interests of the Gupta  family, an offer
which he declined. The Gupta family has denied the allegations  made
by Mr Jonas.

5.10. At the time Mr Jonas is alleged to have been offered a Cabinet
post as Minister of  Finance, Mr Nene was occupying the post. Mr
Nene was removed from his post on  9 December 2015 by President Zuma
and replaced with Minister Van Rooyen.  Minister Van Rooyen was
replaced by Minister Gordhan on 14 December 2015 as  Minister of
Finance, 4 days after his appointment.

5.11. Following Mr Jonas’ statement, Ms Mentor also issued a
statement to the press  alleging that she was also offered a Cabinet
post by members of the Gupta family in  exchange for executive
decisions favourable to their business interests, an  allegation
denied by the Gupta family.

5.12. The former CEO of Government Communication and Information
System (“GCIS”),  Mr Themba Maseko also issued a statement alleging
that members of the Gupta  family pressured him into placing
government advertisements in the New Age  newspaper. Mr Maseko
further alleged that President Zuma asked him to “help” the  Gupta
family.

**********************************************

What the “State Capture” report tells us about Zuma, the Guptas, and
corruption in South Africa

Lynsey Chutel and Lily Kuo

Quartz Africa, November 2, 2016

What the “State Capture” report tells us about Zuma, the Guptas, and corruption in South Africa

It’s the report that confirms South Africa’s worst fears about
corruption: that the state has been captured. In 355 pages, former
public protector Thuli Madonsela and her team of investigators
outline in detail just how much control the Gupta family, a wealthy
Indian immigrant family, has over South Africa’s resources. The
Guptas’ close friend, president Jacob Zuma, as well as two ministers
implicated in the report, went to court to stop its release. But it
was finally released on Nov. 2, after protests and a court battle.

The report is potentially damning for Zuma, offering proof that he
sanctioned the use of state companies for personal enrichment. But
now the real reckoning begins, as a web of corruption around Zuma,
the Guptas, and at least three ministers begins to unravel.

Hiring and firing ministers in the Guptas’ house

The report contains a detailed interview with deputy finance
minister Mcebisi Jonas, who alleges that the Guptas offered him the
finance minister’s post weeks before Zuma was to shuffle three
finance ministers in one week. Jonas was driven to the Guptas’ home
by the president’s son Duduzane Zuma, where he was met by Ajay
Gupta.

Ajay Gupta allegedly told Jonas they’d been keeping tabs on him and
wanted him to be their man in the treasury. Ajay Gupta revealed that
they’d already made 6 billion rand ($443 million) from dealings with
the government, and wanted to make at least 2 billion rand more
(about $147 million). When Jonas refused, they tried to sweeten the
deal with 600 million rand (about $44 million) and an extra 600,000
rand ($44,318) in cash, right there. Jonas declined the money, and
months later became the whistle-blower that launched this
investigation when he revealed his story in March.

Vytjie Mentor, who came out after Jonas with an account of how the
Guptas tried to offer her the job of minister of public enterprises,
in charge of state-owned companies, also details her exchange with
the family. According to the report (p.89), Mentor was told during a
meeting in October last year at the Guptas’ home that she would go
from an ordinary parliamentarian to cabinet minister in a week. All
she had to do was make sure South African Airways dropped their
route between Johannesburg and Mumbai, making way for the Gupta-
linked carrier Jet Airways. Mentor declined. She was surprised to
see the president himself emerge from an adjacent room, who said
“it’s okay girl…take care of yourself,” as he personally escorted
her out.

According to the report, the Guptas also have the power to fire
ministers seen as stumbling blocks to their plans. Former finance
minister Nhlanhla Nene’s insistence on sticking to the rules cost
him his job. As did Barbara Hogan, former minister of public
enterprises, who refused to allow outside influence in appointments
of board members of state-owned South African Airways, Transnet, the
national rail, and Eskom, the state power utility (p. 89, 90). On an
official visit to India, Hogan said she was shocked to find the
Guptas running proceedings. She was relieved of her duties a few
months later.

Des van Rooyen, the unknown parliamentarian who became finance
minister for a few days after Nene, went to court in a bid to delay
the report, fearing it would implicate him. And it has. His phone
records show that van Rooyen visited the Guptas’ home seven days in
a row before he was appointed as finance minister. He was later
moved to a less prominent ministry. Van Rooyen has denied any
wrongdoing.

Negotiating on behalf of the Guptas

Mining minister Mosebenzi Zwane also tried to have the report
delayed, saying it was hastily prepared and that he had not been
given time to respond. According to the report (p. 124, 125), Zwane
travelled to Switzerland on behalf of the Guptas to smooth over
their acquisition of a troubled coal mine from multinational
commodity trader Glencore, helping the Guptas become one of the main
coal suppliers for state utility Eskom. Zwane allegedly helped
facilitate the deal by accompanying delegates from a Gupta resources
company, Tegeta, to Zurich, according to a flight itinerary obtained
by the public protector. Zwane could not be interviewed in time for
the report, but should be allowed to give his version in subsequent
investigations, the report says.

Eskom: Keeping the lights on for the Guptas

Eskom, accused of overly cozy ties with the Guptas featured heavily
in the report, with 916 mentions. Lynn Brown, who became the
minister in charge of South Africa’s state owned enterprises, is
implicated in the report for allowing the appointment of a lame-duck
board that turned a blind eye to murky deals made at the energy
monopoly.

But it’s Eskom’s chief executive, Brian Molefe, who comes out
looking the worst. According to cell phone records, Molefe had 58
phone calls with the eldest of the Gupta brothers, Ajay Gupta,
between August 2015 and March 2016, just before the Guptas purchased
South Africa’s Optimum coal mine for 2.15 billion rand ($160
million). Eskom, which prepaid the Gupta’s Tegeta Exploration and
Resources 600 million rand for coal, had been accused of helping to
finance the Guptas’ coal mine deal through preferential treatment.

The report concludes (p, 20), “it appears that the sole purpose of
awarding contracts to Tegeta to supply Arnot Power Station, was made
solely for the purposes of funding Tegeta and enabling Tegeta to
purchase all shares in OCH [Optimum Coal Holdings]. The only entity
which appears to have benefited from Eskom’s decisions with regards
to [the Optimum coal mine deal] was Tegeta.” Cellphone records also
put Molefe in the Saxonwold area, where the Guptas live, 19 times
between August and November 2015 and phone calls between Molefe and
Ronica Ragavan, head of the Gupta’s holding company, Oakbay
Investments. Justifying these calls and visits, Ajay Gupta told
Madonsela in an interview last month that Molefe is his “very good
friend” who often visits the Gupta compound. But Madonsela says
these records show “a distinct line of communication between Molefe
of Eskom, the Gupta family and directors of their companies… These
links cannot be ignored as Mr Molefe did not declare his
relationship with the Guptas.” Eskom hasrefuted any allegations of
wrongdoing. “We do believe everything that we’ve done so far was
above board,” spokesman for the utility, Khulu Phasiwe, told a local
radio station.

Advertising with the Guptas

Themba Maseko, former chief executive of government’s communications
agency, in charge of a media buying budget of 600 million rand a
year, said he was pressured by the Gupta family to place government
ads in their newspaper the New Age. Maseko was also one of the
whistleblowers who took his story to the media in March.

In an interview with Madonsela in August, Maseko said he was on his
way to a meeting with the Guptas in late 2010 when the president
called him on the phone to say, “The Gupta brothers need your help,
please help them.” During the meeting with Ajay Gupta, Gupta told
Maseko that he wanted government advertising channeled to his new
newspaper, the New Age. According to Maseko’s account, the
government official told Gupta that he could not decide where
government departments advertise. Gupta responded that this was not
a problem. He would instruct the departments to advertise in the
newspaper

According to Maseko’s account, Gupta instructed Maseko to tell him
“where the funds are and inform the departments to provide the funds
to you and if they refuse, we will deal with them. If you have a
problem with any department, we will summon ministers here.” Later
when Maseko refused to take a meeting with a New Age staff, Gupta
told Maseko, “I will talk to your seniors in government and you will
be sorted out.” Maseko was fired a few months later.

A bright spot: Integrity in the Treasury

The report shows how the Guptas’ plans were repeatedly thwarted by
officials in the treasury (p. 131, 132, and 94). The National
Treasury, in charge of approving deals linked to state-owned
enterprises, stuck to the rules of procurement and public finance.
Treasury officials questioned the Eskom coal deal with Tegeta.
Unable to stop the initial deal, they succeeded in blocking an
extension of the Tegeta contract. These obstructions appear to have
frustrated the Guptas and cost Nene his job. Many speculate that
current finance minister Pravin Gordhan’songoing legal battles are
related to the treasury’s resistance to the Guptas influence.

What next?

Zuma, the ministers, and the Guptas have yet to respond to the
damning allegations in the report. Madonsela has since left office,
with state capture report serving as her parting shot in a seven-
year battle against corruption. Still, she’s left instructions on
how to use with her findings. Her successor, who has already
started, should bring potentially criminal accusations in the report
to the National Prosecuting Authority and the police’s Directorate
for Priority Crime Investigation, better known as the Hawks.

Madonsela has also recommended that the report be taken further by a
commission of inquiry, headed by a judge appointed by the chief
justice of South Africa’s constitutional court, Mogoeng Mogoeng.
There are concerns that the prosecuting authority and the Hawks have
been compromised. (They have spearheaded the fraud case against
finance minister Gordhan.) But the public’s hopes lie in the chief
justice, who has spoken out harshly against the abuse of power
before.

“Public office bearers ignore their constitutional obligations at
their peril. This is so because constitutionalism‚ accountability
and the rule of law constitute the sharp and mighty sword that
stands ready to chop the ugly head of impunity off its stiffened
neck,” Mogeng said in March when he ruled against the president over
his use public funds used to renovate his personal compound in
Nkandla.

*******************************************************

How the state capture controversy has influenced South Africa’s
nuclear build

Harmut Winkler

The Conversation, May 26, 2016

http://tinyurl.com/jgrjcz8

South Africa is facing a critical decision that could see it
investing about R1 trillion – or US$60 billion to $70 billion – in a
fleet of new nuclear power stations. Proponents argue that it will
greatly increase electrical base-load capacity and generate
industrial growth. But opponents believe the high cost would cripple
the country economically.

What should be an economic decision has now been clouded by
controversy, with political pressure to push through the nuclear
build and the increasingly apparent rewards it would bring to
politically linked individuals.

The nuclear expansion programme needs to be considered exceptionally
carefully given that the required financial commitment is roughly
equal to the total South African annual tax revenue. Loan repayments
could place a devastating long-term burden on the public and on the
economy as a whole.

South Africa’s energy needs

South Africa is in the process of massively expanding and
modernising its electricity generation capacity. The government-
driven Integrated Resource Plan aims to increase total capacity from
42,000MW (peak demand of 39,000MW) to 85,000MW (peak demand of
68,000MW) in 2030. A key component of this plan is the construction
of facilities to produce 9,600MW of nuclear power. However, this
aspect of the plan has been challenged.

The biggest concern is that nuclear power is too expensive for the
country. The debate gained momentum when the 2013 update to the
2010-2030 electricity plan found that electricity demand is growing
slower than originally anticipated. Peak demand in 2030 is now
expected to range between 52,000 MW and 61,000 MW. There is
consequently widespread belief that new nuclear power stations can
be delayed considerably.

South Africa’s energy generation options

South Africa has had remarkable success with speedy, cost-effective
installation of renewable energy power plants. In addition to this,
technologies for harvesting South Africa’s plentiful wind and solar
energy resources are rapidly becoming cheaper, raising the question
of whether the country should not invest more in these options
rather than in going nuclear.

The argument that nuclear energy provides a stable base load,
independent of weather conditions, is mitigated by improvements in
energy storage technologies. But also by the fact that South Africa,
with its large coal power production, has a proportionally higher
base load than many highly developed industrialised countries. The
pro-nuclear option is therefore not unavoidable, as nuclear
proponents suggest, but rather a matter for thorough economic
consideration.

Zuma and the Russians

The nuclear debate gained a political dimension when President Jacob
Zuma and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, started to develop
an unusually close relationship. It culminated in an announcement
that the Russian nuclear developer, Rosatom, had been awarded the
potentially highly lucrative contract to build the new reactors. The
agreement was later denied.

Rosatom was considered the preferred contender, with other bidders
only there to lend the process legitimacy, according to some
observers. The lack of transparency surrounding the process, coupled
with a history of corruption in South African mega-projects like the
arms deal, has made the whole scheme seem suspicious to the broader
public.

A thickening plot

A crucial thread in this saga involves the Shiva uranium mine, about
30km north-west of Pretoria, the country’s executive capital. It
originally belonged to a company called Uranium One, a subsidiary of
Russia’s Rosatom. It was sold in 2010 to Oakbay Resources, a company
controlled by members of the politically connected Gupta family and
the president’s son, in a deal that greatly surprised economists.

The mine was deemed unprofitable and thus unattractive to other
mining companies. But it was still considered worth a whole lot more
than the R270 million paid by Oakbay. The mine would, however,
become highly profitable if it became the uranium supplier to the
new nuclear power stations. Oakbay and its associates therefore have
a very strong incentive for this nuclear build to happen.

It is here that the nuclear build drama feeds into the recent major
controversy surrounding alleged state capture, meaning a corrupt
system where state officials owe their allegiance to politically
connected oligarchs rather than the public interest. This was
highlighted by the shock dismissal of Finance Minister Nhanhla Nene,
a reported nuclear build sceptic, but also by subsequent allegations
of ministerial positions being offered to people by members of the
Gupta family.

Political, legal and civil opposition

The nuclear build’s association with the Zuma faction in the ruling
African National Congress (ANC) will be a political hot potato for
decades to come. The whole scandal also offers potential opportunity
to opposition parties. With increasing evidence of individuals
benefiting, opposition parties have found another spot to exploit,
as they did with Nkandla. A post-Zuma government would find it most
convenient to simply dissociate itself from the whole scheme.

The South African courts have been used very effectively by pressure
groups in the past. Already a number of environmental groups have
initiated legal applications, and these might end up being escalated
to the Supreme and Constitutional Courts. This will delay any
building initiative by years.

The South African experience with the 2010 World Cup has shown that
mega-projects can come to fruition when there is broad overall
support for the initiative. At the same time, South Africans can be
very disruptive and obstructive when this is not the case. For
example, the public opposition to e-tolling, an electronic toll
collection on certain roads.

The two leading opposition parties, the Democratic Alliance and the
Economic Freedom Fighters, have already expressed their strong
criticism of the planned nuclear build. Their supporters and civil
society in general have demonstrated their capacity for mobilisation
around specific issues. So the potential for an anti-nuclear protest
movement cannot be discounted.

A negative nuclear outlook

Building these plants is a risky business proposition, especially
for Rosatom, which is implicated in the developing scandal. The
recent political mood swing against state capture and a likely
credit rating downgrade add to the risk.

Rosatom has suggested a nuclear build financing option that
effectively amounts to it providing a loan. It is, however,
conceivable that a future government may not honour debt repayments
if there is a view that the construction deal was secured
irregularly.

The narrow public support base and downright hostility in some
quarters to a nuclear build has already effectively stalled local
nuclear construction plans. The level of controversy, high costs and
potential for further disruption mean that the planned
implementation could only proceed under severe social strain.

Such a scenario could very well cost the ruling ANC the 2019
national elections. And the party is becoming increasingly aware of
this. As such, it is posited that the nuclear build will not happen
any time as soon as planned.

*****************************************************

AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with a
particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.

AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see
http://www.africafocus.org

http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/03/01/2017/world-shambles-interview-cj-polychroniou

Interviewed by Marcus Rolle and Alexandra Boutros – 3rd January 2017

“We live in ominously dangerous times” stated the opening line of an article by C.J. Polychroniou (with Lily Sage) titled “A New Economic System for a World in Rapid Disintegration,” which was recently published in Truthout. And while the aforementioned piece was mainly a scathing critique of global neoliberal capitalism and a call for a new system of economic and social organization, its underlying thesis was that the world system is breaking down and that contemporary societies are in disarray.

Is the (Western) world in shambles? We interviewed C.J. Polychroniou about the current world situation, with emphasis on developments in Europe and the United States, and sought his views on a host of pertinent political, economic and social issues, including the rise of the far right and the capitulation of the left.

Marcus Rolle and Alexandra Boutri: Let’s start by asking — what exactly do you have in mind when you say, “We live in ominously dangerous times?”

C.J. Polychroniou: We live in a period of great global complexity, confusion and uncertainty. It should be beyond dispute that we are in the midst of a whirlpool of events and developments that are eroding our capability to manage human affairs in a way that is conducive to the attainment of a political and economic order based on stability, justice and sustainability. Indeed, the contemporary world is fraught with perils and challenges that will test severely humanity’s ability to maintain a steady course towards anything resembling a civilized life.

For starters, we have been witnessing the gradual erosion of socio-economic gains in much of the advanced industrialized world since at least the early 1980s, along with the rollback of the social state, while a tiny percentage of the population is amazingly wealthy beyond imagination that compromises democracy, subverts the “common good” and promotes a culture of dog-eat-dog world.

The pitfalls of massive economic inequality were identified even by ancient scholars, such as Aristotle, and yet we are still allowing the rich and powerful not only to dictate the nature of society we live in but also to impose conditions that make it seem as if there is no alternative to the dominance of a system in which the interests of big business have primacy over social needs.

In this context, the political system known as representative democracy has fallen completely into the hands of a moneyed oligarchy which controls humanity’s future. Democracy no longer exists. The main function of the citizenry in so-called “democratic” societies is to elect periodically the officials who are going to manage a system designed to serve the interests of a plutocracy and of global capitalism. The “common good” is dead, and in its place we have atomized, segmented societies in which the weak, the poor and powerless are left at the mercy of the gods.

I contend that the above features capture rather accurately the political culture and socio-economic landscape of “late capitalism.” Nonetheless, the prospects for radical social change do not appear promising in light of the huge absence of unified ideological gestalts guiding social and political action. What we may see emerge in the years ahead is an even harsher and more authoritarian form of capitalism.

Then, there is the global warming phenomenon, which threatens to lead to the collapse of much of civilized life if it continues unabated. The extent to which the contemporary world is capable of addressing the effects of global climate change — frequent wildfires, longer periods of drought, rising sea levels, waves of mass migration — is indeed very much in doubt. Moreover, it is also unclear if a transition to clean energy sources suffices at this point in order to contain the further rising of temperatures. To be sure, global climate change will produce in the not-too-distant future major economic disasters, social upheavals and political instability.

If the climate change crisis is not enough to make one convinced that we live in ominously dangerous times, add to the above picture the ever-present threat of nuclear weapons. In fact, the threat of a nuclear war or the possibility of nuclear attacks is more pronounced in today’s global environment than any other time since the dawn of the atomic age. A multi-polar world with nuclear weapons is a far more unstable environment than a bipolar world with nuclear weapons, particularly if we take into account the growing presence and influence of non-state actors, such as extreme terrorist organizations, and the spread of irrational and/or fundamentalist thinking, which has emerged as the new plague in many countries around the world, including first and foremost the United States.

What is the state of the Left in today’s Europe?

Since the collapse of Soviet communism, the European Left has been in a state of complete disarray, although the crisis of Europe’s Left dates back to the 1970s — i.e., long before the collapse of “actually existing socialism.”  But let’s be clear. What do we mean today by the term European Left? The European Socialist and Social Democratic parties abandoned long ago any pretext to being “socialistic” and, in fact, have become advocates of austerity and staunch supporters of free-market capitalism. There are some communist parties still around, but most of them are completely marginalized and lack political influence.

Only in Greece do you have a communist party that still carries some influence inside the labor movement, but it is essentially a Stalinist party and has actually worked hard to maintain political stability and thus the status quo. Nonetheless, until very recently, the Greek Communist Party was far more popular than the Coalition of the Radical Left, popularly known as Syriza, which has been in government since January 2015, thanks to the terrible financial and economic crisis that broke out in early 2010 and has since converted the country to a German/European protectorate.

There are, of course, grassroots movements and parties of the radical Left to be found in virtually every European country, but they lack mass popular support. The rise of Syriza in Greece was seen as representing a new dawn for the European Left, but its complete sellout to the euro masters and its actual conversion to a neoliberal and thoroughly corrupt political party has actually been one of the biggest setbacks for progressive forces throughout the continent.

You were expressing strong reservations about Syriza, in fact through these pages, long before its rise to power. What actually went wrong with the Greek Radical Left?

Syriza was a loose organization of various leftist groups (old-fashioned euro communists, anarcho-communists, Maoists and even social democrats), and its appeal was confined mainly to the intellectual class. It lacked a cohesive ideological worldview and, in fact, [it] was difficult to pinpoint its stance on a variety of crucial issues due to the many political factions that it represented.

Naturally, the great majority of the Greek voters saw Syriza as being nothing more than a movement of political clowns, with Alexis Tsipras at its helm. However, a close look around Syriza’s core leadership would have revealed a group of people who were simply political opportunists, people hungry for power. To me, therefore, it was obvious that, in the event that Syriza came to power, two things would happen: first, a split between radicals and opportunists, and second, the capitulation of the opportunists (Alexis Tsipras and his gang) to the domestic economic elite and the euromasters. And this is precisely what has happened.

After five years of brutal austerity and the sharpest decline of the standard of living in any postwar European country, the Greek people voted into power Syriza, believing that its leader, Alexis Tsipras, would carry through with his pre-election promises of ending austerity and subsequently re-boosting the economy, tearing into pieces the EU/IMF bailout agreements, and forc[ing] the cancellation of a major portion of the debt. But shortly after coming to power, the opportunists realized that the option was either complete surrender to the capitalist forces or stepping down from power. They opted for the former, just so they could stay in power, even if it meant completing the carry out of the neoliberal agenda of the European Union and the IMF as part of the financial bailout of the country.

Syriza has been in power for nearly two years now, and, during this time, it has shoved the neoliberal agenda down the throat of the Greek people with more forcefulness and determination than any previous government. It agreed to a new, far more brutal and humiliating bailout plan, and is now overseeing the complete privatization of the economy and the further deterioration of the standard of living, thereby fulfilling the long-held view of the European neoliberal masters that Greek wages and the nation’s standard of living should not be above those found in nearby Balkan countries like Bulgaria and Romania. Any public official or government minister standing in the way to the implementation of the neoliberal agenda was either isolated or pushed out of the government. Indeed, one of Tsipras’ most pronounced traits as prime minister of Greece is the ease with which he is selling out his former comrades.

To secure his goals and aims, i.e., the sellout of the country, he even ended up recruiting as his lackeys academics from abroad, such as the president of the (allegedly progressive) Levy Institute, Dimitri Papadimitriou, and his wife, Rania Antonopoulos, who is currently serving as the Greek Alternate Minister for Combatting Unemployment. Shortly after having accepted the position of Minister of Economy and Development as a result of a recent cabinet reshuffle, Papadimitriou — when asked about his research as an economist in which he challenged the European dogmas of austerity and neoliberalism and advocated the introduction of a “parallel” currency for the deeply ailing Greek economy — replied by saying that, “until last week I was an academic, and academics may say … things. But when the time comes to implement a program, then they realize that some things may have been wrong!”

Of course, the Greek media had a feast over the amazing opportunism and the hypocrisy of this man, but his reaction has been rather typical among pseudo-progressives and social democrats all throughout modern history. Unsurprisingly, Papadimitriou also went on to say that Greeks, Spaniards and Italians live beyond their means, thereby displaying his obedience to the EU and IMF masters, and that one of the major comparative advantages that Greece now enjoys is that it is a country with “cheap labor.”

What has been happening in Greece may represent an extreme example because of the actual state of the economy, but it is quite representative of the state of politics of contemporary European Left. That is, a Left without political convictions and values, a Machiavellian Left that prefers to serve the Masters of Mankind than seek to reorganize society from below.

What is your explanation for the rise of Donald Trump, and do you actually see a future in “Trumpism”?

Understanding the phenomenon of Donald Trump demands that we look beyond the individual himself and, instead, into the way US society has evolved over the last few decades. Millions of Americans have seen their livelihoods either entirely collapse or be threatened by economic forces which they neither understand or control. For example, they (and Donald Trump) blame Mexico and China for the loss of American jobs, but no one is taking the trouble to point out to them that the bulk of the products that China, for example, exports to the United States are being produced by US or multinational corporations who opted to move their operations outside the US in order to take advantage of cheap labor opportunities. In the meantime, wages in the US have remained stagnant over the course of the last 25 years for the great majority of the population, while the economy has grown considerably. But the economic gains end up almost exclusively in the hands of a tiny corporate and financial elite, which also controls the political agenda.

“Trumpism” and disingenuous populism represent the future of American politics, especially since the economic policies that the Trump administration will implement will surely further deteriorate the state of inequality in this country and thus do nothing to ameliorate anger and anxiety about the future, which were the driving forces that sent so many people into Donald Trump’s arms.

Note: This interview has been condensed and edited for concision. Reprinted with permission from Truthout.

Monday, January 2, 2017

Capitalism Unmasked: Numbers reveal the expansion of social inequalities in the 21st century

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/01/capitalism-unmasked-numbers-reveal.html

The poorest half of the world’s population shares a bit under the 1% of the global wealth, while the richest 10% owns the 88% of the total global wealth. The 0.7% of the world’s population owns 116.6 trillion dollars!

1. The richest 1% of the world’s population controls half of the global wealth. Despite the economic crisis, the number of millionaires in a worldwide scale was increased during the last 12 months of 2016.

2. According to a survey by Credit Suisse, 3.4 billion people– the 71% of the world’s population- share only 7.4 trillion dollars, less than the wealth of the 2,473 billionaires around the world.

3. The total number of billionaires grew by 81% since 2009, a year after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, while their wealth was more than doubled. According to data provided by Wealth-X and UBS, 16.6 million people (0.334% of the global population) own 77 trillion dollars, which is almost the annual global GDP.

4. Approximately 211,275 millionaires (0.004% of the global population) own the 12.8% (29.7 trillion dollars) of the global wealth, while 2,325 billionaires own 7.3 trillion dollars.

5. The wealth of the richest 62 people has risen by 45% in the five years since 2010 – that’s an increase of more than half a trillion dollars ($542bn), to $1.76 trillion.

6. Since the turn of the century, the poorest half of the world’s population has received just 1% of the total increase in global wealth, while half of that increase has gone to the top 1%. The average annual income of the poorest 10% of people in the world has risen by less than $3 each year in almost a quarter of a century. Their daily income has risen by less than a single cent every year (Credit Suisse, 2015).

7. Approximately 780,000,000 people lack access to clean water, while 2.5 billion people lack access to sanitation.

8. Every year, approximately 3,500,000 children die from hunger.

IN DEFENSE OF COMMUNISM ©.