Category: Analysis
Chomsky on electing the President of an empire
| November 1, 2015 | 6:11 pm | Analysis, Bernie Sanders, political struggle | Comments closed

South Sudan: Hard-Hitting Report from the African Union
| October 28, 2015 | 9:37 pm | Africa, Analysis, political struggle | Comments closed

AfricaFocus Bulletin
October 28, 2015 (151028)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor’s Note

“Based on its inquiry, the Commission finds that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that acts of murder, rape and sexual
violence, torture and other inhumane acts of comparable gravity,
outrages upon personal dignity, targeting of civilian objects and
protected property, as well as other abuses, have been committed by
both sides to the conflict.”

For a version of this Bulletin in html format, more suitable for
printing, go to http://www.africafocus.org/docs15/ssud1510.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/docs15/ssud1510.php

This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains excerpts from the introduction
and executive summary of the report, which was completed a year ago
but only released this month, after extensive internal consideration
by the African Union. The report is published in full, with the
exception of a confidential list of alleged perpetrators submitted
to the AU Peace and Security Council.

Although these excerpts focus on accountability for human rights
violations, the report also contains in-depth analysis and
recommendations on other fundamental issues of state-building, as
well as on continued engagement by the African Union, other
international institutions, and Sudanese civil society and
governmental institutions. In addition, there is a separate opinion
by one of the commissioners, Dr. Mahmood Mamdani, with very
substantive additional analysis. Your editor has not yet read the
full report (315 pages) and separate opinion (60 pages), but both
clearly warrant careful attention not just for their analysis of
South Sudan but also for their critical approach to international
peace-building initiatives more generally.

For other news on South Sudan, visit http://allafrica.com/southsudan
and http://sudantribune.com/

For previous AfricaFocus Bulletins on South Sudan, visit
http://www.africafocus.org/country/southsudan.php

For previous AfricaFocus Bulletins on peace and security, visit
http://www.africafocus.org/intro-peace.php

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

Final Report of the African Union Commission of Inquiry on South
Sudan

AU Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia P. O. Box 3243 Telephone: +251 11 551 7700 /
+251 11 518 25 58/ Ext 2558

Website: http://www.au.int/en/auciss

[excerpts from executive summary; full executive summary and
full report available at http://www.peaceau.org/en/article/abc]

A. Introduction

1. As part of its response to the crisis in South Sudan, the Peace
and Security Council of the African Union (AU), at its 411th meeting
held at the level of Heads of State and Government, in Banjul, The
Gambia, on 30 December 2013, mandated the establishment of the
Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan (AUCISS). In the said
communiqué, the PSC requested: […] the Chairperson of the
Commission, in consultation with the Chairperson of the African
Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) and other relevant
AU structures, to urgently establish a Commission to investigate the
human rights violations and other abuses committed during the armed
conflict in South Sudan and make recommendations on the best ways
and means to ensure accountability, reconciliation and healing among
all South Sudanese communities. Council requests that the above-
mentioned Commission submit its report to Council within a maximum
period of three months.

2. In specific terms, the AUPSC Communiqué mandates the AUCISS:

a) To investigate the human rights violations and other abuses
committed during the armed conflict in South Sudan;

b) To investigate the causes underlying the violations;

c) To make recommendations on the best ways and means to ensure
accountability, reconciliation and healing among all South Sudanese
communities with a view to deterring and preventing the occurrence
of the violations in future; and

d) To make recommendations on how to move the country forward in
terms of unity, cooperation and sustainable development;

e) To submit a report within a maximum period of three (3) months.

3. Pursuant to the AUPSC Communiqué, the Commission adopted the
Terms of Reference (ToR) detailed in the Concept Note Relating to
the Establishment of the AUCISS are to:

a) Establish the immediate and remote causes of the conflict;

b) Investigate human rights violations and other abuses during the
conflict by all parties from 15 December 2013;

c) Establish facts and circumstances that may have led to and that
amount to such violations and of any crimes that may have been
perpetrated;

d) Compile information based on these investigations and in so doing
assist in identifying perpetrators of such violations and abuses
with a view to ensuring accountability for those responsible;

e) Compile information on institutions and process or lack thereof
that may have aided or aggravated the conflict resulting in
violations of human rights and other abuses;

f) To examine ways on how to move the country forward in terms of
unity, cooperation and sustainable development;

g) Present a comprehensive written report on the overall situation
South Sudan to the African Union Peace and Security Council within a
period of three (3) months from the commencement of its activities.

h) Make recommendations based on the investigation on the following:

* appropriate mechanisms to prevent a recurrence of the conflict;

* mechanisms to promote national healing and cohesiveness,
particularly focusing on the need for all South Sudanese communities
to live together in peace;

* modalities for nation building, specifically focused on building
of a functional political order, democratic institutions and post-
conflict reconstruction;

* accountability mechanisms for gross violations of human rights and
other egregious abuses to ensure that those responsible for such
violations are held to account.

4. The Commission interpreted its mandate to consist of four focal
areas: healing, reconciliation, accountability and institutional
reforms. The Commission approached its mandate in a holistic manner,
emphasizing the interrelatedness of the mandate areas.

5. Following consultations, the Chairperson of the AU Commission
formally announced the creation of the AUCISS on 7 March 2014 at the
Headquarters of the African Union. The Commission is constituted as
follows:

The Chairperson:

i) H.E. Olusegun Obasanjo, Former President of the Republic of
Nigeria.

Other members of the Commission:

ii) Lady Justice Sophia A.B Akuffo, Judge of the Supreme Court of
Ghana, President of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

iii) Professor Mahmood Mamdani, Professor and Executive Director,
Makerere Institute of Social Research, Makerere University, Kampala,
Uganda, Herbert Lehman Professor of Government, Columbia University.

iv) Ms. Bineta Diop, President, of Femmes Africa Solidarité (FAS),
AU Chairperson’s Special Envoy on Women, Peace and Security.

v) Professor Pacifique Manirakiza, Professor of Law, University of
Ottawa and Member, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights

6. The Commission was sworn in on March 12, 2014 and thereafter
adopted a programme of work.

21. During the first three months following its constitution, the
Commission conducted several missions to South Sudan and
neighbouring countries during the following dates; April 16
(Khartoum), April 23-30 (Juba), May 10-15 (Kenya), May 15-18
(Uganda); May 26-June 4 (South Sudan: Juba, Bor, Bentiu and
Malakal), June 5-7 (Kenya: Kakuma Refugee Camp) and Khartoum; and 20
July – 11 August (Unity, Upper Nile, Jonglei, Central Equatoria
State, Western Equatoria State, Lakes State, Western Bahr el Ghazar
State, Northern Bahr el Ghazal State, Warrap State and Eastern
Equatoria State).

22. The Commission was granted an extension of time of 3 months by
the decision of the 23rd Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the AU
held in Malabo from 26 to 27 June 2014 following the presentation of
its Interim Report to the Assembly of Heads of States and
Government. The Commission’s request for extension of time was
justified by the need to conduct more extensive consultations with
different sectors of South Sudanese Society in all the 10 states as
well as the Diaspora (Kenya, Uganda, Switzerland, United Kingdom)
and to finalize investigations. During this second phase of the
Commission’s work, the Commission covered the entire country between
July and August in its efforts to ensure that all parts of the
society – particularly those parts of the country that were not the
specific theatres of violence but had been, inevitably, affected by
the conflict – were given the opportunity not only to offer their
perspectives on the background to the crisis but to also air their
views on the way forward for the country.

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

II. Examination of Human Rights Violations and Other Abuses During
the Conflict: Accountability

125. The Commission’s inquiry and investigations focused not only on
the key areas in the four states that have been the main theatres of
violence but also extended to other places where violations could
have occurred or where relevant evidence may be found. The sites of
investigations included Juba and its environs, Bor (Jonglei), Bentiu
(Unity), Malakal (Upper Nile), rural areas surrounding these major
towns, and Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya. Time constraints precluded
visits to refugee camps in Ethiopia (Gambella), Sudan, and Uganda.
Site visits to alleged theatres of violence were undertaken where
permitted. In particular, the Commission visited Gudele joint
operation centre, Tiger Battalion barracks, Juba Teaching Hospital,
New Site burial site, Giyada Military Hospital, Bor Teaching
Hospital, St Andrews burial site, Bor burial site, Malakal Teaching
Hospital and Malakal burial site. Forensic reviews of the stated
sites were undertaken and documentation carried out. Witness or
survivor injuries were also examined by the forensic doctors and
forensic evidence was collected at crime scenes or incident sites.

Findings Relating to Violations of Human Rights and Other Abuses
(violations IHL)

126. The Commission found cases of sexual and gender based violence
committed by both parties against women. It also documented extreme
cruelty exercised through mutilation of bodies, burning of bodies,
draining human blood from people who had just been killed and
forcing others from one ethnic community to drink the blood or eat
burnt human flesh. Such claims were registered during interviews of
witnesses of crimes committed in Juba. Elsewhere, witnesses of
crimes committed in Bor Town, also provided evidence of brutal
killings and cruel mutilations of dead bodies. In Malakal town,
reports of abduction and disappearance of women from churches and
the hospital where communities had sought refuge during the
hostilities that began in December 2013 were rife. In Unity State,
Bentiu, the capital has been the focus of much of the fighting,
having changed hands several times between government and opposition
soldiers during the course of the conflict. Bentiu town is largely
destroyed. In Leer county, the Commission heard testimony of
civilians, including children and teenagers killed, houses, farms
and cattle burned, and of sexual violence.

127. Overall, the Commission found that while there was limited
active conflict in all states visited, tensions remain high in the
three most conflict affected states of Upper Nile, Unity and
Jonglei. Many respondents talked of fear and all stakeholders and
interlocutors noted a level of anxiety of an impending attack by one
side or the other. Life for civilians in all three state capitals of
Malakal, Bentiu and Bor has not fully returned to normal. The
majority of civilians remain either in UNMISS protection of civilian
sites (POCs) or in inaccessible locations in the surrounding
villages and rural areas. Guarantees of security remain a great
concern for civilians.

128. The Commission found that most of the atrocities were carried
out against civilian populations taking no active part in the
hostilities. Places of religion and hospitals were attacked,
humanitarian assistance was impeded, towns pillaged and destroyed,
places of protection were attacked and there was testimony of
possible conscription of children under 15 years old.

129. The Commission found that unlawful killings of civilians or
soldiers who were believed to be hors de combat (no longer taking
part in hostilities), were committed in and around Juba. The people
killed were either found during the house to house searches or
captured at roadblocks.

130. The Commission found that violations of human rights and other
abuses in relation to massive and indiscriminate attacks against
civilians and civilian property were carried out in Bor town.
Visible evidence of torched non- military objects like houses,
market place, administration houses, hospital and hospitals form the
basis of the Commission’s conclusion that these crimes were
committed. The Commission also found that civilians were targeted in
Malakal, which was under the control of both parties at different
times during the conflict. Serious violations were committed in
Malakal Teaching Hospital through the killings of civilians and
women were raped at the Malakal Catholic Church between 18th and
27th February 2014. In Bentiu the Commission heard testimony of the
extremely violent nature of the rape of women and girls – that in
some instances involved maiming and dismemberment of limbs.
Testimony from women in UNMISS PoC Site in Unity State detailed
killings, abductions, disappearances, rapes, beatings, stealing by
forces and being forced to eat dead human flesh.

131. Based on its inquiry, the Commission finds that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that acts of murder, rape and sexual
violence, torture and other inhumane acts of comparable gravity,
outrages upon personal dignity, targeting of civilian objects and
protected property, as well as other abuses, have been committed by
both sides to the conflict.

132. The Commission found that the context in which these violations
and crimes were committed is a non-international armed conflict
(NIAC) involving governmental (and allied) forces and SPLM/IO
fighters.

133. The Commission’s investigations as well as information received
from various sources, including its consultations, leads the
Commission to conclude that there are reasonable grounds to believe
that serious violations of human rights have occurred and that
serious violence of other abuses have also occurred, which, given
the context in which they have occurred – may amount to violations
of international humanitarian law.

Finding on the Crime of Genocide

134. The Commission finds that based on the information available to
it, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the crime of
genocide has occurred.

135. Despite the seeming ethnic nature of the conflict in South
Sudan, the Commission, during its consultations with various groups
and individuals did not have any reasonable grounds to believe that
the crime of genocide was committed during the conflict that broke
out on December 15, 2013.

Recommendations Relating to Violations of Human Rights and Other
Abuses (Violations of IHL)

136. The Commission recommends the establishment of an ad hoc
African legal mechanism under the aegis of the African Union which
is Africa led, Africa owned, Africa resourced with the support of
the international community, particularly the United Nations to
bring those who bear the greatest responsibility at the highest
level to account. Such a mechanism should include South Sudanese
judges and lawyers. The Commission has identified possible alleged
perpetrators that might bear the greatest responsibility using the
standard of ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe that gross violations of
human rights and other abuses have occurred during the conflict (see
the highly confidential list not publicly available as part of this
report).

137. The Commission believes that with appropriate reforms, both
military and civilian justice can and should contribute to
establishing accountability. The Commission therefore recommends
that immediate reforms of civilian and military justice be
initiated. While it is believed that a long-term reform process of
the judiciary is necessary (see section recommendations related to
the judiciary above), a minimalist approach can be adopted with
respect to the criminal justice system.

138. Based on the central role played by customary justice in
facilitating access to justice in South Sudan, and the views
expressed by South Sudanese that this institution must play a role
in reconciliation at community level, the Commission recommends that
an appropriate role should be fashioned for traditional justice and
conflict resolution mechanisms, to be established in relationship
with formal accountability processes as well as the peace and the
national healing, peace and reconciliation. The Rwandan experience
with Gacaca could be instructive.

139. The Commission’s inquiry established that South Sudanese
traditional justice mechanisms combine retributive and restorative
remedies which include payment of compensation in modes acceptable
by litigants, often cattle. The notion of civil accountability i.e.
compensation to an individual for loss suffered, is indeed one of
the key features of South Sudan’s indigenous justice systems. More
importantly, the moral authority and legitimacy inherent in the
traditional systems, as understood and valued by the South Sudanese
people has a valuable role to play in healing and reconciliation and
appeasing the deeply felt grievance occasioned by violations
suffered by individuals and communities.

140. The Commission therefore recommends the creation of a national
reparations fund and programme linked appropriately to these
traditional justice mechanisms, to benefit victims of gross human
rights violations. Eligibility for reparative measures undertaken
(including rehabilitation and psychosocial assistance should not be
limited to the period to which the Commission’s mandate relates
(from December 15, 2013) but can include victims of past human
rights violations. While certain elements, particularly psychosocial
assistance and other appropriate forms of interim reparations should
be implemented immediately the broader reparations programme can be
linked to the work of a future Truth Commission.

Findings Relating to Healing and Reconciliation

141. The Commission found that the multiple conflicts and repeated
violations of human rights experienced in South Sudan have wrecked
relations between and among communities, and generated many victims.
It also established that the policy of amnesty adopted by the
government after the signing of the CPA left the past unexamined,
conflicts unresolved and their impacts, partly represented in
victims and survivors of human rights violations unaddressed.

142. The crisis has occasioned massive displacement of South
Sudanese (a reported 1.5m). Many of those displaced have live in
multiple protection sites and IDP camps around the country while
others have taken refuge in neighbouring countries.

143. The Commission’s consultations disclosed that many South
Sudanese take the view that reconciliation is dependent upon
justice, which is broader than criminal justice. The view was
expressed that those who have committed atrocities should be
prosecuted, and that victims and communities are unlikely to embrace
reconciliation otherwise, given the culture of impunity in South
Sudan. Recommendations Relating to Healing and Reconciliation

144. The Commission believes that the only sustainable solution to
facilitate the return of IDPs and refugees to their homes, is
dependent upon a political settlement in the ongoing mediation
process. The Commission urges all actors to work towards a speedy
resolution of the crisis.

145. The Commission recommends that warring parties should
facilitate the movement of IDPs in and out of the camps in their
respective areas of control.

146. It is the Commission’s view that it is necessary to establish a
structured process to provide an opportunity for South Sudanese to
engage with their history, to discover the truth about the conflicts
and human rights violations of the past, and to attend to the needs
of victims. This is the only way to foster healing, peace and
reconciliation in South Sudan, and to forge a common future. Such a
body should lead to truth, remorse, forgiveness and restitution
where necessary, justice and lasting reconciliation being achieved.

147. The Commission recommends that such a structured process must
involve and include women as key stakeholders, and that processes
and procedures operated by a future mechanism should be gender-
sensitive.

148. Overall, it is recommended that there is a need for a national
process, however organised, to provide a forum for dialogue, inquiry
and to record the multiple, often competing narratives about South
Sudan’s history and conflicts; to construct a common narrative
around which a new South Sudan can orient its future; to uncover and
document the history of victimization and to recommend appropriate
responses.

149. The Commission urges all sectors of South Sudanese society and
relevant regional and international actors to unite around the
process of national reconciliation, which is necessary for the
restoration of sustainable peace, social cohesion and stability.

150. The Commission recommends that the Truth and Reconciliation
should be established in relationship with ‘hybrid’ mechanisms such
as Wunlit with a mandate to investigate human rights violations and
to drive a national peace and reconciliation process. Unlike Wunlit,
such hybrid mechanism should be comprehensive, rather than
localized. Such mechanisms would operate under the national
mechanism, which should develop guidelines that seek to among
others, align the operations of grassroots mechanisms with human
rights and other identified ideals.

151. The Commission also recommends the establishment of a framework
for memorialization as part of the broader process of reparations.
This process should be inclusive and participatory.

On Sequencing Peace and Justice

152. The Commission’s discussion of the relationship between peace
and justice concluded that while they should be conceived as
complementary, comparative experience shows that the two notions are
often in tension, and that the context in which relevant processes
unfold is critical: while some contexts allow for reconciliation
processes and justice, particularly criminal justice measures to be
undertaken at the same time, multiple factors in other contexts
militate against such an approach. In these contexts, sequencing
offers an alternative approach that responds to the imperatives of
justice and the need to reconcile and establish stability in post
conflict societies.

153. Having considered the specific context of South Sudan, the
Commission recommends that consideration should be given to
sequencing of peace and justice, with the result that certain
aspects of justice allow for the establishment of basic conditions,
including restoring stability in South Sudan and strengthening of
relevant institutions. This should facilitate necessary reform of
the criminal justice system in order to implement some of the
Commission’s recommendations on accountability. These necessary
reforms to civilian and military justice should, in the context of
broader institutional reforms, facilitate the institution of
reconciliation measures.

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

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

Why do Norwegians use ‘texas’ to mean ‘crazy’?
| October 23, 2015 | 9:55 pm | Analysis, Local/State | Comments closed

cowboy hatImage copyright Istockphoto

Norwegians use the word “texas” as slang to mean crazy, it has emerged. But when did this start happening, and how unusual is it?

To most of the world, Texas is known as a big state in southern America.

But to Norwegians, it is also a word that frequently crops up in everyday conversation – often in the phrase “Der var helt texas!” [That was very completely/totally texas!].

The word is slang for “crazy” or “wild” and is used to refer to a chaotic atmosphere, Texas Monthly first reported.

It became part of the language when Norwegians started watching cowboy movies and reading Western literature, according to Daniel Gusfre Ims, the head of the advisory service at the Language Council of Norway.

“The genre was extremely popular in Norway, and a lot of it featured Texas, so the word became a symbol of something lawless and without control,” he says.

Its first usage dates back to 1957, when it appeared in a novel by Vegard Vigerust called The Boy who wanted to buy Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation. The author writes “he would make it even more texas in the village?”.

Nowadays, the word is widespread all over Norway. It’s frequently used in the phrase “helt texas” [completely crazy], which has appeared in Norwegian newspapers 50 times this year, he says.

CowboyImage copyright Istockphoto

It’s often used negatively, but not always. “It could be a party out of control, a class out of control, or traffic. It could also be used someone who had sold many products,” he says.

Gusfre Ims says this language phenomenon – metonymy, where a thing or concept is called not by its own name, but by another name which is associated with it – is pretty common in Norway, and language generally.

Norwegians also use the term “hawaii football” to describe an “out-of-control” match, he says. The word “klondike”, a region in Canada associated with the gold rush, is used to describe economic expansion, and also has a hint of something going out of control.

He also points to terms such as “Armageddon” and “champagne”.

“People don’t mean the place in the Bible, or the area in France,” he says.

Erin McKean, the founder of the online dictionary Wordnik, agrees that words are often adopted into language in this way.

“I’m not surprised Norwegians would use this kind of geography to convey a quality. This is how we make language – emphasing one aspect of the word, or using metaphors,” she says.

McKean says there are plenty of examples of the English language using perceived characteristics of people from other places, which is a common occurrence with neighbouring countries.

Texas road signImage copyright Getty Images
Image caption Texas, Norway?

“Dutch courage is associated with having to drink to be courageous. A Dutch treat [when people pay for their own share of an expense] isn’t exactly a treat. We talk about taking French leave, or an Irish goodbye.

“The closest thing to we probably have to ‘texas’ in America is berserk from the Norse warriors, but that’s apparently Icelandic, although disputed,” she says.

McKean says people tend to take these expressions with a pinch of salt.

“I think Americans think the Norwegian texas thing is quite funny. Texans like to think of themselves as larger than life and extreme in some way – and it’s a short hop from extreme to crazy,” she says.

Anne Ekern, of the Norwegian consulate in Houston, agrees.

“The reactions we have had, have been on the positive side,” she says.

But Gusfre Ims wants to reassure any Texans in doubt.

“What Norwegians think about Texas has nothing to do with the expression. We know Texas is not a lawless society. It’s just a fixed phrase,” he says.


Africa/Global: Climate Action Beyond Paris
| September 30, 2015 | 8:48 pm | Africa, Analysis, Climate Change, political struggle | Comments closed

Africa/Global: Climate Action Beyond Paris

AfricaFocus Bulletin
September 30, 2015 (150930)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor’s Note

“Temperatures over subtropical southern Africa have risen at more
than twice the global rate over the last five decades.” – CSIR,
South Africa. *** “To date, 436 institutions and 2,040 individuals
across 43 countries and representing $2.6 trillion in assets have
committed to divest from fossil fuel companies.” – Arabella
Advisors, USA. *** “Kenya is emerging as a hotspot for off-grid
solar power. A 2014 study by M-KOPA Solar and InterMedia shows that
14 per cent of the surveyed population use solar as their primary
lighting and charging source.” – The Nation, Kenya

For a version of this Bulletin in html format, more suitable for
printing, go to http://www.africafocus.org/docs15/clim1509.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/docs15/clim1509.php

While news media in coming months may focus primarily on the global
climate summit coming up in Paris two months from now, it is already
clear to everyone that governmental commitments to reduce carbon
emissions to be made in Paris will fall short of that needed to curb
global warming short of catastrophic results for the planet [See
http://tinyurl.com/nq3m2wt for summary and links to a report on the
“intended national determined contributions” (INDCs).]

Even more than the results in Paris, however, the race to save the
planet and to limit the damage to regions already most affected,
particularly those in Africa, will be determined by actions before
and after Paris, around the world. Shell’s decision to stop drilling
in the Arctic in response to massive public pressure is one example.
The quotes above point to a few of the other places that action
is making a difference and can make more.

This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains two short articles and one
excerpt from a longer report on different fronts of the fight for
significant action on climate change and climate justice: global
fossil-fuel divestment, Africa-based and Africa-specific research on
the rapidly mounting damage from global warming, and one example of
the accelerating growth of off-grid solar power, particularly in
East Africa (See M-KOPA website at http://solar.m-kopa.com).

Another relevant article not included here is “55GW of Solar PV Will
Be Installed Globally in 2015, Up 36% Over 2014; Solar will account
for roughly half of new electricity capacity out to 2020.”
GreenTechMedia, June 17, 2015 http://tinyurl.com/pkkkttq
Note that GreenTechMedia (http://www.greentechmedia.com/) is a
fundamental source for following global technological developments
in renewable energy.

For talking points and previous AfricaFocus Bulletins on climate
change and the environment, visit
http://www.africafocus.org/intro-env.php

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

Measuring the Growth of the Global Fossil Fuel Divestment and Clean
Energy Investment Movement

Arabella Advisors, September 2015

[Excerpts only. For full report visit
http://www.arabellaadvisors.com/ – direct URL:
http://tinyurl.com/o6ng6p5]

Executive Summary

To date, 436 institutions and 2,040 individuals across 43 countries
and representing $2.6 trillion in assets have committed to divest
from fossil fuel companies. The divestment movement has grown
exponentially since Climate Week in September 2014, when Arabella
Advisors last reported that 181 institutions and 656 individuals
representing over $50 billion in assets had committed to divest. At
that time, divestment advocates pledged to triple these numbers by
the December 2015 Paris UN climate negotiations. Three months before
the negotiations, we have already witnessed a fifty-fold increase in
the total combined assets of those committed to divest from fossil
fuels.

* Pledges have spread to sectors not traditionally associated with
divestment, including pension funds and private companies. In 2014,
foundations, universities, faith-based organizations, NGOs, and
other mission-driven organizations led the movement. Today, large
pension funds and private-sector actors such as insurance companies
hold over 95 percent of the total combined assets of those committed
to divest.

* While historically based in the United States, the divestment
movement now spans the globe. In 2014, 78 percent of divesting
institutions were US-based. Today, 57 percent are US-based.
Institutions that have chosen to divest represent more than 646
million individuals around the world.

* Climate risk to investment portfolios is helping drive the
exponential growth of divestment. Reports by Citigroup analysts,
HSBC, Mercer, the International Energy Agency, Bank of England,
Carbon Tracker Initiative, and others have offered evidence of a
significant, quantifiable risk to portfolios exposed to fossil fuel
assets in a carbon constrained world. The leaders of several of the
largest institutions to divest in the past year have cited climate
risk to investment portfolios as a key factor in their decision.

* Thanks to increasing commitments to invest and a proliferation of
fossil free products, more capital is flowing toward climate
solutions. Globally, investment in clean energy reached $310 billion
in 2014. Among those pledging to divest, many are also committing to
invest in climate solutions: those institutions and individuals that
have pledged to both divest and invest in clean energy collectively
hold $785 billion in assets. Other Key Areas of Growth:

* The faith community is making a strong case for the moral
responsibility to act on climate and to provide clean energy access
to the world’s poor, bolstering the divestment movement. Faith
leaders of diverse religions and creeds are demanding our world’s
leaders take meaningful action to curb climate change at the UN
climate negotiations in Paris in December. Many are also divesting
their own assets of fossil fuels: 126 faith-based organizations with
a collective $24 billion in assets have committed to divest.

* University commitments have nearly tripled in the past year, as 40
educational institutions with $130 billion in assets have pledged to
divest. A number of prominent universities have committed in the
last year, including the University of California, Georgetown, and
Oxford. The University of California is the largest higher education
commitment to date, with a $98 billion portfolio.

* Divestment by state and local governments worldwide is also
growing: The California General Assembly voted this month to divest
its $476 billion public employee pension funds from companies that
get at least half of their revenue from coal mining. Providence,
Rhode Island became one of the largest cities to commit to divesting
all its funds from top coal companies. In Australia, the city of
Newcastle— home to the largest coal port in the world—voted to
divest, as did the government of the Australian Capital Territory.

* Foundation pledges have grown rapidly since September 2014, as 116
foundations with over $10 billion in assets have committed to divest
from fossil fuels.

The surge in the divestment and investment movement comes at a
critical moment, as the world’s leaders converge on Paris in
December 2015 to negotiate an agreement to curb catastrophic
warming. The growth of divestment is adding to mounting pressure
globally for governments to make meaningful commitments to
transition to a clean energy economy. Divesting and investing in
clean energy has offered millions of individuals across the world an
opportunity to take direct action on climate. A large and mobilized
constituency is now demanding political and financial action on
climate, and this pressure will likely continue to build
irrespective of the outcome of the negotiations in Paris.

A History of the Divestment Movement

The fossil fuel divestment movement was born when climate advocates
decided to directly challenge the fossil fuel industry. Inspired by
the moral arguments of the historical anti-war and anti-apartheid
divestment campaigns, a group of students launched a coordinated
series of divestment efforts on half a dozen college campuses in
2011, calling on their administrations to divest endowments from
coal and other fossil fuels and invest in clean energy and “just
transition” strategies to empower those most impacted by
environmental degradation and climate change. By spring 2012, the
campaign had spread to an estimated 50 campuses. Since then,
students, alumni, and professors have launched sit-ins, rallies, and
occupations of administration offices on campuses around the world.

The movement gained steam as the moral arguments of the student
divestment campaigns converged with an increasing recognition of
financial risks associated with investment in fossil fuels. In the
summer of 2012, author and longtime climate activist Bill McKibben
published “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math” in Rolling Stone,
forging a link between fossil fuel divestment and the need to keep
global warming under two degrees Celsius (2° C). Drawing on the
groundbreaking analysis “Unburnable Carbon” by the London-based
Carbon Tracker Initiative, he argued that a broad-based global
movement should directly confront the fossil fuel industry because
its viability is rooted in existing carbon reserves that cannot be
burned without severe consequences for the climate. McKibben,
350.org, and other leading climate organizers threw their support
behind the student divestment campaigns, launching a global
divestment effort.

The movement quickly grew beyond universities as new sectors
responded to the call to act. A diverse group of faith
congregations, environmental NGOs, municipalities, and health care
organizations signed on as early adopters of divestment. Led by the
Wallace Global Fund, 17 foundations—controlling $1.8 billion in
assets—launched “Divest-Invest Philanthropy” in response to the
movement’s charge that foundations should not hold assets in a
fossil fuel industry that worked in direct opposition to their
stated missions. Ten cities, led by Seattle, announced they would
also divest from fossil fuels. “Cities that do so will be leaders in
creating a new model for quality of life, environmental
sustainability, and economic success,” argued Seattle Mayor Mike
McGinn.

As the broader climate movement reached a crossroads in the fall of
2014, the divestment campaign won global recognition as a critical
component of climate action. In September 2014, the world’s leading
climate advocates converged on New York City for Climate Week, which
included the “People’s Climate March,” an unprecedented event that
saw 400,000 people take to the streets to demand that the world’s
leaders act on climate. The week of action coincided with the United
Nation’s Climate Summit, which sought to catalyze meaningful climate
action in advance of formal international negotiations to reach a
global climate treaty in 2015. During Climate Week, divestment
advocates announced that, as of September 2014, 181 institutions and
local governments and 656 individuals representing over $50 billion
in assets had pledged to divest from fossil fuels. A report by
Arabella Advisors (http://www. arabellaadvisors.com/) found that, in
just three years, the divestment campaign had mobilized billions of
dollars in capital and engaged a broad segment of society in its
efforts to accelerate the transition to a clean-energy economy.

The movement’s growth was heralded by world leaders and covered
widely in the global media. Prominently featured was a notable
commitment by the heirs of Standard Oil founder John D. Rockefeller
to divest the Rockefeller Brothers Fund endowment. The divestment
and investment movement was recognized in the UN’s formal climate
summit proceedings as one of many important actions to catalyze the
transition to a clean energy economy. At the same time, Archbishop
Desmond Tutu issued a stark call to action on climate, calling for
“an end to the fossil fuel era” and an “apartheid- style boycott to
save the planet.” In a press conference announcing that the
divestment movement had exceeded $50 billion in total assets of
those committing, leading advocates set the bar even higher for
2015, pledging to triple the total assets by the 2015 Paris UN
climate negotiations. Since then, the total combined assets of those
committing to divest has increased, fifty-fold, expanding in scope
and scale in ways no one fully anticipated.

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

CSIR projects drastic temperature increase over Africa

11 September 2015

CSIR climate modellers believe that 2015 is on its way to be the
warmest year ever recorded. This is partially due to climate-change,
and partially due to a massive El Nino event currently developing in
the Pacific Ocean. Temperatures over subtropical southern Africa
have risen at more than twice the global rate over the last five
decades.

Moreover, further warming of between 4 – 6 degrees C over the
subtropics and 3 – 5 degrees C over the tropics are projected by the
end of the century under low mitigation, relative to the present-day
climate. This was revealed in a CSIR study using a regional climate
model integrated on a powerful computer-cluster at its Centre for
High Performance Computing (CHPC), to obtain detailed projections of
future climate change over Africa.

This study comes ahead of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC)’s 21st Conference of the Parties (CoP 21),
due to take place in Paris, France in November 2015. This meeting
aims to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on
climate, with the aim of keeping global warming below 2 degrees C.

“If the negotiations fail to ensure a high-mitigation future, we are
likely to see rapidly rising surface temperature across the
continent,” says Dr Francois Engelbrecht, CSIR Principal Researcher
and leader of the study entitled, “Projections of rapidly rising
surface temperatures over Africa under low mitigation.”

Africa is particularly vulnerable to excessive temperature increases
due to the continent’s dependence on subsistence farming and rain-
fed agriculture. “For many regions, the impact of temperature
increases on the agricultural and biodiversity sectors may be
significant, stemming from temperature-related extreme events such
as heat-waves, wild fires and agricultural drought,” explains Dr
Engelbrecht.

Heatwaves are rare events over Africa under present day conditions.
The highest number of heat wave days occurs over the Limpopo river
basin region in southern Africa, the eastern interior and east coast
regions of South Africa and the Mediterranean coast of North Africa.
Drastic increased occurrences of heat wave days may be expected
across the continent under climate change, contributing to decreased
maize crop yield through the exceedance of critical temperature
thresholds increases in livestock mortality and adverse impacts on
human health. If a heat wave occurs during a drought, which dries
out vegetation, it can contribute to bushfires and wildfires.
Wildfires cause large financial losses to agriculture, livestock
production and forestry in Africa on an annual basis.

“Globally, Africa is the single largest source of biomass burning
emissions,” says Engelbrecht. “It is very important to understand
the impacts of increasing occurrences of fires on the African
savannas, as well as potential feedbacks to the regional and global
climate system”. Moreover, Engelbrecht and his co-authors point out
in the paper that general reductions in soil-moisture are plausible
to occur across the continent, as a result of enhanced evaporation
that occurs in response to increasing surface temperatures. “In the
subtropics, this effectively implies a longer burning season and a
shorter growing season”, says Engelbrecht.

Considering the fact that African temperatures in the subtropics are
projected to rise at 1.5 times the global rate of temperature
increase (an estimate that may be conservative) and the aim of the
upcoming UNFCCC negations seeking to keep global warming below 2
degrees C compared to pre-industrial temperatures – the Long Term
Global Goal (LTGG), Engelbrecht is of the opinion that the trends
and projections of rapidly rising African temperatures should be a
key consideration at the UNFCCC negotiations. “The relatively high
rate of temperature increases over Africa should be considered when
deciding on the suitability of the LTGG of the UNFCCC in terms of
climate-change impacts in Africa” Under low mitigation, the world is
likely to experience an increase in global average surface
temperature of 3 degrees C or more, and the relatively strong
temperature signal over Africa is of particular concern within this
context.”

The full paper, which has been published in Environmental Research
Letters, is available here: http://tinyurl.com/qxlzq59

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

“M-KOPA Solar connects 250,000 homes to power in East Africa”

Daily Nation, September 23, 2015

http://www.nation.co.ke – direct URL: http://tinyurl.com/oyof6hz

In Summary

M-KOPA is one of the fastest growing power providers in the region,
connecting solar to over 500 new homes each day.

Each M-KOPA Solar home is calculated to save $750, compared to using
kerosene over a four-year period.

The battery-powered 8W home system has three lights, a phone-
charging facility and a chargeable radio.

By Edwin Okoth

A local ‘pay-as-you-go’ off grid energy provider has announced
connecting 250,000 homes across Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania to a
solar power system.

M-Kopa Solar which provides payment plan for supply of a solar
lighting system, a radio and phone charging apparatus said the
achievement was in line with its target to connect one million
customers by 2018 to its solar power systems.

The firm’s Managing Director and Co-Founder Jesse Moore said the
growth in connected customers was satisfactory as the region renewed
focus on renewable energy.

“Last September we celebrated 100,000 customers, and a year later we
are already at a quarter-million. With hundreds of great customers
coming on board every day, we are helping East Africa leapfrog over
the grid to enjoy cheaper, cleaner, and more reliable solar power,”
Mr Moore said.

Off-Grid Solar Power

Kenya is emerging as a hotspot for off-grid solar power.

A 2014 study by M-KOPA Solar and InterMedia shows that 14 per cent
of the surveyed population use solar as their primary lighting and
charging source.

M-KOPA is one of the fastest growing power providers in the region,
connecting solar to over 500 new homes each day.

The battery-powered 8W home system has three lights, a phone-
charging facility and a chargeable radio.

The savings generated by using off grid solar over kerosene are said
to be substantial for individual households and the broader East
African economy.

Alex Nduati, an Athi river resident became the plan’s 250,000th
customer when he purchased an M-KOPA III solar home system.

“I am so excited to take home a solar system that will give me much
more value than kerosene, and with M-KOPA’s daily payment plan it is
affordable for me. I purchased this system for my rural home where
there is no access to electricity,” Mr Nduati said.

Each M-KOPA Solar home is calculated to save $750, compared to using
kerosene over a four-year period.

This means that the combined projected savings by the 250,000
households using M-KOPA Solar is $187 Million.

The Nairobi-headquartered, M-KOPA Solar now has a network of over
1,500 direct sales agents and 100 customer service centres across
Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania.

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

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

The evidence keeps pouring in: Capitalism just isn’t working
| August 25, 2015 | 12:40 pm | Analysis, Economy, political struggle | Comments closed

The Evidence Keeps Pouring In: Capitalism Just Isn’t Working
Published on
Monday, August 24, 2015
by Common Dreams

Paul Buchheit
62 Comments

(Photo: Jonny White/cc/flickr)

To followers of Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan, and to all the business
people who despise government, ‘community’ is a form of ‘communism.’
Even taking the train is too communal for them. Americans have been
led to believe that only individuals matter, that every person should
fend for him/herself, that “winner-take-all” is the ultimate goal,
and that the winners have no responsibility to others.

To the capitalist, everything is a potential market. Education,
health care, even the right to water. But with every market failure
it becomes more clear that basic human rights can’t be bought and
sold like cars and cell phones. The pursuit of profit, when essential
needs are part of the product, means that not everyone will be able
to pay the price. Some will be denied those essential needs.

Common Dreams needs you today!

Global Failures

Capitalism hasn’t been able to control runaway global inequality. For
every $1.00 owned by the world’s richest 1% in 2011, they now own
$1.27. They own almost half the world’s wealth. Just 70 of them own
as much as 3.5 billion people.

Capitalism has not been able — or willing — to control the “race to
the bottom” caused by “free trade,” as mid-level jobs continue to be
transferred to low-wage countries.

Nor has capitalism been able to control global environmental
degradation, with trillions in subsidies going to polluters that
don’t even pay their taxes, and with corporations ignoring any
semblance of social responsibility as they seek ways to profit from
global warming.

Job Creation Failures I

With or without globalization, middle-class jobs are disappearing,
even higher-end positions in financial analysis, medical diagnosis,
legal assistance, and journalism. Artificial intelligence is making
this happen. Millions of Americans have had a role in the great
American productivity behind this technological takeover, but
capitalism allows only an elite few of us to reap the disproportional
profits.

Reports of job recovery are based on low-income jobs, many of them
part-time. Layoffs are cutting into the military and technology.
Gallup discounted Wall Street’s job-creating ability. As noted by
former Wall Street Journal Associate Editor Paul Craig Roberts, the
US rate of unemployment is 23 percent when long-term discouraged
job-seekers are included. That’s close to the unemployment rate of
the Great Depression.

Job Creation Failures II

Closely related to employment woes is the collapse of corporate
investment in new product R&D, from 40 cents per dollar in the 1970s
to 10 cents now. CEOs are choosing instead to spend almost all of
their profits on buybacks and dividends to enrich investors.

Health Care Failures

The capitalist profit motive allows the cost of a hepatitis pill that
costs $10 in Egypt to sell for $1,000 in the United States, and the
cost of a blood test to range from $10 to $10,000 in two California
hospitals (a 100,000% markup at the second hospital).

Patent abuse is one of the factors making this possible.
Pharmaceutical companies can tweak a drug with a minor change to
create a “brand new” drug with a new patent.

Another health-related scam that affects most of us is bottled water.
According to Food & Water Watch, about half of it is filtered tap
water with fancy names, as evidenced in one case by an actual “tap
water” label on a company’s product. Yet with the demise of community
water fountains, and the barrage of advertising for “safe and pure”
drinking water, unsuspecting Americans pay dearly: for the price we
pay for a bottle of water we would be able to fill up that bottle a
thousand times with tap water.

Housing Failures

Because of the “invisible hand” of the free market, in just 35 years
the investment wealth of the super-rich has gone from 15% of
middle-class housing to almost 200% of middle-class housing.

Education Failures

A remarkable story of privatization failure is told in the story of
charter schools in Florida, where Jeb Bush still holds dear to his
delusions of free-market educational success.

That’s just one example. In general, charters are riddled with fraud
and identified with a lack of transparency that leads to even more
fraud. Since 2001 nearly 2,500 charter schools have been forced to
close their doors, leaving over a quarter-million schoolchildren
between one bad business decision and the next. A report from PR
Watch summarizes the billions of dollars spent on charters without
accountability to the public.

Disposable Americans

Chris Hedges wrote: “Human life is of no concern to corporate
capitalists. The suffering of the Greeks, like the suffering of
ordinary Americans, is very good for the profit margins of financial
institutions such as Goldman Sachs.”

People become meaningless in a successful capitalist system.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share
Alike 3.0 License

Paul Buchheit is a college teacher, an active member of US Uncut
Chicago, founder and developer of social justice and educational
websites (UsAgainstGreed.org, PayUpNow.org, RappingHistory.org), and
the editor and main author of “American Wars: Illusions and
Realities” (Clarity Press). He can be reached at
paul@UsAgainstGreed.org.

What is fascism?
| June 28, 2015 | 7:59 pm | Analysis, political struggle | Comments closed
What is fascism?
Repost
http://houstoncommunistparty.com/what-is-fascism/
Originally posted in 2010.
By James Thompson

There have been many attempts to define fascism in an effort to understand it. Some maintain that fascism is the capitalists’ last option. Others ask, “What is fascism but the death throes of capitalism?”

Fascism has also been described as “the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital.” According to Georgi Dmitrov in a collection of his reports in 1935 and 1936 Against Fascism and War, fascism is “the power of finance capital itself. It is the organization of terrorist vengeance against the working class and the revolutionary section of the peasantry and intelligentsia. In foreign policy, fascism is jingoism in its most brutal form, fomenting bestial hatred of other nations.”

He points out that German fascism, i.e. Nazism or National Socialism, has been the most reactionary form of fascism. He explains, “It has the effrontery to call itself National Socialism, though it has nothing in common with socialism. German fascism is not only bourgeois nationalism, it is fiendish chauvinism. It is a government system of political gangsterism, a system of provocation and torture practiced upon the working class and the revolutionary elements of the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia. It is medieval barbarity and bestiality, it is unbridled aggression in relation to other nations.”

Fascism has manifested itself in many other nations, including most notably, Italy, where Mussolini declared that fascism should be more appropriately called “corporatism” since it represents the merger of the state and corporations. It also appeared in Spain under Franco and other countries. It is important to remember that fascism can be thought of as a logical extension of capitalism. It is one of the forms of rule that can take place under capitalism. It is not an economic system in and of itself. Fascism is a form of government intended to protect the interests of the capitalists through violence and oppression.

The capitalist press has been very effective in blurring the distinction between fascism and communism. Many people in the U.S.A. equate and confuse the terms. The main difference is that fascism is a form of government which safeguards and promotes the interests of the capitalists, whereas communism safeguards and promotes the interests of working people. Fascism is anti-democratic and only allows the political will of the capitalists to be expressed, whereas communism is pro-democratic and only allows the political will of the working people to be expressed.

There has been discussion among leftists in the U.S.A. as to whether the Bush administration was a fascist government. Many maintain that the policies of Bush and his cronies were fascist in nature. Others argue that the policies were different from those seen in fascist countries between the two World Wars. Norman Markowitz in his article “On Guard Against Fascism” published in Political Affairs (May, 2004) states “The domestic policy of fascism was to destroy the independent labor movement, all socialist and communist parties and all democratic movements of the people. The foreign policy of fascism was to completely militarize the society and organize the people to fight imperialist wars and accept and glorify such wars on nationalist and racist grounds. As both ideology and policy, fascism was the rabid response of a decaying capitalism threatened by the workers’ movement at home and anti-colonial movements abroad. The forms that fascism takes can change and be updated, but these are its essential characteristics.”

Gerald Horne, in his article “Threat Needs Study” in Political Affairs (July, 2004), calls for more study of the fascist movement in this country. He points out that there are organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center which track the activities of the extreme right. He also notes that the Center for Responsive Politics tracks political donations. He suggests that donations from certain sectors of finance capital could be tracked to political candidates and organizations.

Horne points out that many scholars maintain that fascism has historically developed as a reaction to the development of strong progressive movements which support the interests of working people. He goes on to note that some academics don’t think a fascist movement is likely to develop in the U.S.A., because there is no strong progressive movement currently. Whether there is a viable progressive movement in the U.S.A. is debatable, especially considering the mass movements which have been so conspicuous in 2006. As the right wing has mounted its assault on working people, the positive achievements of the twentieth century in civil rights, education, social security and health care become more apparent. One can conceptualize the recent actions of the right wing as a reaction to the gains of the progressive movement.

From a dialectical materialist point of view, we can see that the development of capitalist, fascist, socialist and communist movements are developments in the struggle between the owners of the means of production and the workers. As Marx pointed out, “All human history hitherto is the history of the class struggle.” The interests of fascism and communism are just as opposed and irreconcilable as the interests of working people and capitalists. As capitalism weakens, its options narrow and it is more likely that it will desperately grasp for fascist methods to sustain itself. Much as a wounded animal is more likely to bite, capitalism in its final stages is more likely to use direct violence against working people. However, just as the animal ensures its own destruction through violence, so it will go for capitalism.

It is noteworthy that there are similarities between the tactics employed by Bush and fascist movements in the past. Don Sloan, in his article “The ‘F’ Word” in Political Affairs (May, 2004) does a good job of comparing fascist tactics and those of the Bush administration. Sloan warns “It can’t happen here? It can happen here? It is happening here.”

It is easy to use the label “fascism or fascist” when trying to discredit our opponents. We, the people of conscience on the left, should be careful however when we apply labels. Applying labels tends to de-humanize people and is a tactic used in military training. Soldiers are taught to think of their “enemies” as subhuman thus making it easier to kill them. We must remember that a number of people apply labels to us. Do we really want to respond to mudslinging by mudslinging ourselves? People on the left use “fascist” far too easily these days to label people promoting policies they don’t like. It would be more useful and productive to attack the policies we do not like and explain that the reason we do not like them is that they are harmful to working people. Throwing around labels and failing to use a class analysis is counterproductive at best. Such tactics may actually hurt the credibility of progressive movements who engage in such behavior.

We do not like the “fascist like” tactics employed by our government, but it is important to remember that unlike Nazi Germany, we still have trade unions, opposition political parties such as the CPUSA, and a progressive press to include the People’s World and others. Writers such as Michael Parenti and publishing companies such as International Publishers are still publishing articles and books. We have not had book burnings and university professors are not clubbed and imprisoned. No Communist in the U.S.A. has been put in a concentration camp by the Bush or Obama administrations.

Nevertheless, it will be important for people on the left to keep identifying clearly those tactics and developments that are not in the interest of the working class and mount united struggles against each and every one of them. This is already happening in the case of the War in Iraq, immigration policy, and the struggle to save social security. These struggles will move our country forward and will help build a strong progressive movement that can bring about positive social change. We cannot forget and must not abandon the gains made in the last century. Indeed, it is time to start making new gains for this century.

Bibliography

Georgi Dmitrov, Against War and Fascism, (International Publishers, New York, 1986).

Gerald Horne, “Threat Needs Study,” Political Affairs, (July, 2004).

Norman Markowitz, “On Guard Against Fascism,” Political Affairs, (May, 2004)

Don Sloan, “The ‘F’ Word,” Political Affairs, (May, 2004).

War is a racket
| April 4, 2015 | 8:24 pm | Analysis, Imperialism, political struggle, Veterans issues | Comments closed
War Is A Racket
By Major General Smedley Butler
Contents
Chapter 1: War Is A Racket   
Chapter 2: Who Makes The Profits?   
Chapter 3: Who Pays The Bills?   
Chapter 4: How To Smash This Racket!   
Chapter 5: To Hell With War! 

Smedley Darlington Butler

  • Born: West Chester, Pa., July 30, 1881
  • Educated: Haverford School
  • Married: Ethel C. Peters, of Philadelphia, June 30, 1905
  • Awarded two congressional medals of honor:
    1. capture of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 1914
    2. capture of Ft. Riviere, Haiti, 1917
  • Distinguished service medal, 1919
  • Major General – United States Marine Corps
  • Retired Oct. 1, 1931
  • On leave of absence to act as director of Dept. of Safety, Philadelphia, 1932
  • Lecturer — 1930’s
  • Republican Candidate for Senate, 1932
  • Died at Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, June 21, 1940
  • For more information about Major General Butler, contact the United States Marine Corps.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

CHAPTER ONE

War Is A Racket

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few — the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep’s eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor.

The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other’s throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people — not those who fight and pay and die — only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.

There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.

Hell’s bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?

Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in “International Conciliation,” the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:

“And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. . . . War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it.”

Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war — anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter’s dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.

Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.

Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the “open door” policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.

Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war — a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.

Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit — fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.

Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn’t they? It pays high dividends.

But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?

What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?

Yes, and what does it profit the nation?

Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn’t own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became “internationally minded.” We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington’s warning about “entangling alliances.” We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.

It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people — who do not profit.

CHAPTER TWO

Who Makes The Profits?

The World War, rather our brief participation in it, has cost the United States some $52,000,000,000. Figure it out. That means $400 to every American man, woman, and child. And we haven’t paid the debt yet. We are paying it, our children will pay it, and our children’s children probably still will be paying the cost of that war.

The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits — ah! that is another matter — twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent — the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let’s get it.

Of course, it isn’t put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and “we must all put our shoulders to the wheel,” but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket — and are safely pocketed. Let’s just take a few examples:

Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people — didn’t one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn’t much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let’s look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.

Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump — or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!

Or, let’s take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad.

There you have some of the steel and powder earnings. Let’s look at something else. A little copper, perhaps. That always does well in war times.

Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000. During the war years 1914-1918 profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year.

Or Utah Copper. Average of $5,000,000 per year during the 1910-1914 period. Jumped to an average of $21,000,000 yearly profits for the war period.

Let’s group these five, with three smaller companies. The total yearly average profits of the pre-war period 1910-1914 were $137,480,000. Then along came the war. The average yearly profits for this group skyrocketed to $408,300,000.

A little increase in profits of approximately 200 per cent.

Does war pay? It paid them. But they aren’t the only ones. There are still others. Let’s take leather.

For the three-year period before the war the total profits of Central Leather Company were $3,500,000. That was approximately $1,167,000 a year. Well, in 1916 Central Leather returned a profit of $15,000,000, a small increase of 1,100 per cent. That’s all. The General Chemical Company averaged a profit for the three years before the war of a little over $800,000 a year. Came the war, and the profits jumped to $12,000,000. a leap of 1,400 per cent.

International Nickel Company — and you can’t have a war without nickel — showed an increase in profits from a mere average of $4,000,000 a year to $73,000,000 yearly. Not bad? An increase of more than 1,700 per cent.

American Sugar Refining Company averaged $2,000,000 a year for the three years before the war. In 1916 a profit of $6,000,000 was recorded.

Listen to Senate Document No. 259. The Sixty-Fifth Congress, reporting on corporate earnings and government revenues. Considering the profits of 122 meat packers, 153 cotton manufacturers, 299 garment makers, 49 steel plants, and 340 coal producers during the war. Profits under 25 per cent were exceptional. For instance the coal companies made between 100 per cent and 7,856 per cent on their capital stock during the war. The Chicago packers doubled and tripled their earnings.

And let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers. Being partnerships rather than incorporated organizations, they do not have to report to stockholders. And their profits were as secret as they were immense. How the bankers made their millions and their billions I do not know, because those little secrets never become public — even before a Senate investigatory body.

But here’s how some of the other patriotic industrialists and speculators chiseled their way into war profits.

Take the shoe people. They like war. It brings business with abnormal profits. They made huge profits on sales abroad to our allies. Perhaps, like the munitions manufacturers and armament makers, they also sold to the enemy. For a dollar is a dollar whether it comes from Germany or from France. But they did well by Uncle Sam too. For instance, they sold Uncle Sam 35,000,000 pairs of hobnailed service shoes. There were 4,000,000 soldiers. Eight pairs, and more, to a soldier. My regiment during the war had only one pair to a soldier. Some of these shoes probably are still in existence. They were good shoes. But when the war was over Uncle Sam has a matter of 25,000,000 pairs left over. Bought — and paid for. Profits recorded and pocketed.

There was still lots of leather left. So the leather people sold your Uncle Sam hundreds of thousands of McClellan saddles for the cavalry. But there wasn’t any American cavalry overseas! Somebody had to get rid of this leather, however. Somebody had to make a profit in it — so we had a lot of McClellan saddles. And we probably have those yet.

Also somebody had a lot of mosquito netting. They sold your Uncle Sam 20,000,000 mosquito nets for the use of the soldiers overseas. I suppose the boys were expected to put it over them as they tried to sleep in muddy trenches — one hand scratching cooties on their backs and the other making passes at scurrying rats. Well, not one of these mosquito nets ever got to France!

Anyhow, these thoughtful manufacturers wanted to make sure that no soldier would be without his mosquito net, so 40,000,000 additional yards of mosquito netting were sold to Uncle Sam.

There were pretty good profits in mosquito netting in those days, even if there were no mosquitoes in France. I suppose, if the war had lasted just a little longer, the enterprising mosquito netting manufacturers would have sold your Uncle Sam a couple of consignments of mosquitoes to plant in France so that more mosquito netting would be in order.

Airplane and engine manufacturers felt they, too, should get their just profits out of this war. Why not? Everybody else was getting theirs. So $1,000,000,000 — count them if you live long enough — was spent by Uncle Sam in building airplane engines that never left the ground! Not one plane, or motor, out of the billion dollars worth ordered, ever got into a battle in France. Just the same the manufacturers made their little profit of 30, 100, or perhaps 300 per cent.

Undershirts for soldiers cost 14¢ [cents] to make and uncle Sam paid 30¢ to 40¢ each for them — a nice little profit for the undershirt manufacturer. And the stocking manufacturer and the uniform manufacturers and the cap manufacturers and the steel helmet manufacturers — all got theirs.

Why, when the war was over some 4,000,000 sets of equipment — knapsacks and the things that go to fill them — crammed warehouses on this side. Now they are being scrapped because the regulations have changed the contents. But the manufacturers collected their wartime profits on them — and they will do it all over again the next time.

There were lots of brilliant ideas for profit making during the war.

One very versatile patriot sold Uncle Sam twelve dozen 48-inch wrenches. Oh, they were very nice wrenches. The only trouble was that there was only one nut ever made that was large enough for these wrenches. That is the one that holds the turbines at Niagara Falls. Well, after Uncle Sam had bought them and the manufacturer had pocketed the profit, the wrenches were put on freight cars and shunted all around the United States in an effort to find a use for them. When the Armistice was signed it was indeed a sad blow to the wrench manufacturer. He was just about to make some nuts to fit the wrenches. Then he planned to sell these, too, to your Uncle Sam.

Still another had the brilliant idea that colonels shouldn’t ride in automobiles, nor should they even ride on horseback. One has probably seen a picture of Andy Jackson riding in a buckboard. Well, some 6,000 buckboards were sold to Uncle Sam for the use of colonels! Not one of them was used. But the buckboard manufacturer got his war profit.

The shipbuilders felt they should come in on some of it, too. They built a lot of ships that made a lot of profit. More than $3,000,000,000 worth. Some of the ships were all right. But $635,000,000 worth of them were made of wood and wouldn’t float! The seams opened up — and they sank. We paid for them, though. And somebody pocketed the profits.

It has been estimated by statisticians and economists and researchers that the war cost your Uncle Sam $52,000,000,000. Of this sum, $39,000,000,000 was expended in the actual war itself. This expenditure yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits. That is how the 21,000 billionaires and millionaires got that way. This $16,000,000,000 profits is not to be sneezed at. It is quite a tidy sum. And it went to a very few.

The Senate (Nye) committee probe of the munitions industry and its wartime profits, despite its sensational disclosures, hardly has scratched the surface.

Even so, it has had some effect. The State Department has been studying “for some time” methods of keeping out of war. The War Department suddenly decides it has a wonderful plan to spring. The Administration names a committee — with the War and Navy Departments ably represented under the chairmanship of a Wall Street speculator — to limit profits in war time. To what extent isn’t suggested. Hmmm. Possibly the profits of 300 and 600 and 1,600 per cent of those who turned blood into gold in the World War would be limited to some smaller figure.

Apparently, however, the plan does not call for any limitation of losses — that is, the losses of those who fight the war. As far as I have been able to ascertain there is nothing in the scheme to limit a soldier to the loss of but one eye, or one arm, or to limit his wounds to one or two or three. Or to limit the loss of life.

There is nothing in this scheme, apparently, that says not more than 12 per cent of a regiment shall be wounded in battle, or that not more than 7 per cent in a division shall be killed.

Of course, the committee cannot be bothered with such trifling matters.

CHAPTER THREE

Who Pays The Bills?

Who provides the profits — these nice little profits of 20, 100, 300, 1,500 and 1,800 per cent? We all pay them — in taxation. We paid the bankers their profits when we bought Liberty Bonds at $100.00 and sold them back at $84 or $86 to the bankers. These bankers collected $100 plus. It was a simple manipulation. The bankers control the security marts. It was easy for them to depress the price of these bonds. Then all of us — the people — got frightened and sold the bonds at $84 or $86. The bankers bought them. Then these same bankers stimulated a boom and government bonds went to par — and above. Then the bankers collected their profits.

But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.

If you don’t believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran’s hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men — men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home.

Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to “about face”; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.

Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another “about face” ! This time they had to do their own readjustment, sans [without] mass psychology, sans officers’ aid and advice and sans nation-wide propaganda. We didn’t need them any more. So we scattered them about without any “three-minute” or “Liberty Loan” speeches or parades. Many, too many, of these fine young boys are eventually destroyed, mentally, because they could not make that final “about face” alone.

In the government hospital in Marion, Indiana, 1,800 of these boys are in pens! Five hundred of them in a barracks with steel bars and wires all around outside the buildings and on the porches. These already have been mentally destroyed. These boys don’t even look like human beings. Oh, the looks on their faces! Physically, they are in good shape; mentally, they are gone.

There are thousands and thousands of these cases, and more and more are coming in all the time. The tremendous excitement of the war, the sudden cutting off of that excitement — the young boys couldn’t stand it.

That’s a part of the bill. So much for the dead — they have paid their part of the war profits. So much for the mentally and physically wounded — they are paying now their share of the war profits. But the others paid, too — they paid with heartbreaks when they tore themselves away from their firesides and their families to don the uniform of Uncle Sam — on which a profit had been made. They paid another part in the training camps where they were regimented and drilled while others took their jobs and their places in the lives of their communities. The paid for it in the trenches where they shot and were shot; where they were hungry for days at a time; where they slept in the mud and the cold and in the rain — with the moans and shrieks of the dying for a horrible lullaby.

But don’t forget — the soldier paid part of the dollars and cents bill too.

Up to and including the Spanish-American War, we had a prize system, and soldiers and sailors fought for money. During the Civil War they were paid bonuses, in many instances, before they went into service. The government, or states, paid as high as $1,200 for an enlistment. In the Spanish-American War they gave prize money. When we captured any vessels, the soldiers all got their share — at least, they were supposed to. Then it was found that we could reduce the cost of wars by taking all the prize money and keeping it, but conscripting [drafting] the soldier anyway. Then soldiers couldn’t bargain for their labor, Everyone else could bargain, but the soldier couldn’t.

Napoleon once said,

“All men are enamored of decorations . . . they positively hunger for them.”

So by developing the Napoleonic system — the medal business — the government learned it could get soldiers for less money, because the boys liked to be decorated. Until the Civil War there were no medals. Then the Congressional Medal of Honor was handed out. It made enlistments easier. After the Civil War no new medals were issued until the Spanish-American War.

In the World War, we used propaganda to make the boys accept conscription. They were made to feel ashamed if they didn’t join the army.

So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to kill, kill, kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our side . . . it is His will that the Germans be killed.

And in Germany, the good pastors called upon the Germans to kill the allies . . . to please the same God. That was a part of the general propaganda, built up to make people war conscious and murder conscious.

Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the “war to end all wars.” This was the “war to make the world safe for democracy.” No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a “glorious adventure.”

Thus, having stuffed patriotism down their throats, it was decided to make them help pay for the war, too. So, we gave them the large salary of $30 a month.

All they had to do for this munificent sum was to leave their dear ones behind, give up their jobs, lie in swampy trenches, eat canned willy (when they could get it) and kill and kill and kill . . . and be killed.

But wait!

Half of that wage (just a little more than a riveter in a shipyard or a laborer in a munitions factory safe at home made in a day) was promptly taken from him to support his dependents, so that they would not become a charge upon his community. Then we made him pay what amounted to accident insurance — something the employer pays for in an enlightened state — and that cost him $6 a month. He had less than $9 a month left.

Then, the most crowning insolence of all — he was virtually blackjacked into paying for his own ammunition, clothing, and food by being made to buy Liberty Bonds. Most soldiers got no money at all on pay days.

We made them buy Liberty Bonds at $100 and then we bought them back — when they came back from the war and couldn’t find work — at $84 and $86. And the soldiers bought about $2,000,000,000 worth of these bonds!

Yes, the soldier pays the greater part of the bill. His family pays too. They pay it in the same heart-break that he does. As he suffers, they suffer. At nights, as he lay in the trenches and watched shrapnel burst about him, they lay home in their beds and tossed sleeplessly — his father, his mother, his wife, his sisters, his brothers, his sons, and his daughters.

When he returned home minus an eye, or minus a leg or with his mind broken, they suffered too — as much as and even sometimes more than he. Yes, and they, too, contributed their dollars to the profits of the munitions makers and bankers and shipbuilders and the manufacturers and the speculators made. They, too, bought Liberty Bonds and contributed to the profit of the bankers after the Armistice in the hocus-pocus of manipulated Liberty Bond prices.

And even now the families of the wounded men and of the mentally broken and those who never were able to readjust themselves are still suffering and still paying.

CHAPTER FOUR

How To Smash This Racket!

WELL, it’s a racket, all right.

A few profit — and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can’t end it by disarmament conferences. You can’t eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can’t wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.

The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation — it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted — to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

Let the workers in these plants get the same wages — all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers — yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders — everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!

Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.

Why shouldn’t they?

They aren’t running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren’t sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren’t hungry. The soldiers are!

Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket — that and nothing else.

Maybe I am a little too optimistic. Capital still has some say. So capital won’t permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people — those who do the suffering and still pay the price — make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers.

Another step necessary in this fight to smash the war racket is the limited plebiscite to determine whether a war should be declared. A plebiscite not of all the voters but merely of those who would be called upon to do the fighting and dying. There wouldn’t be very much sense in having a 76-year-old president of a munitions factory or the flat-footed head of an international banking firm or the cross-eyed manager of a uniform manufacturing plant — all of whom see visions of tremendous profits in the event of war — voting on whether the nation should go to war or not. They never would be called upon to shoulder arms — to sleep in a trench and to be shot. Only those who would be called upon to risk their lives for their country should have the privilege of voting to determine whether the nation should go to war.

There is ample precedent for restricting the voting to those affected. Many of our states have restrictions on those permitted to vote. In most, it is necessary to be able to read and write before you may vote. In some, you must own property. It would be a simple matter each year for the men coming of military age to register in their communities as they did in the draft during the World War and be examined physically. Those who could pass and who would therefore be called upon to bear arms in the event of war would be eligible to vote in a limited plebiscite. They should be the ones to have the power to decide — and not a Congress few of whose members are within the age limit and fewer still of whom are in physical condition to bear arms. Only those who must suffer should have the right to vote.

A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only.

At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don’t shout that “We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation.” Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.

Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.

The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon’s shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.

The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can’t go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation.

To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket.

  1. We must take the profit out of war.
  2. We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war.
  3. We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes.

CHAPTER FIVE

To Hell With War!

I am not a fool as to believe that war is a thing of the past. I know the people do not want war, but there is no use in saying we cannot be pushed into another war.

Looking back, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a platform that he had “kept us out of war” and on the implied promise that he would “keep us out of war.” Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.

In that five-month interval the people had not been asked whether they had changed their minds. The 4,000,000 young men who put on uniforms and marched or sailed away were not asked whether they wanted to go forth to suffer and die.

Then what caused our government to change its mind so suddenly?

Money.

An allied commission, it may be recalled, came over shortly before the war declaration and called on the President. The President summoned a group of advisers. The head of the commission spoke. Stripped of its diplomatic language, this is what he told the President and his group:

“There is no use kidding ourselves any longer. The cause of the allies is lost. We now owe you (American bankers, American munitions makers, American manufacturers, American speculators, American exporters) five or six billion dollars.

If we lose (and without the help of the United States we must lose) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay back this money . . . and Germany won’t.

So . . . ”

Had secrecy been outlawed as far as war negotiations were concerned, and had the press been invited to be present at that conference, or had radio been available to broadcast the proceedings, America never would have entered the World War. But this conference, like all war discussions, was shrouded in utmost secrecy. When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was a “war to make the world safe for democracy” and a “war to end all wars.”

Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy.

And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us that the World War was really the war to end all wars.

Yes, we have had disarmament conferences and limitations of arms conferences. They don’t mean a thing. One has just failed; the results of another have been nullified. We send our professional soldiers and our sailors and our politicians and our diplomats to these conferences. And what happens?

The professional soldiers and sailors don’t want to disarm. No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms. And at all these conferences, lurking in the background but all-powerful, just the same, are the sinister agents of those who profit by war. They see to it that these conferences do not disarm or seriously limit armaments.

The chief aim of any power at any of these conferences has not been to achieve disarmament to prevent war but rather to get more armament for itself and less for any potential foe.

There is only one way to disarm with any semblance of practicability. That is for all nations to get together and scrap every ship, every gun, every rifle, every tank, every war plane. Even this, if it were possible, would not be enough.

The next war, according to experts, will be fought not with battleships, not by artillery, not with rifles and not with machine guns. It will be fought with deadly chemicals and gases.

Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. Yes, ships will continue to be built, for the shipbuilders must make their profits. And guns still will be manufactured and powder and rifles will be made, for the munitions makers must make their huge profits. And the soldiers, of course, must wear uniforms, for the manufacturer must make their war profits too.

But victory or defeat will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists.

If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war — even the munitions makers.

So…I say,

TO HELL WITH WAR!