Author: ajohnstone

Guyana and Oil

Exxon’s exploitative oil deal with Guyana will cause the country to lose up to US$55 billion, according to a new Global Witness investigation based on an OpenOil analysis.




The new report, Signed Away, shows how the oil major used aggressive tactics and threats to pressure inexperienced Guyanese officials to sign the deal for the Stabroek license—one of the world’s largest oil finds in years.




“It is shocking that Exxon would seek such an exploitative deal in one of the Western Hemisphere’s poorest countries,” said Jonathan Gant, Senior Campaigner at Global Witness.




“Guyana’s urgent development needs—such as building new hospitals and schools, and protecting itself from rising sea levels that put 90% of the population at risk—will not be met by Exxon walking away with an extra US$55 billion in its back pocket.”



Exxon’s original license for the Stabroek oil block—off Guyana’s Caribbean coast—dates back to 1999. However, in April 2016, after Exxon found oil in the block, the company set out to pressure Guyanese officials to sign a rushed, new contract to renew its oil license – knowing that its existing license was running out.



Evidence seen by Global Witness shows how Exxon paid for a lavish trip for Natural Resources Minister Raphael Trotman to visit its Texas headquarters during the Stabroek negotiations. The trip included a first-class flight, limousine transportation, and an extravagant dinner at an exclusive restaurant.




This may violate Exxon’s internal policy, stating that staff should consider whether gifts to officials may “improperly influence pending business decisions.” Exxon denies any wrongdoing, saying it is “committed to the highest standards of business conduct, and we follow all local laws and regulations,” while Trotman has said he saw nothing wrong with travelling to Texas on Exxon’s dime.



The investigation also reveals how Trotman knew Exxon would soon announce its oil find results, but rushed to sign the deal anyway, despite the advice of experts.




Trotman may have also suffered from a possible conflict of interest as he has been close political allies with one of Exxon’s Guyanese lawyers. The lawyer – Nigel Hughes – has denied he represented Exxon on the deal, but admitted that his firm has represented Exxon since 2009 and that he has worked for the company on other matters.




Global Witness does not have evidence that Trotman’s Stabroek negotiations were influenced – unwittingly or otherwise – by his expensive Texas trip or his ties to Hughes. But the relationship between Trotman, Hughes, and Exxon should be investigated.



Global Witness calls on Guyanese officials to investigate the Exxon deal and the ministers involved, and to demand a new, fair license. Global Witness also calls on US authorities, including the State Department, to support renegotiation.




A fiscal study conducted by the expert analysts at OpenOil – commissioned by Global Witness and released alongside this investigation – estimates Guyana is set to lose an average of US$1.3 billion per year. Recovering this money through renegotiating a fair deal could boost the country’s annual US$1.4 billion budget.




In letters to Global Witness and OpenOil, Exxon disputed OpenOil’s findings, saying that they did not account for Guyana’s “frontier” status as an oil producer. However, the company did not comment on the detail of OpenOil’s fiscal analysis. Trotman also told Global Witness that getting maximum revenues from Exxon was not the government’s main aim and the country needed Exxon to help protect its borders from Venezuela.  Guyana’s Foreign Minister Carl Greenidge argued that any analysis must focus not only on financial data from international oil deals but on Guyana’s strategic considerations and the risk to Exxon of military conflict in the area.




OpenOil studied reports of the financial terms of government oil contracts around the world, including by the International Monetary Fund. These reports show that, based on international data, Guyana is receiving a lower profit share from Exxon than many other international oil deals.




The Stabroek deal is not the only questionable license that Exxon obtained in Guyana. Evidence seen by Global Witness also shows that the two other Guyanese oil licenses – called Kaieteur and Canje – raise red flags for corruption. They were initially awarded to companies with limited experience that flipped shares of their licenses to Exxon before doing any real work.




The official who awarded Kaieteur and Canje – former Natural Resources Minister Robert Persaud – issued the licenses just before leaving office in 2015 and has shown an extraordinary degree of ignorance about the ultimate owners of the winning companies. The companies who initially obtained Kaieteur and Canje have denied wrongdoing, as have Exxon and Persaud.




“Exxon’s Kaieteur and Canje licenses raise corruption red flags and should be investigated,” said Gant. “Given these problems and the threats to Guyana posed by the global climate emergency, Guyana should renegotiate the Stabroek license and then ban all new drilling in the country.”


https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/02/03/exxons-exploitative-oil-deal-guyana-will-deprive-country-us55-billion



Profit before health

The US has some of the best doctors and facilities in the world – but accessing them for many is a constant battle. Millions of Americans are uninsured, and high deductibles mean even those that have it often struggle to pay for treatment and medications.
 “Surveys show that many Americans with insurance are forgoing needed care because of cost,” Bob Doherty from the American College of Physicians (ACP) says. “Surveys also show that concern about not being able to afford care ranks among the top concerns of the public.”



Among the poorest 20 per cent of Americans, one-third of their income is spent on healthcare, according to a new study. 
Out of pocket payments have grown over recent years, and nearly half of millennials have put off needed medical care because they can’t afford it. 



February’s Public Meetings

MANCHESTER

Saturday 22 February, 2.00 p.m.

Public meeting: “Where Charity Begins and Why It Should End”

Venue: Friends Meeting House, 6 Mount Street, Manchester, United Kingdom M2 5NS

Meet before the meeting at 1.15 p.m. in the Central Library café on St Peter’s Square for lunch, coffee or a chat.

LONDON

Saturday 29 February, 2.00 p.m.

Public meeting: “What should socialists do now: Socialist principles and policy”.

Venue: Friends Meeting House, 20 Nigel Playfair Rd (off King St, at Town Hall), London W6 9JF (nearest tubes: Hammersmith or Ravenscourt Park)



America’s Land-mine Ban Rescinded

The Trump administration announced Friday that it was officially reversing a 2014 order by former President Barack Obama that constrained the  use of landmines to the Korean Peninsula and committed the U.S. to no further production of the mines. The Obama-era order put the U.S. further in line with the over 160 nations that have ratified the Mine Ban Treaty.


The White House says, “will authorize combatant commanders, in exceptional circumstances, to employ advanced, non-persistent landmines specifically designed to reduce unintended harm to civilians and partner forces.” The statement added, “This action is yet another in a series of actions taken by the Trump administration to give our military the flexibility and capability it needs to win.”


 A Pentagon memo issued Friday says that the military “will take feasible precautions to protect civilians from the use of landmines.” It also suggests the weapons can be used anywhere the U.S. military chooses. “Under this policy, the Department’s ability to employ non-persistent landmines will not have any expressed geographic limitations. Appropriate geographic limitations will be formulated based on specific operational contexts and will be reflected in relevant rules of engagement, consistent with existing DoD policy and practice,” the Pentagon memo states.



“The United States is doing a 180 on the near-global consensus to ban the abhorrent and inhumane use of landmines. These indiscriminate weapons maim and kill. They destroy families and communities, arable land, and livestock,” said Michael Payne, interim advocacy director at Physicians for Human Rights, a group that helped launch the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. Payne, in his statement, rejected the assertion that “advanced” landmines would spare civilians harm. “Despite any purported technological advancements, landmines are still capable of causing indiscriminate harm and egregious injury and suffering,” he said. “By loosening restrictions on landmine use, the United States is signaling to other countries around the world that landmines can be acceptable. The Trump administration should not normalize these archaic and gruesome weapons, which have no place in the 21st century.


Jeff Abramson, senior fellow with the Arms Control Association, similar rejected the notion of an “advanced” landmine.
“The world has rejected landmines because they are indiscriminate and disproportionately harm civilians, who make up the vast majority of landmine casualties. Technical solutions to make landmines self-destruct or otherwise labeled as ‘smart’ have failed to work as advertised and been rejected by the 164 counties, including all U.S. NATO allies, that have joined the Mine Ban Treaty,” said Abramson.


“Most of the world’s countries have embraced the ban on antipersonnel landmines for more than two decades, while the Trump administration has done a complete about-face in deciding to cling to these weapons in perpetuity,” said Steve Goose, director of the arms division at Human Rights Watch. “Using landmines, which have claimed so many lives and limbs, is not justified by any country or group under any circumstances. Trump’s new policy to use antipersonnel mines any time anywhere in the world is a retrograde action that should be condemned,” Goose added. “All presidential candidates should endorse the goal of banning landmines.”


https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/31/bringing-back-archaic-and-gruesome-weapons-trump-reverses-us-restrictions-landmines

Changing Climate Change Needs Change

“The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men / Gang aft agley”

 (trans. “The best-laid plans of mice and men / Go oft awry”)



The plans of the “greenest” of capitalists are at best confused and at worst fraudulent. The whole array of solutions proposed within capitalism are not working or is working far too slowly. Too often the socialist answer is more or less dismissed because of the failures of the former Soviet Union and its Eastern European bloc to address their ecological damage despite these countries being a form of state-capitalism. What every government is doing is inadequate, to say the least. It is clear that capitalism is incapable of making the necessary changes. What capitalist country has ever been able to fully meet even the basic needs of its people, let alone totally and fundamentally transform its economy? It’s not that capitalists are necessarily bad people for some do invest in green renewables and some sincerely wish to alleviate poverty but it all to no avail. The capitalist system is based on: Production for profit, not for use; and a continual impetus to expand in order to maintain the drive for profit. This requires an endless cycle of accumulation of new wealth, finding new markets, even if necessary, conquest and war. No capitalist or reformist party or environmentalist organisation is ever going to be able to change the fundamentals of the capitalist social order one little bit.



 Despite high-profile conference after conference, all concluding with optimistic statements, despite the many fine words UN conferences have made little difference to the World’s worsening environmental situation. The World’s governments remain paralysed by inertia and in hock to vested corporate interests. Summits on the climate remain ineffectual and the people on the planet are paying the price.



While Glasgow’s COP26 will gather together many campaigners and many involved will reject the false solutions of green capitalism and the Socialist Party will not be unique in understanding that this system, geared towards profits, can only lead to further environmental disasters. However, there will be a few who will be actively issuing a troubling message by arguing population growth is responsible for the environmental degradation, that the world’s population size is the primary cause of climate change as well as other social problems. Blaming our environmental problems on population pressures is all too common and has resulted in a sordid history of top-down population control programmes violating women’s reproductive right. For certain, all women should have access to contraception and safe abortion as part of overall health services. Family planning, however, is not the answer to our environmental problems. It is misguided. Babies and yet-to-be-born babies are not responsible for today’s environmental problems. Smaller family size is now the norm. Birth and fertility rates are down because of factors like improved health services, education and status of women. Reducing population numbers will not stop rising sea levels. Many environmentalists will cite carrying capacity in there argument that we have too many people on the planet but overemphasis on individual consumption distracts from industrial and military consumption. Corporations are responsible for a disproportionate share of resource depletion, carbon emissions, waste and pollution. They should be held accountable for their actions, not the innocent victims of global warming.




 What we in the Socialist Party offer is a vision of an alternative society, based on (in Marx’s words), “the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of nature.” 





For the Socialist Party, our task is to integrate an understanding of climate change and what to do about it, into a campaign to overthrow capitalism and change the world economy. Only a socialist, globally planned economy, coordinating and working at every level is capable of halting climate change. Nothing can be guaranteed if the tipping-points and loop-backs are exceeded but what else is capable of making the necessary transformation, if not the organised working people of the world, sweeping capitalism out of the way, and democratically running the world in our own interests?



Corruption

Airbus, Europe’s largest aerospace multinational, is to pay a record £3bn in penalties after admitting it had paid huge bribes on an “endemic” basis to land contracts in 20 countries.



The plane-maker agreed to pay the penalties  after reaching settlements with investigators in the UK, France and the US to end inquiries that started four years ago.  The company had paid bribes in Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Taiwan and Ghana between 2011 and 2015. French prosecutors examined bribes to other countries including China, Japan, Russia, Kuwait, Brazil and Turkey.



Surely, that is the biggest bribe of them all to end investigations and permit those who bribed and those who were bribed to go free?



https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/31/airbus-to-pay-record-3bn-in-fines-for-endemic-corruption

Mexico’s Minimum Wage

Some of Mexico‘s lowest-paid earners are experiencing their second pay rise in as many years. Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador lifted the minimum wage this year by 20 percent for workers in most parts of the country, following a 16 percent hike in 2019. Those earning the minimum wage in Mexico now make 123.22 pesos, or about $6.53 a day.



Lopez Obrador’s administration, which rose to power in 2018 under a pledge to tackle corruption and inequality, says 3.4 million wage earners will benefit from the pay increase. It has heralded the move as a historic measure to offset decades of dismal wages in Mexico. “We haven’t seen something like this in four decades,” Lopez Obrador told journalists when he announced the pay rise.
Some of Mexico‘s lowest-paid earners are experiencing their second pay rise in as many years.



Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador lifted the minimum wage this year by 20 percent for workers in most parts of the country, following a 16 percent hike in 2019. Those earning the minimum wage in Mexico now make 123.22 pesos, or about $6.53 a day.



Lopez Obrador’s administration, which rose to power in 2018 under a pledge to tackle corruption and inequality, says 3.4 million wage earners will benefit from the pay increase. It has heralded the move as a historic measure to offset decades of dismal wages in Mexico. “We haven’t seen something like this in four decades,” Lopez Obrador told journalists when he announced the pay rise.

Meagre wages and common hiring practices such as employing workers under short-term contracts, or underreporting income for tax purposes, help keep Mexico’s informal economy especially large, Moy says. Fifty-six percent of Mexico’s workforce is informal, according to the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI).





Persistent low wages in formal jobs are one reason economists say more than half of Mexico’s workforce remains under the table, peddling goods in outdoor markets called tianguis, selling food at streetside stalls, or working in small business often consisting of just a handful of people. While these jobs do not provide state-mandated benefits such as health insurance, in some cases, the pay beats that of formal-sector alternatives.



More than 17 million formal workers in Mexico earned between one and two times the minimum wage last year, according to INEGI. And many Mexican workers jump between the formal and informal economies throughout their working lives, Moy says.

In 2019, Mexico doubled the minimum wage along the northern border region, where now it is 185.56 pesos or around $9.90 per day. But in the rest of the country, even after the recent jump, Mexico’s minimum wage earners make less than their counterparts in Brazil and Colombia, countries with similar per capita income.



Jose Rodriguez, 38, works on a construction site near one of Mexico City’s main arteries, Paseo de la Reforma. Originally from the southeast state of Veracruz, he said he earns 150 pesos a day or around $8. Rodriguez has worked in construction in the Mexican capital for six years, always under short contracts, jumping from one project to another every few months. “It’s not enough,” Rodriguez says of his earnings. In six years, he says, he has never received benefits such as medical care or social security because of the short-term nature of his work. Rodriguez, like many other Mexicans, earns $1 above the minimum wage. His wage did not rise at the start of the year.
In Mexico City’s crowded Zocalo Square, Raul Maisano, 33, mans a magazine stand offering up newspapers, cigarettes and soft drinks to the historic centre’s many passersby. Maisano, who works off the books for the stall’s owner, says he makes more than the minimum wage at 200 pesos a day or $10.60, without benefits. It’s not a lot, he says, but it’s enough to rent a room in neighbouring Mexico State and commute one and a half hours to work every day. When sales are up, Maisano says he makes a little extra.
“It doesn’t bother me that I don’t have health insurance,” Maisano adds. “It’s not a good service anyway.”
On a recent weekday afternoon, Jonathan Mateos, 22, drizzled Valentina hot sauce into clear plastic bags of chips, selling them to an impatient crowd of office workers near Mexico’s commercial downtown. Each bag goes for just 15 to 30 pesos, or around $1, yet Mateos says he makes on average 500 pesos, or around $27, a day – over four times as much as the new minimum wage earners. Some days, he estimates, he takes home as much as 1,500 pesos or $80 at the day’s end. Mateos, who works with his two older brothers, says he has never held a formal job. He has never wanted one, he said.
A short article on the UK’s minimum wage from this month’s Socialist Standard



Syria – New Refugees

700,000 people who are already internally displaced on the move once again toward the Turkish border. Backed by Russian air power, Syrian government forces have rapidly advanced on Idlib. There have been 200 air strikes on opposition-held territory in the last three days, mainly targeting civilians. Aid agencies and rescue workers say airstrikes have demolished dozens of hospitals, schools and other civilian infrastructure, and warn Idlib’s 3 million-strong population is at risk of the nine-year war’s biggest humanitarian crisis yet. Turkey already hosts more than 3.5 million Syrian refugees and fears millions more could soon cross the frontier.



Turkey, which backs some rebel groups and does not want to absorb more refugees, has  threatened military force against the regime and its allies in the area if the offensive continues. 

Turkey may launch a military operation in Syria’s northwestern Idlib region unless fighting there is quickly halted, President Tayyip Erdogan said. Erdogan repeated Turkey could not handle a fresh influx of migrants and would not allow new threats near its borders, even if it meant resorting to military power as it did in three previous cross-border operations in northern Syria.



“We will do what is necessary when someone is threatening our soil. We will have no choice but to resort to the same path again if the situation in Idlib is not returned to normal quickly,” Erdogan said. “We will not refrain from doing what is necessary, including using military force.”



What are we fighting for? What are we fighting against?

There is no shortage of food in the world today. Contrary to the the alarmists within the environment movement, study after study shows that global food production has consistently outstripped population growth, and that there is more than enough food to feed everyone. Despite that fact, the most commonly proposed solution to world hunger is new technology to increase food production. If there is already enough food to feed the world then that shows that the food crisis is not a technical problem — it is a social and political problem. Market economics and not technology has always been the main limiting factor to food production. We should be why, when so much food is available, are over hundreds of millions of people hungry and malnourished? We should be asking why do children die of hunger every day? Why can’t the global food industry feed the hungry?



The answer is a simple one. The global food industry is not organised to feed the hungry; it exists to make profits for agribusinesses. The enormous power exerted by the largest food corporations allows them to control the cost of their supplies purchased from farmers while at the same time keeping prices of food to the general public at high enough levels to ensure large profits. Fertile farmland that could be used to grow food for domestic consumption now grows cash-crops for export. The result has been that many countries which were once self-sufficient in food are using vital foreign currency reserves to now import much of their food.  Millions of people now must depend on food that’s grown thousands of miles away because their homeland agriculture has been transformed to meet the needs of agribusiness corporations. The shift towards more industrial agriculture such as soya and palm oil to produce ethanol for example has driven millions of people off the land and into unemployment and poverty in the immense slums that now surround many of the world’s cities. And it has also been at the cost of of poisoning water, polluting the land and exhausting the soil. Commercial farming continues not necessarily because it is more productive, but because it delivers profits and profit is what counts, not peoples hunger or the detrimental impact on the planet.



Karl Marx wrote that despite its support for technical improvements, “the capitalist system works against a rational agriculture … a rational agriculture is incompatible with the capitalist system.”



Today, the capitalist system puts profit ahead of human needs and has driven millions off the land,  and condemned almost a billion people to hunger and malnutrition. To feed the world’s population we must sweep away capitalism. It is capitalism, the laws of the market, that is killing so many people in the world. Malnutrition and hunger constantly threaten the working people of our world – unless the production and distribution of food is taken out of the hands of the capitalists and politicians. The burning question of food for the people is now clearly defined: Will the people eat – or will the food barons be allowed to accumulate profits as usual because the bosses of the food industry will not produce food except for profit? There is no other way. All production decisions are made by a tiny handful of capitalists, not in the interests of humanity, but purely for profit.