Border Crossing from one of our barristers in Australia.The information below should be read by everyone, whether you agree to its contents, or not


Border Crossing from one of our barristers in Australia.
The information below should be read by everyone, whether you agree to its contents, or not !!! 
 *** NOW, LET ME SEE IF I'VE GOT THIS RIGHT....

IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOUR.

IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.

IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.

IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND
YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO A POLITICAL
PRISON TO ROT.

IF YOU CROSS THE AUSTRALIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET:
* A JOB,
* AN INTERPRETER,
* FREE LEGAL AID,
* A DRIVERS LICENCE,
* A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER,
* WELFARE,
* CREDIT CARDS,
* FREE EDUCATION,
* FREE HEALTH CARE,
* DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR  LANGUAGE
* THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY'S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DO NOT GET ENOUGH RESPECT.

 
Sensationalism? Then think about just this one [not so] small aspect...
 
The Australian Federal Government provides the following financial assistance:-
 
 
 
BENEFIT
AUSTRALIAN AGED PENSIONER
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS/REFUGEES LIVING IN AUSTRALIA
Weekly allowance
$253.00
$472.50
Weekly Spouse allowance
$56.00
$472.50
Additional weekly hardship allowance
$0.00
$145.00
 
 
 
TOTAL YEARLY BENEFIT
$16,068.00
$56,680.00



If I were a refugee, why would I look for work? And the current Government is saying that 'elderly Australia' is going to put the country $100 Bn into debt in the next few years?!
 
Please forward to all your contacts so that we can lobby not just for an increase in the aged pension and to put the welfare of Australian pensioners first, but the welfare of refugees further down the list - well after our Defence men and women, our farmers and the average Aussie battler. After all, the average pensioner alone has paid taxes and contributed to the growth of this country for the last 40 to 60 years; a Defence member voluntarily endures hardship, prepared to give up their life to preserve the way of yours; and the farmer/battler who are the backbones of this Country and Culture - never reaches for a handout but always willing to lend a hand...
 
When these people rarely, if ever, speak out they are shunned, ridiculed and dismissed by the Government and barely makes a headline in the news. When refugees/immigrants speak out about repression and insensitivity to their culture in Australia, it gets widespread media coverage and quick resolution by Government bodies.
 

*** I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD A FIRM GRASP ON THE SITUATION - HAVE A GOOD DAY (AT WORK)



Maurice G Kriss




Barrister at Law
 
0408 298 523 
PO. Box 50 Parramatta NSW 2124
 
Suit 611/22 Charles Street Parramatta NSW 2150
 
DX 8295 Parramatta
 
Phone: 
02-9635 8603 Faz: 02-9687 9185 
law@mauricekriss.com.au
  
www.mauricekriss.com..au
 
 
 
 

Wednesday, February 20, 2019

Kerry B. Collison Asia News: Written a story, a novel, a memoir or a children’s...

Kerry B. Collison Asia News: Written a story, a novel, a memoir or a children’s...: Written a story, a novel, a memoir or a children’s book and looking for a book publisher? Sid Harta Publishers in Melbourne Australia ha...

Written a story, a novel, a memoir or a children’s book and looking for a book publisher?


Written a story, a novel, a memoir or a children’s book and looking for a book publisher? Sid Harta Publishers in Melbourne Australia has published 650 authors worldwide on all platforms, eBook, print on demand Amazon and distributes hard copies globally. Go to http://sidharta.com.au and email your manuscript to author@sidharta.com.au

 

The world is overlooking the danger of the current West Papuan resolve for independence from Indonesia. The West Papuan Freedom Movement has now successfully lodged a request with the United Nations to revisit the flawed 1969 plebiscite. This could bring Australia and Indonesia again into conflict! Read the new book release “Rockefeller and the Demise of Ibu Pertiwi” eBook and print on demand all online platforms.

 Go to http://sidharta.com.au and email your manuscript to author@sidharta.com.au

Sunday, February 10, 2019

Kerry B. Collison Asia News: Why The Philippines Wants To Review Mutual Defence...

Kerry B. Collison Asia News: Why The Philippines Wants To Review Mutual Defence...:   Philippines’ Defence Secretary, Delfin Lorenzana at a press briefing at Camp Aguinaldo in late December last year spoke of the need...

Why The Philippines Wants To Review Mutual Defence Treaty With United States


 

Philippines’ Defence Secretary, Delfin Lorenzana at a press briefing at Camp Aguinaldo in late December last year spoke of the need for a review of the 1951 Mutual Defence Treaty (MDT) with the United States given the growing security concerns in the South China Sea. The Defence Secretary had mentioned, given the ambivalent stand of the United States with respect to the Philippines’ claim in the West Philippine Sea (as referred to by the Philippines), “the government had three options after the review: Maintain it, strengthen it, or scrap it.” The main premise of the MDT is “that the Philippines and the U.S. would assist each other when either of them is attacked by a foreign force.”

The MDT between the Philippines and the US was signed on August 30 1951, in Washington, D.C. After the Philippines gained independence on July 4 1946, a strong American presence persisted. Under the 1947 Military Bases Agreement, a number of US military bases were set up in the Philippines. Most notable ones being the Clark Air Base and the Subic Bay (US naval station).  The bases were maintained and operated by the US until 1991 and 1992 respectively. Philippines has been the oldest treaty ally of the US in Southeast Asia. Besides the MDT, the two countries have signed other agreements as well like the Visiting Forces Agreement in 1998, The Enhanced Defence Cooperation in 2014. After the 1992 withdrawal of the US from Manila, the relationship between the two countries improved further in the economic, defence and the security realms. The major thrust of the security relationship rests on the 1951 MDT. Scholars have even branded the US as the Philippines’ ‘security umbrella’. In his September 2018 meeting with US Secretary of State, Michael Pompeo, Lorenzana had said, “Most in our defense establishments agree that the Philippines-US alliance remains robust based on an enduring history of close engagement and our unwavering commitment to work together on shared values.” Therefore, the current statement of Delfin Lorenzana in December last year “that this treaty was signed in the Cold War era, do we still have a Cold War today? Is it still relevant to our security? Maybe not anymore” comes as a surprise.

The main point of objection is the absence of an ‘instant retaliatory clause’ but to go through the constitutional processes, that is the need to consult the US Congress before taking any retaliatory action. Furthermore, Article 5 of the Treaty is, “an armed attack on either of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, or on the Island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific Ocean, its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.” This clause has again triggered a lot of debate in Manila as to “what “Pacific” refers to. Does it mean the Pacific Ocean or the Pacific area of operations which encompasses everything west of the US West Coast up to the Indian Ocean?”

Philippines is currently facing its biggest external threat in the form of an expansionist China in the South China Sea according to Filipino analysts like Richard Heydarian. The Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague had awarded the Philippines sovereign rights and defined its maritime entitlements over three disputed areas in the Spratlys: Panganiban (Mischief) Reef, Ayungin (Second Thomas) Shoal and Recto (Reed) Bank. Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal off Zambales was declared as a common fishing ground over which no country has control. But China had completely ignored the ruling and built fortified artificial islands in the South China Sea including in the Panganiban Reef. The Chinese sealed off Panatag and harassed resupply operations to Filipino troops on Ayungin. The Foreign Affairs Secretary Teodoro Locsin has said in a statement recently that the Philippines will protest against the Chinese opening a maritime rescue centre in the Fiery Cross Reef. The territorial dispute is listed by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) as the primary source of the country’s external threat.

This has prompted Manila to demand that the US takes a stronger stand in the South China Sea issue in favor of its erstwhile treaty ally. Though the US is undertaking Freedom of Navigation and overflight exercises in the South China Sea, it still remains non-committal on whether it will defend the Philippines in times of an armed attack. The US had in the past taken no stand during the takeover by the Chinese of the Philippines’ claimed Mischief Reef in 1995 and also during the 2012 Scarborough Shoal standoff between the Philippines and China. This has not gone down well in the Filipino defence, security circles and most importantly the country’s citizens.

However in an address on the eve of Chinese New Year, the leader of the Philippines said the “friendship and cooperation forged between the Philippines and China” had led to “greater prosperity and economic growth”. Philippines unlike in the past where it was too pro- US, is now like most other countries in the region following a hedging strategy, which means the US needs to do much more to keep the trust of its treaty ally intact. Under the Trump administration, US’s Asia Policy has become a dicey one. On one hand, we saw President Trump pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but on December 31 2018, the release of the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act (ARIA) is focused on the promotion of American interests in the Indo-Pacific region in terms of defense and security partnerships. In the ARIA, the US “promotes a joint Indo-Pacific diplomatic strategy in Asian waters through joint maritime exercises in the East China Sea and the South China Sea.” It also reaffirms its treaty commitments to countries like the Thailand and the Philippines. Though the ARIA mentions about the appropriation of US$150,000,000 to the Indo-Pacific region for each fiscal year from 2019-2023. But at the same time, financial assistance will be subjected to a budget cut in countries such as Cambodia, Myanmar and US’s closest security ally in ASEAN, the Philippines, due to human rights issues. According to academics, Academics Gregory Poling and Eric Sayers, “if the Philippines withdraws from the MDT it would be a severe blow to US interests in the Indo-Pacific.”

This in a way is reflective of the yearning of smaller countries in this region for a more proactive role to be played that caters to their interests by the Big powers like the US. This yearning presents both challenges and opportunities for the Big Powers. Even countries like the US in the current times despite the ongoing trade war with China is delicately balancing its relations with Beijing.  So to claim outright that it will take the side of its treaty ally during a clash with its very crucial trading partner puts the US in a tough spot. The Scarborough Shoal 2012 standoff had also put the Asia Pivot policy of the Obama administration under test and many had questioned the genuineness of the policy when the US maintained a neutral stand in the standoff. Philippines’ wish for a stronger MDT has again put the US in a difficult situation. The US-Philippines 2014 Enhanced Defence Co-operation Agreement (EDCA) also depends on the MDT. That agreement allows the US to construct facilities and pre-position and store defence equipment, supplies and material within Philippine military bases and to deploy troops on a rotational basis there. Given the Philippines’ change in attitude towards China and its new hedging strategy, according to Poling and Sayers, “continuance of the treaty and the EDCA is critical to US interests in the region, not necessarily to those of the Philippines whose relations with China may suffer.”

India is revamping her Indo-Pacific policy through its Act East and thereby also needs to take cognizance of the demands of the smaller countries in the Southeast Asian region beside countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, Singapore. The ASEAN has always believed in ‘consensus’ and the visions and desires of all the member countries will be taken into account when the ‘ASEAN vision or concept of the Indo-Pacific’ is formulated at the end of the ongoing deliberations on the Indo-Pacific at the platform of the ASEAN and the East Asia Summit. The ASEAN countries have propagated for an “inclusive Indo-Pacific framework”, therefore at the end, picking sides will not be a viable option for either the Big powers in case of sore issues like the South China Sea and even for the smaller countries in the emerging dynamics of the Indo-Pacific and the changing global order. Therefore, these demands of the smaller countries needs to be tackled by India with a lot of caution and diplomatic acumen.

 

By Premesha Saha

Observer Research Foundation

ORF was established on 5 September 1990 as a private, not for profit, ’think tank’ to influence public policy formulation. The Foundation brought together, for the first time, leading Indian economists and policymakers to present An Agenda for Economic Reforms in India. The idea was to help develop a consensus in favour of economic reforms.

 

Saturday, February 9, 2019

Kerry B. Collison Asia News: Brexit and Southeast Asia: Return Of British Naval...

Kerry B. Collison Asia News: Brexit and Southeast Asia: Return Of British Naval...: Although it should not be exaggerated, a persistent British naval presence in Southeast Asia should be expected now that commitments ...

Brexit and Southeast Asia: Return Of British Naval Presence?



Although it should not be exaggerated, a persistent British naval presence in Southeast Asia should be expected now that commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan have reduced.
 

Sparked by recent comments by the British Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, there has been a good deal of excited speculation about the prospect of a large-scale British military re-appearance in Southeast Asia complete with aircraft carriers and new bases. Its critics argue that this can be simply attributed to the country’s desire to reinvent itself after Brexit. Is there a nostalgic desire to try to return to the days of Empire? In fact, it’s all a bit more complicated than that.

First of all, the United Kingdom’s intention to increase its engagement with Southeast Asia has long preceded the Brexit project (although that has probably accentuated the drive for a ‘global Britain’ that is international by design); and far from being a harking back to the old days is a response to some very modern realities and developments. Chief amongst these is the rate of growth in Southeast Asia and the extent of today’s mutually beneficial linkages between the economies of the UK and the region.

Less of Shift in Policy

Southeast Asia is the UK’s third largest non-EU export market and the UK is the second biggest EU investor in the area. Moreover Southeast Asia is the UK’s third biggest market for defence exports. For all these reasons, the British, like other Europeans, have concluded that they should try for a more persistent presence not just in Southeast Asia but in the whole of the Indo-Pacific region, as part of an ‘All of Asia’ project.

Equally clearly this is not to be part of a plan to compete with, still less contain, China, which is also an important trading partner. It is, however, designed to contribute to the defence of the rules-based order.

This is less of a shift in policy than is often realised. Back in the 1970s the ink had hardly dried on the Wilson Government’s controversial decision to abandon Singapore and its ‘East of Suez’ commitment, than the British naval staff, with Foreign Office approval, set about organising an annual series of ‘group deployments’ through the area and shortly after that established the so-called ‘Beira patrol’.

This was a permanent frigate force off the Gulf which little by little acted as a fore-runner for the substantial task group and semi-permanent mine countermeasures force that distinguished itself in the first Gulf War in the 1990s and afterwards.

When combined with the Five Power Defence Arrangements, the ‘Five Eyes’ relationship especially with Australia and New Zealand, the continuing deployment to Brunei and even the small oiling facility at Sembawang in Singapore, this all makes it seem less a question of the British ‘coming back’ to the region, more a recognition that they never really left.

More Visible British Naval Presence?

But certainly the expensive land-centric strategic distractions of Iraq and Afghanistan, together with the effects of great recession of 2008 and the harsh defence review of 2010 did lead to a significant diminution of the British naval presence. A more persistent naval presence in the region is now possible and is being sought.

For this some local logistic support is necessary but nothing like the old Singapore ‘base’ which would be ruinously expensive, politically highly controversial and operationally completely unnecessary. Instead the British, like other navies, not least the Chinese, seek enhanced facilities such as they have completed in Bahrain and just agreed at Duqm in Oman where ships can be refuelled, routine maintenance conducted and crews rested or rotated.

Already with most ambitious deployment for many years of three major assets, including the assault ship HMS Albion and with the Queen Elizabeth likely to make its operational debut in the region by the beginning of 2021, a greater British naval footprint is already emerging.

Moreover such an enhanced presence is likely to be conducted with traditional friends in the area, and this will help too. Relations with the navies of Southeast Asia are good. Moreover both the Australians and the Canadians have chosen the Royal Navy’s highly sophisticated Type 26 frigate for their fleet renewal programmes (and the New Zealanders might follow suit in some form) and this will greatly increase prospects for naval cooperation in the years to come.

The UK’s European partners are likewise interested in working with the Royal Navy, wherever it is, especially in exploring the disciplines of carrier escort, and of course have their own very similar reasons for wanting a presence in the Indo-Pacific region.

Challenges Ahead

Nonetheless there are still major challenges ahead, quite apart from the obvious need to handle local reactions sensitively. The Type 26 programme, the more modest Type 31 frigate programme, the completion of the carrier and F-35b fighter project when added to the very high costs of the Successor ballistic missile firing submarine programme, simultaneously combine into a formidable charge on the UK Defence budget at a time of Brexit-induced uncertainty.

Nor is Southeast Asia the only area in which the UK has an interest it needs to signal. Russian truculence in European waters and the growing importance of the Far North and the Arctic demand a countervailing attention and will remain the top strategic priority. The Mediterranean, the Gulf, the Caribbean and the South Atlantic matter too.

It will be a challenge to meet such a diverse range of commitments with a frigate and destroyer fleet that has dropped from 32 at the time of the 1997/8 Strategic Defence review to just 19 now.

However, it would seem from last year’s relatively benign Modernising Defence Review that something of a renaissance is underway. In all probability, the British will in American revolutionary John Paul Jones’ words ‘be coming’ unless present intentions are derailed by some disastrous Brexit outcome or dramatic strategic deterioration in Europe, but in a cautious and considered way which will depend heavily on the degree of welcome accorded the UK by friends and partners in the region.

This will be measured by the degree of success achieved by the UK’s bid to engage with ASEAN through establishing linkages with ADMM+ and the Expert Working groups. The probable increase in the visibility of the Royal Navy in Southeast Asian waters after all is just one fairly small part of a much bigger package of political and economic efforts to engage with the region.

*Professor Geoffrey Till is an Advisor to the Maritime Security Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore.

 

Friday, February 8, 2019

Kerry B. Collison Asia News: West Papuan Independence Movement succeeds in lodg...

Kerry B. Collison Asia News: West Papuan Independence Movement succeeds in lodg...: The world is overlooking the danger of the current West Papuan resolve for independence from Indonesia. The West Papuan Freedom Movement...

West Papuan Independence Movement succeeds in lodging a 2 Million signature demand with the United Nations


The world is overlooking the danger of the current West Papuan resolve for independence from Indonesia. The West Papuan Freedom Movement has now successfully lodged a request with the United Nations to revisit the flawed 1969 plebiscite. This could bring Australia and Indonesia again into conflict! Read the new book release “Rockefeller and the Demise of Ibu Pertiwi” eBook and print on demand all online platforms.

 Go to http://sidharta.com.au and email your manuscript to author@sidharta.com.au

Thursday, February 7, 2019

Kerry B. Collison Asia News: Trouble in the Tropics: The Legacy of the Bali Bom...

Kerry B. Collison Asia News: Trouble in the Tropics: The Legacy of the Bali Bom...: With the elections fast approaching in Indonesia, leaders are hard-pressed to maintain the population’s support despite recent challenge...

Trouble in the Tropics: The Legacy of the Bali Bombings on Indonesian Elections


With the elections fast approaching in Indonesia, leaders are hard-pressed to maintain the population’s support despite recent challenges. Religion and terrorism in particular have been thorny issues for President Joko Widodo, popularly known as Jokowi, who is seeking re-election on April 17.

On January 18, the Jokowi administration announced its intentions to release 80 year-old Abu Bakar Bashir from prison over humanitarian concerns given his age and deteriorating health. Bashir is the spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), the militant group responsible for the 2002 Bali bombings, one of Indonesia’s deadliest terrorist attacks in which 202 individuals were killed, including 88 Australians. JI is also believed to be a regional branch of the al-Qaeda network. Bashir himself has never been found to be directly involved in the bombing, but he was arrested on charges of funding a training camp for Islamic militants and encouraging extremists to carry out terrorist attacks.

Jokowi’s preoccupation to improve his image and electability among Muslim communities before the elections seems to support the idea that his decision regarding Bashir is politically motivated. Some believe that it is a pre-emptive move to diffuse criticism ahead of the release of former Jakarta governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama. Basuki, a Christian of Chinese origin, was found guilty of blasphemy against Islam after he quoted a verse of the Qu’ran and insinuated that his opponents had used the passage to trick Muslims into voting against him.

In an analysis published by the Lowy Institute, an Australian think tank, regional terrorism expert Sidney Jones argued that the legal grounds of Jokowi’s decision are unclear. It is neither a pardon nor an amnesty, because Bashir never requested a pardon and the decision seems to violate Regulation 99 of 2012 from Indonesia’s Ministry of Law and Human Rights.

This stipulates that the release of offenders such as convicted terrorists is contingent on their willingness to sign a loyalty oath to the Indonesian government. It was on those grounds that the Jokowi government later backtracked on their plan. Bashir refused to pledge his allegiance to the nation and the state ideology of Pancasila, which promotes pluralism. There seems to be no good reason as to why this requirement should be waived for humanitarian reasons.

Unfortunately, the damage has already been done. Domestically, public outrage at Jokowi’s decision has alienated his supporters, which include moderates, families of the Bali bombing victims, and the police, the judiciary and the bureaucracy who were involved in the fight against JI. Along with the appointment of conservative cleric Ma’ruf Amin as his running mate, these recent decisions made by Jokowi have contributed to a growing sense among his supporters  that the President is more concerned with courting the Islamic vote rather than promoting an agenda that addresses social and economic issues.

At the same time, the reversal of Jokowi’s initial plan to release Bashir has also angered conservative Muslims who accused the President of making empty promises. There was no clear guarantee that this decision would help Jokowi change the minds of conservative Muslims and effectively gain their support.

Many people who opposed the release of Bashir have also threatened not to vote for Jokowi. In Indonesia, voters can choose to cast a blank vote, or an abstention from voting. This practice, called golput, is usually interpreted as a sign that the electorate does not believe that the candidates deserve their votes. Golput was used a symbol of protest in Suharto’s authoritarian New Order regime, at a time when the winner was already determined before the election and alternative parties were either banned or tightly controlled.

Recently, pro-golput voices were heard following the first presidential debate and the announcement of Jokowi’s plan to release Bashir. Jokowi supporters have begun to waver, and may choose the golput option on their ballots given that most do not see Prabowo Subianto, the incumbent’s opponent, as a possible alternative. However, opting for golput in 2019 could potentially mean surrendering the political future of the country to Prabowo and his authoritarian tendencies.

Much more seems to be at risk now. Bashir’s lawyer Muhammad Mahendradatta has threatened to take legal action to demand the release of the religious leader based on his health conditions. Mahendradatta maintains that Bashir has never been found guilty for any bombing, and that the regulation requiring him to sign a pact of allegiance to Pancasila should not apply given that it was passed in 2012 and cannot be retroactive. Yusril Ihza Mahendra, a legal advisor to Jokowi’s re-election campaign, has warned that “if [Bashir] is entitled to parole and that right is not given, the government could be sued and lose.”

Even worse, although Bashir’s influence has waned over the years, anti-terrorism experts suspect that the timing of this incident will help burnish his image as a hero of militant Islamism among hardliners.

What does this incident say about Indonesia’s elections? For one, these elections may be more unpredictable than they seem. Even if Jokowi has a substantial lead over his opponent Prabowo, it would not take much more than a political scandal to potentially turn the tables. Furthermore, Jokowi’s failed political gamble demonstrates the need for leaders to be careful when pulling the religion card, which could easily do more harm than good.

Published By : Patricia Sibal

The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and they do not reflect the position of the McGill Journal of Political Studies or the Political Science Students’ Association. 

Kerry B. Collison Asia News: It is not just those at the top. Recently an ANZ G...

Kerry B. Collison Asia News: It is not just those at the top. Recently an ANZ G...: It is not just those at the top. Recently an ANZ Glen Waverley staff member revealed our private banking information without authority ca...

It is not just those at the top. Recently an ANZ Glen Waverley staff member revealed our private banking information without authority causing huge headaches. The employee was then promoted.

It is not just those at the top. Recently an ANZ Glen Waverley staff member revealed our private banking information without authority causing huge headaches. The employee was then promoted.

Wednesday, February 6, 2019

Kerry B. Collison Asia News: The 12-Step Method of Regime Change

Kerry B. Collison Asia News: The 12-Step Method of Regime Change: The 12-Step Method of Regime Change On 15 September 1970, US President Richard Nixon and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger au...

The 12-Step Method of Regime Change


The 12-Step Method of Regime Change

On 15 September 1970, US President Richard Nixon and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger authorised the US government to do everything possible to undermine the incoming government of the socialist president of Chile, Salvador Allende. Nixon and Kissinger, according to the notes kept by CIA Director Richard Helms, wanted to ‘make the economy scream’ in Chile; they were ‘not concerned [about the] risks involved’. War was acceptable to them as long as Allende’s government was removed from power. The CIA started Project FUBELT, with $10 million as a first instalment to begin the covert destabilisation of the country.

US business firms, such as the telecommunication giant ITT, the soft drink maker Pepsi Cola and copper monopolies such as Anaconda and Kennecott, put pressure on the US government once Allende nationalised the copper sector on 11 July 1971. Chileans celebrated this day as the Day of National Dignity (Dia de la Dignidad Nacional). The CIA began to make contact with sections of the military seen to be against Allende. Three years later, on 11 September 1973, these military men moved against Allende, who died in the regime change operation. The US ‘created the conditions’ as US National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger put it, to which US President Richard Nixon answered, ‘that is the way it is going to be played’. Such is the mood of international gangsterism.

Chile entered the dark night of a military dictatorship that turned over the country to US monopoly firms. US advisors rushed in to strengthen the nerve of General Augusto Pinochet’s cabinet.

What happened to Chile in 1973 is precisely what the United States has attempted to do in many other countries of the Global South. The most recent target for the US government – and Western big business – is Venezuela. But what is happening to Venezuela is nothing unique. It faces an onslaught from the United States and its allies that is familiar to countries as far afield as Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The formula is clichéd. It is commonplace, a twelve-step plan to produce a coup climate, to create a world under the heel of the West and of Western big business.

 

Step One: Colonialism’s Traps.

Most of the Global South remains trapped by the structures put in place by colonialism. Colonial boundaries encircled states that had the misfortune of being single commodity producers – either sugar for Cuba or oil for Venezuela. The inability to diversify their economies meant that these countries earned the bulk of their export revenues from their singular commodities (98% of Venezuela’s export revenues come from oil). As long as the prices of the commodities remained high, the export revenues were secure. When the prices fell, revenue suffered. This was a legacy of colonialism. Oil prices dropped from $160.72 per barrel (June 2008) to $51.99 per barrel (January 2019). Venezuela’s export revenues collapsed in this decade.

Step Two: The Defeat of the New International Economic Order.

In 1974, the countries of the Global South attempted to redo the architecture of the world economy. They called for the creation of a New International Economic Order (NIEO) that would allow them to pivot away from the colonial reliance upon one commodity and diversify their economies. Cartels of raw materials – such as oil and bauxite – were to be built so that the one-commodity country could have some control over prices of the products that they relied upon. The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), founded in 1960, was a pioneer of these commodity cartels. Others were not permitted to be formed. With the defeat of OPEC over the past three decades, its members – such as Venezuela (which has the world’s largest proven oil reserves) – have not been able to control oil prices. They are at the mercy of the powerful countries of the world.

Step Three: The Death of Southern Agriculture.

In November 2001, there were about three billion small farmers and landless peasants in the world. That month, the World Trade Organisation met in Doha (Qatar) to unleash the productivity of Northern agri-business against the billions of small farmers and landless peasants of the Global South. Mechanisation and large, industrial-scale farms in North America and Europe had raised productivity to about 1 to 2 million kilogrammes of cereals per farmer. The small farmers and landless peasants in the rest of the world struggled to grow 1,000 kilogrammes of cereals per farmer. They were nowhere near as productive. The Doha decision, as Samir Amin wrote, presages the annihilation of the small farmer and landless peasant. What are these men and women to do? The production per hectare is higher in the West, but the corporate take-over of agriculture (as Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research Senior Fellow P. Sainath shows) leads to increased hunger as it pushes peasants off their land and leaves them to starve.

Step Four: Culture of Plunder.

Emboldened by Western domination, monopoly firms act with disregard for the law. As Kambale Musavuli and I write of the Democratic Republic of Congo, its annual budget of $6 billion is routinely robbed of at least $500 by monopoly mining firms, mostly from Canada – the country now leading the charge against Venezuela. Mispricing and tax avoidance schemes allow these large firms (Canada’s Agrium, Barrick and Suncor) to routinely steal billions of dollars from impoverished states.

Step Five: Debt as a Way of Life.

Unable to raise money from commodity sales, hemmed in by a broken world agricultural system and victim of a culture of plunder, countries of the Global South have been forced to go hat in hand to commercial lenders for finance. Over the past decade, debt held by the Global South states has increased, while debt payments have ballooned by 60%. When commodity prices rose between 2000 and 2010, debt in the Global South decreased. As commodity prices began to fall from 2010, debts have risen. The IMF points out that of the 67 impoverished countries that they follow, 30 are in debt distress, a number that has doubled since 2013. More than 55.4% of Angola’s export revenue is paid to service its debt. And Angola, like Venezuela, is an oil exporter. Other oil exporters such as Ghana, Chad, Gabon and Venezuela suffer high debt to GDP ratios. Two out of five low-income countries are in deep financial distress.

Step Six: Public Finances Go to Hell.

With little incoming revenue and low tax collection rates, public finances in the Global South has gone into crisis. As the UN Conference on Trade and Development points out, ‘public finances have continued to be suffocated’. States simply cannot put together the funds needed to maintain basic state functions. Balanced budget rules make borrowing difficult, which is compounded by the fact that banks charge high rates for money, citing the risks of lending to indebted countries.

Step Seven: Deep Cuts in Social Spending.

Impossible to raise funds, trapped by the fickleness of international finance, governments are forced to make deep cuts in social spending. Education and health, food sovereignty and economic diversification – all this goes by the wayside. International agencies such as the IMF force countries to conduct ‘reforms’, a word that means extermination of independence. Those countries that hold out face immense international pressure to submit under pain of extinction, as the Communist Manifesto (1848) put it.

Step Eight: Social Distress Leads to Migration.

The total number of migrants in the world is now at least 68.5 million. That makes the country called Migration the 21st largest country in the world after Thailand and ahead of the United Kingdom. Migration has become a global reaction to the collapse of countries from one end of the planet to the other. The migration out of Venezuela is not unique to that country but is now merely the normal reaction to the global crisis. Migrants from Honduras who go northward to the United States or migrants from West Africa who go towards Europe through Libya are part of this global exodus.

Step Nine: Who Controls the Narrative?

The monopoly corporate media takes its orders from the elite. There is no sympathy for the structural crisis faced by governments from Afghanistan to Venezuela. Those leaders who cave to Western pressure are given a free pass by the media. As long as they conduct ‘reforms’, they are safe. Those countries that argue against the ‘reforms’ are vulnerable to being attacked. Their leaders become ‘dictators’, their people hostages. A contested election in Bangladesh or in the Democratic Republic of Congo or in the United States is not cause for regime change. That special treatment is left for Venezuela.

Step Ten: Who’s the Real President?

Regime change operations begin when the imperialists question the legitimacy of the government in power: by putting the weight of the United States behind an unelected person, calling him the new president and creating a situation where the elected leader’s authority is undermined. The coup takes place when a powerful country decides – without an election – to anoint its own proxy. That person – in Venezuela’s case Juan Guaidó – rapidly has to make it clear that he will bend to the authority of the United States. His kitchen cabinet – made up of former government officials with intimate ties to the US (such as Harvard University’s Ricardo Hausmann and Carnegie’s Moisés Naím) – will make it clear that they want to privatise everything and sell out the Venezuelan people in the name of the Venezuelan people.

Step Eleven: Make the Economy Scream.

Venezuela has faced harsh US sanctions since 2014, when the US Congress started down this road. The next year, US President Barack Obama declared Venezuela a ‘threat to national security’. The economy started to scream. In recent days, the United States and the United Kingdom brazenly stole billions of dollars of Venezuelan money, placed the shackles of sanctions on its only revenue generating sector (oil) and watched the pain flood through the country. This is what the US did to Iran and this is what they did to Cuba. The UN says that the US sanctions on Cuba have cost the small island $130 billion. Venezuela lost $6 billion for the first year of Trump’s sanctions, since they began in August 2017. More is to be lost as the days unfold. No wonder that the United Nations Special Rapporteur Idriss Jazairy says that ‘sanctions which can lead to starvation and medical shortages are not the answer to the crisis in Venezuela’. He said that sanctions are ‘not a foundation for the peaceful settlement of disputes’. Further, Jazairy said, ‘I am especially concerned to hear reports that these sanctions are aimed at changing the government of Venezuela’. He called for ‘compassion’ for the people of Venezuela.

Step Twelve: Go to War.

US National Security Advisor John Bolton held a yellow pad with the words 5,000 troops in Colombia written on it. These are US troops, already deployed in Venezuela’s neighbour. The US Southern Command is ready. They are egging on Colombia and Brazil to do their bit. As the coup climate is created, a nudge will be necessary. They will go to war.

None of this is inevitable. It was not inevitable to Titina Silá, a commander of the Partido Africano para a Independència da Guiné e Cabo Verde (PAIGC) who was murdered on 30 January 1973. She fought to free her country. It is not inevitable to the people of Venezuela, who continue to fight to defend their revolution. It is not inevitable to our friends at CodePink: Women for Peace, whose Medea Benjamin walked into a meeting of the Organisation of American States and said – No!

It is time to say No to regime change intervention. There is no middle ground.

Vijay Prashad is the George and Martha Kellner Chair of South Asian History and Director of International Studies at Trinity College, Hartford, CT. Prashad is the author of seventeen books. He can be reached at: vijay.prashad@trincoll.edu