My Log 701 Feb 14 2019: Chronicles from my Tenth Decade: 135; Canada is getting some doubtful friends internationally as our leaders line up behind restoring U.S hegemony over Latin America; and Canada is skilled in “the Culture of Plunder” in Africa; while Alberta practises eco-pornography

-->

Hold on a moment, fellas. You are purporting to lead us, but it seems that maybe you are leading us in the wrong direction.

As our elected government, you have taken a lead, gathered allies, and taken a stand in the decision to overthrow the government of Venezuela. There have even been claims that Canada has been the main protagonist of the so-called Lima group that has robustly declared in favour of the self-appointed Juan Guaido as the real president of the country, thus supplanting by a mere dictat, never mind about an election, Nicholas Maduro.

That sounds very laudable, especially to those the right-wing neo-liberals, who are quite comfortable with unelected or self-appointed officials, or military dictators. But which countries are our friends in the Lima group? Where are we finding our allies these days?

How about Brazil, the giant of Latin America, only recently released from left-wing government by a process so flawed as to be almost laughable, a process in which one president, Dilma Rousseff, was impeached for corruption and replaced by another, Michel Temer, who --- although he had been her main accuser ---  was thereupon himself accused of accepting massive bribes, with the result that he quite wisely decided not to stand for re-election. The man Brazilians wanted to replace Temer was the former president before Rousseff,  Luiz Ignácio “Lula” da Silva, but that wouldn't do, because he had governed as if the huge number of poor Brazilians had a right to some reward for their work, had introduced a family support programme conditional on their children going to school and being vaccinated, a programme that, along with  his provision of low-rent apartments to some 13 million Brazilians,  reduced the impoverished from 40 per cent of the 210 million population to 20 per cent, in the process  lifting 37 million people from the poor into an emerging middle-class. He also took measures to improve schooling, and to send black students --- some 50 per cent of Brazilians classify themselves as black or of mixed race --- and those from the poorly-funded public sector schools to private universities on scholarships.

Lula was caught up in the anti-corruption campaign: it isn’t altogether clear to me that he did anything worthy of his sentence of 11 years imprisonment, which bears all the signs of a measure by the oligarchy that before his accession to power had had an untrammelled run in Brazil, and which simply decided to see the back of him once and for all. That left the field open to a most peculiar representative of the extreme right,  Jair Bolsonaro, a former military officer who had languished undistinguished among the lower ranks of politicians until suddenly being put forward as the likely challenge to a weak field of prospective presidents. Swept into power by a huge Trudeau-maniac-type vote, this man was already known for his expressed fondness for the previous military government that ruled Brazil for 21 years to 1985, and who said he would like to see every family have a gun, and expressed freely and repeatedly misogynistic, homophobic, and racist opinions of an essentially vile nature.

A rather strange bedfellow for “happy days” Justin Trudeau.

But then --- well, how about Peru? A country now ruled over by a guy who had been vice-president until the real president was removed for corruption.

And then, how about Honduras? We remember that Canada played a considerable role in the overthrow of the elected president of Honduras,  José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, in June, 2009, especially through  our government’s efforts to protect the interests of Canadian capital in the country. The Canadian government apparently was particularly active in preventing the return of Zelaya, first, to the country ---when he took refuge in the Brazilian embassy for a few weeks ---  and secondly, to power,  which he attempted, with Brazilian help,  but failed to achieve at least to some extent because of Canadian and American lack of co-operation with him.

Well, we all know that Honduras is an actual banana republic, a description sometimes being applied in these days to Canada, as related to the United  States. But even the United States is investigating Paraguay for money laundering, as is the United Nations in Guatemala for corruption, and in another member of the Lima Group, Colombia, a country where para-military militias have for years been in the business of murdering trades unionists, the UN refugee agency reports that there are eight million internally displaced people.

Oh, yes, not such nice people, some of these Latin American bosses. The new President of Mexico AMLO, as he is called, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, to give him his full name, is also as member of the Lima group, but he has wisely tried to find a way to encourage negotiations between the contending parties, the sort of thing that one would have thought Canada might in times past have taken as lead in. (I’ll say it again: we need a new Foreign Minister). Although as anyone knows who has read anything about their past, the Latin Americans are not entirely responsible for their parlous condition but have been the victims of a centuries old onslaught from first British and then American capitalists.

Vijay Prashad, a well-informed journalist and book author, reports that we are not so innocent in Africa, either: according to him, in a riveting report on the 12-step American recipe for regime change, of which the onslaught by sanctions and other measures against Venezuela is a classic example, step No 4, the Culture of Plunder is one in which Canada takes a back seat to nobody:  he gives as an example that the Democratic Republic of Congo, with an annual  budget of $6 billion “is routinely robbed of at least $500 million 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, while the children remain illiterate.” (More information can be found about this at <https://www.alternet.org/2018/01/mining-companies-africa-make-billions-children-left-illiterate/>

Of course, talking about our leaders marching us in the wrong direction, I have been astounded by the ease with which the Premier of Alberta, aided and abetted by the federal Prime Minister, has persuaded virtually the whole politico-social leadership of the country to shout enthusiastically in support for the continuing destruction of the globe’s life support systems. They would never admit to it, but that is exactly what they are recommending when they insist that a pipeline must be built to enable the toxic Tar Sands of Alberta to be expanded, not only thereby destroying huge areas of wilderness, but also driving a coach and horses through our slim chance of meeting our targets for carbon emissions into the atmosphere. That, if it comes off, will exacerbate climate warming with many drastic effects that are already becoming evident.

The most extraordinary evidence of how wrong is the path our leaders are embarked on comes not just from their misnaming of this crisis ---- it has been argued between feds and province as simply a “jurisdictional issue”, a staggering example of a displaced euphemism ---- but rather in the eco-pornography launched by the Alberta government, by way of a TV advertisement showing an aggressively healthy-looking Alberta family marching off towards the horizon in a sunny world untroubled by any problems, the commentary remarking  how Alberta oil is essential to the national interest, or words to that effect.

 The very opposite of what is the actual truth. If we dig out all of our Alberta oil, we are going to be well along in the destruction of a settled, productive and successful Canadian lifestyle.

So not only do we have doubtful allies in our decision to join the current naked effort of the United States to re-establish U.S. hegemony over all of Latin America, something that until recent years they had traditionally enjoyed (at least since the declaration of the Monroe Doctrine in 1923). Global priorities have changed so dramatically in recent years, that most of the world would probably welcome American adherence to the Monroe Doctrine, if only they would not try to apply it to the entire world, as now happens.

(Recall: the Doctrine had four main points: (1) the United States would not interfere in the internal affairs of or the wars between European powers; (2) the United States recognized and would not interfere with existing colonies and dependencies in the Western Hemisphere; (3) the Western Hemisphere was closed to future colonization; and (4) any attempt by a European power to oppress or control any nation in the Western Hemisphere would be viewed as a hostile act against the United States.)

In addition, we have recently had this kerfuffle about the demotion, and finally the quitting, of a cabinet minister. It seems that a new penalty was created called a “remediation agreement” under which an entity like SNC Lavalin, a huge multinational engineering firm, when accused of some misdemeanor, would, instead of being charged, found guilty and all the rest, be heavily fined without an actual conviction being recorded. It appears that in the event of a conviction –-- in this particular case, of alleged bribery in order to obtain contracts --- a convicted company would be banned from tendering for government contracts for ten years.  Since some 8,7000 workers, and their families,  in Canada depend to a considerable extent on this company’s obtaining government work, the “remediation” procedure would appear to be a reasonable measure to ensure that the workers of a company would not necessarily be the main sufferers from the misdemeanours of their bosses. I can support any such outcome. The kerfuffle seems to be around the knowledge that the rich and powerful can  move governments even to change laws at their request. So what else is new? We didn’t already know that? I always find it hard to really bloviate in sync with all these conservative members of the  media commentariat who are currently foaming at the mouth in indignation.

My Log 700 Feb 11 2019: Chronicles from my Tenth Decade: 134; At last, I have a good reason not to vote for Andrew Scheer; but to offer him some advice: let your kids bump up against the real world, they’ll be the better for it

-->

I knew there had to be a good reason why I could never vote for Andrew Scheer, the leader of the Conservative party.

Of course, I never have, and never could, vote for a Conservative in any circumstances, nor for a Liberal. But many people would not think that a good reason, or at least an adequate one.

I came across the real reason I could never vote for him in an article on his wife in today’s Globe and Mail. They apparently have five young children, which might be a factor nudging me towards voting for him. Maybe. But not quite. Like, not by a thousand miles.

No, the reason lies in a tiny item that gives him away totally in my eyes. He finds the time to spend with his children every evening, if he can, to watch The Simpsons ---- “always checking it in advance to make sure of its suitability.”

That’s the kicker info right there. Scheer is a man who brings up his children in a manner that insulates them against even the mildest impropriety. He’s not a man who, like me, will ever experience his seven- year-old son coming home from school and snarling at him, about his teacher, "I hate that shrimpy fucking nun!”

The little Scheers are evidently being brought up in a world free of obscenities or of difficult relationships. Or of sceptical opinions. Or of anything that might upset them in any way.  Presumably they will go to some private school where they will be filled with twee ideas that will delight Mummy and Daddy, and Uncle David and Auntie Mim.

Perhaps I am being unnecessarily unkind to Chez Scheer, but I know I will never be close enough to them to be appalled by them. In their excessive concern for whitewashing the world in which their children  function, they remind me of an incident I remember from the years I spent hanging around the National Film Board. That estimable organization had a number of studios devoted to special work. One, known as Challenge for Change, was devoted “ to preparing Canadians for social change.” That is the one I did most of my work for, although I admit it was based on a false premise, namely, that if only the government knew what was happening out there in society, it would make haste to do something about it. 

Another studio specialized in animation films, in which they have attained an international reputation, and for which  some of the world’s most skilled film animators carried out their daily tasks.  It always seemed to me to be a complete justification for the very existence of the NFB that a modest little Scots-Canadian  called Norman McLaren could be seen shuffling around its corridors in his slippers, a man who just happened to have made some of the most imaginative and beautiful animated films ever seen.

Another studio specialized in “women’s" films, which brings me to the point of my story.  One woman producer  employed by this women's studio reported that she was having a special difficulty because pornographic magazines were being placed in low positions in news agents racks,  well within the reach of her 13-year-old daughter and “what am I supposed to tell my daughter about this?” My question was, what sort of mother would find it difficult to talk to her young daughter about pornography?

But the film-maker’s response was to make a film called Not a Love Story dealing with pornography and its horrors. This was a propaganda film, about which I had and have no qualms, but it was used to propagate a case for censorship, something I don't believe the NFB should ever have countenanced. Just incidentally, I doubt it was ever particularly effective in that aim; rather it had the opposite effect in that it was the first NFB film ever to be screened at lunchtime screenings in New York to audiences of bald middle-aged men.

One of my sons has warned me that The Simpsons could be a rather raunchy programme. He instanced a statement by Homer Simpson on one occasion that “I am a choc-a-holic, only with booze.”

Well, Andrew and Mrs. Scheer, I doubt that your little ones are  going to be ruined by anything they hear or see on The Simpsons. They might be better prepared to face the world if they are permitted so see and hear whatever comes across their ken, and if any of it troubles them, if they are given  by adults they trust some reasonable, factual information about its meaning or lack of meaning. 

They might trust you, and I hope they do: but me?  Since you seem to be asking I’m afraid I will never trust you, either to run this country, or to make any other decisions on my behalf.

Sorry about that, but wot the hell, wot the hell!

My Log 699 Feb 10 2019: Chronicles from my Tenth Decade: 133; My four favorite issues all stuck in the doorway; nothing much more to say until something changes; meanwhile a distinguished economist explains what is happening in Venezuela

-->

A guy like me who comments mischievously on the affairs of this world from time to time should be happy right now. After all, four  issues  have recently attracted my interest, and in each of them, nothing seems to be moving: politics appear to have ground to a halt, leaving me to chortle over the inadequacy of our politicians.

First, there is the farcical, snail-like process of the fatuous Brexit, Britain’s attempt to leave the European Union, that appears to have been stuck in the doorway for the last month or two. Mind you, when they announced in 2016 that Brexit was coming, I think Europeans must have breathed a sigh of relief, because the islanders never really joined. That never surprised me:  I remember from my first sojourn in Britain in the 1950s, how whenever there was a heavy storm, the newspaper posters would announce, “Europe cut off,” as if those foreigners over there were just hanging on desperately by their thumbs. And of course in those days the islanders never hesitated to tell you that “the foreigners begin in Calais.” After all, they beat them all into the ground, all those foreigners, during the war (with a little unacknowledged help from the Soviet Union and the United States.)

I remember when I worked for some months in a factory in London on a conveyer belt sending out food to Lyons’s tea shops: I agreed politically with my fellow workers who were all Labour supporters, but their attitudes to “those foucking foreigners” was something else: the only two foreigners apart from me ---- oh, yuh’re one of us, n’t yuh? ---  were a Dutchman --- the only Conservative voter ---  and a Greek woman, who were blamed --- it was something completely automatic --- for anything that went wrong on the line. One of the old dears on the line invited us to her home one evening, where she confided to us, “Mind you, there was one thing Hitler done right,” Oh, really, What was that? “He got rid of all them Jews.”

Second, there is the case of the arrested Chinese mogul Meng Wanzhou, cooling her heels in Vancouver after being  seized on December 1 by Canadian police, with the full knowledge of our “happy days” Prime Minister, at the insistence of Mr. Trump.  Our defence for this ludicrous action is that we are a nation of laws, into which politics never intrudes, which the facts in this case do not seem to support, since only the Minister of Justice, a politician,  can extradite anyone from Canada.

Third, is the astounding spectacle of the naked attempt by Mr. Trump and his lunatic minions to simply wish the elected government of Venezuela out of office, just by dictat, and our knee-jerk, questionable action in  springing to attention at the say-so of Mr. Trump.

And fourth, to add a bit of spice to all of these, is the strange spectacle of our former Attorney-general, recently demoted mysteriously (since she apparently had done nothing wrong) after having apparently refused to withdraw her prosecutors from the proposed trial of one of Quebec’s largest multinational companies, SNC Lavalin, on charges arising from their alleged bribery in applying for major  construction contracts, and instead to have them follow a new law (especially written to apply to their case) called a “remediation agreement” — which often allows  a corporation to pay a fine after reaching a plea bargain. The allegation is that she came under pressure from the Prime Minister’s Office to take this measure, and refused, and then was demoted.  The Prime Minister poured oil on this particular troubled water by denying the report in the most legalistic language that would convince nobody, especially after hearing him carefully repeat exactly the same formula four times in as row in both languages.

There are viable arguments to be made on both sides of these causes. But in all except the first of them, Brexit, our government appears to be acting the lap-dog to the American master. One of the first things I noticed when I arrived in Canada in 1954 was how uncomplaining Canadians were that their economy seemed to be mostly owned and almost totally controlled, by the United States. This was explained at the time by a conservative philosopher George Grant, in his book Lament for a Nation, when he wrote that  any move ever made by a Canadian government to assert national control over the economy, had always been resisted by our businessmen and entrepeneurs.

Thereafter, in the 1970s Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau tried to slow and even to reverse this process: I believe a reduction from somewhere in the higher 70 per cent to something closer to 50 per cent of foreign ownership was achieved, but with the election of Brian Mulroney the policy was reversed, and unsurprisingly this has again led to the increasing ownership of Canada’s economy by foreigners. A school of young nationalist economists led by Mel Watkins and James Laxer became active politically, but were effectively sidelined by the establishment of the New Democratic Party, whose Ontario leader,  Stephen Lewis, cut them off at the base by expelling  their so-called Waffle group, and never letting them back into the party.

With this cautious history towards U.S. control as a background, one might have expected a more hard-nosed attitude from the current Trudeau government towards the American attempt to undermine Venezuela economically, as a first step, then to openly produce their own candidate for the presidency without bothering go worry about an election, and finally  to openly brag that the imposition of privately- owned American oil companies to take over the publicly-owned Venezuelan oil company, would be of benefit to everyone.  Unexpectedly, no one has been more willing to salute and shout, “Yes sir, ready and willing,” than the young Mr Trudeau (unless it could be his Foreign Minister, Ms. Freeland.)

The problem with Venezuela for the Americans is that for the first time in its history some of the profits earned by sale of their oil were directed to alleviating poverty, providing education, and health care and building houses for the poor. A terrible sin, justifying, apparently, the imposition of crippling sanctions on the Venezuelan economy. In vain might one ask, why Venezuela? Why not Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Or one other of  the U.S.’s authoritarian allies?

The U.S.  ---  “making America great again” --- has been aiming to re-establish the hegemony it once exercised unchallenged over Latin America, an authority that was challenged by first Cuba, and secondly Venezuela, with  spin-off effects from these two socialist-leaning governments on other Latin American countries. The American economist Michael Hudson, one of the world’s leading experts on debt,  in a recent interview gave a coherent account of the origins of the Venezuelan crisis that appears to have by-passed the Western leaders of the international community. Hudson said as Venezuela developed it was always in the control of a wealthy local oligarchy subservient to American interests.

“Chavez sought to restore a mixed economy to Venezuela, using its government revenue – mainly from oil – to develop infrastructure and domestic social spending. What he was unable to do was to clean up the embezzlement and built-in rake-off of income from the oil sector. And he was unable to stem the capital flight of the oligarchy, taking its wealth and moving it abroad – while running away themselves.

He was asked by his interviewer if Chavez and Maduro were responsible for the current mess.? Did they make mistakes, or should U.S. sabotage, subversion and sanctions be more to blame?

He replied: “There is no way that Chavez and Maduro could have pursued a pro-Venezuelan policy aimed at achieving economic independence without inciting fury, subversion and sanctions from the United States. American foreign policy remains as focused on oil as it was when it invaded Iraq under Dick Cheney’s regime. U.S. policy is to treat Venezuela as an extension of the U.S. economy, running a trade surplus in oil to spend in the United States or transfer its savings to U.S. banks.”

He said that freezing of Venezuela’s bank deposits in the U.S. is making it impossible for Venezuela to repay its foreign debt, thus forcing it into default, which the U.S. hopes to use as an excuse for foreclosure on the country’s oil reserves, just as they had previously tried to do in Argentina.

“Just as U.S. policy under Kissinger was to make Chile’s economy scream," said Hudson, “so the U.S. is following the same path against Venezuela,  using it to warn other countries not to act in their self-interest in any way that prevents their economic surplus from being siphoned off by U.S. investors.”

He said the best Maduro could do now was demonstrate to the world the need for an alternative international financial and economic system. “He already has begun to do this by trying to withdraw Venezuela’s gold from the Bank of England and Federal Reserve. Their refusal to grant an elected government control of its foreign assets demonstrates to the entire world that U.S. diplomats and courts alone can and will control foreign countries as an extension of U.S. nationalism.

Over the longer run, Maduro also must develop Venezuelan agriculture --- rural extension services and  credit, seed advice, state marketing for crop purchase, and the same kind of price supports that the United States has long used to subsidize domestic farm investment to increase productivity, said Hudson. In short, he must go  along much the same line as the United States did to develop its agriculture under the New Deal legislation of the 1930s.