Haitians protest against occupation. One shot while police just looks

Batay Ouvriye (Workers' Struggle in Kreyòl) reports from Haiti, via La Haine[es], of the demonstration against the occupation on July 28th, called by them and other organizations. Simultaneously NGOs from the USA and Brazil protested in New York, Brasilia, Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.


The demonstration, which consisted on some 100 activists, split in three groups: a picket before the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, another picket blocking traffic and yet another dedicated to information via pamphlets and graffiti.

The demo culminated with the burning of a Brazilian flag which enveloped a US banner (photo above).

When the demo was ending, a government paramilitary arrived and shot one of the demonstrators without the police doing anything about it.

Another demo of Batay Ouvriye with some 150 participants and similar slogans went through Cap Haitïen.

More photos HERE (PDF document).

Haiti has been under "international" occupation since 2004, when a joint US-French operation kidnapped the legal and highly popular President Bertrand Aristide, of socialist tendency, and deported him to Africa. In 2010, a mysterious and devastating earthquake destroyed the capital precisely when the US Navy was making a drill for an invasion of Haiti in case of a natural disaster (what a coincidence!). Immediately the USA sent a whole army to re-occupy the country in what was possibly a maneuver to displace Brazil from the area (related to the protectorate treaty with Colombia, the coup in Honduras and the more recent de facto occupation of Costa Rica).

The popular Fanmi Lavalas party of the legitimate President Aristide has been illegal ever since the 2004 invasion, what has caused widespread abstention in elections and a total delegitimization of the current puppet government of René Preval.

Dead zone: 10 years later Brazilian oil spill mangrove bay has not recovered

A warning for those in Southern USA, this is what will be, probably, of your coast and sea after the BP oil disaster:


Ten years later neither the mangrove nor the fish at Guanabara Bay, in Brazil, has recovered at all, nor does it look it will do any time soon.

The affected Brazilians express their thoughts in length on their own local catastrophe ten years ago and the Louisiana oil spill today at Al Jazeera.

USA and Brazil: America's largest nations in collision course

What the latest (un-)diplomatic row on Iran's nuclear program has shown is not just that, as I said earlier, the USA seems dead set to attack Iran no matter what, but that it's also dead set to sabotage everything that Brazil attempts. This was already very clear last year with the coup in Honduras and the de-facto annexation of Colombia, as well as in the most strange case of the US invasion of Haiti on the pretext of the earthquake.

According to Raúl Zibechi (La Haine[es]) this is all part of a growing confrontation between the USA and Brazil for influence in Latin America and around the World and therefore not really unexpected, not even by the Brazilian government.

For Zibechi this confrontation is anyhow centered at the Amazonia region and the control of South Atlantic oil. In other words: the USA aims to control Brazil as it used to do in the past. As reaction Brazil is building up for the unthinkable: a war with the greatest global power ever, a war they cannot afford to happen... or to lose if it does happen.

For that reason the Amazonian military region is seing its manpower doubled, the Army has grown 30% overall and new naval and air equipment is being added to the nation's military. All purchases include clauses of full technological transfer and none of them includes US-made material, but rather Russian or French. The goal is to create a Brazilian national military-industrial complex that does not need to rely too much on foreign imports.

Eventually Brazil will have to get nuclear weapons, of course, if it wants its dissuasive power to be effective. The National Defense Strategy of 2008 clearly speaks of the need to "develop and dominate nuclear technology".

In any case it is not something that affects only this or that party: all Brazilian media is rallying around Lula on these matters and that is because it is a matter of highest national interest that goes beyond classes or political parties.

With a different viewpoint and emphasis on China's and Russia's discreet role on the Teheran agreement, it's worth mentioning Pepe Escobar's opinion at Asia Times Online, where he quotes the Chinese military genius Sun Tzu: Allow your enemy to make his own mistakes, and don't correct them. For Escobar, it is clear that the USA has made a great mistake by sabotaging this agreement so bluntly, what can only harm Washington's power and prestige (even more) and get it confronted with more and more regional powers, not just Brazil but also hyper-strategical and again self-confident Turkey and who knows what else.

Again it seems that, much like Charles V and his son Philip, the US Empire is embroiled, more often than not willingly, in way too many fronts, wasting precious economical resources in a megalomaniac attempt to control the whole World in a self-defeating strategy of total global domination (as defined by Brezinsky and camarilla) that is even more absurd now that it was in the 16th century. Because now we know that total control is plainly impossible, a mere error of imperfect and too arrogant thought.

See also: The geopolitics of today (or 'BRICs are heavy'), for a broader analysis at Leherensuge, and this other analysis by Raúl Zibechi at Voltaire Net, this time in English.

USA seems set to attack Iran

The last few days have left us with a spat of contradictory news on the conflict around Iran and its nuclear ambitions. First Brazil and Turkey managed to strike a deal that was tailored to US demands so far on this matter and which counted with the support of Russia, a key UN security council veto-holding power and a major nuclear power itself. The US reaction however has been very hostile, claiming that they had already reached an agreement with Russia and China on further sanctions, including intercepting ships sailing to/from Iran in search of nuclear fuel or components.

They pretext that the agreement comes six months late and that Iran does not renounce to regular uranium enriching, which it is entitled to by the NPT, but the obvious reasons are that the USA wants to increase and not decrease the tension with Iran, in line with what their Zionist masters (the only nuclear power of the region) demand and, also, that it wants to trample the diplomatic movements of Brazil (already under US factual siege in Latin America), Turkey (becoming too independent for Washington's and Tel Aviv's likes) and Russia.

This new block of sanctions proposed by the USA are all but an open declaration of war, because the bulk of the naval intervention would fall to US/NATO hands, who are the interested party and who have a whole fleet in the area.

If Washington's position prevails (and so far it usually does), we should expect rapid escalation towards open war. While the USA is unlikely to occupy Iran right away (too costly and too likely to backfire), a terrible protracted unequal conflict, similar to the situation that Iraq was subjected to in the 1990s and early 2000s of total blockade, takeover of airspace and calculated bombings, is the most likely outcome. If the fundamentalist regime does not fall to that, then outright war is also within the possibilities but probably at a later moment, just like happened in Iraq under Bush Jr.

At the moment the UN security council is made up mostly of US satellites (UK, France, Austria, Japan, Mexico, Gabon, Nigeria, Uganda, Bosnia-Herzegovina), what makes the possibility of defeating US proposals by regular vote something almost unthinkable. This leaves Russia and China, who have the right of veto, as the key players.

China, maybe more concerned right now on what is happening at its own borders (Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Thailand, Korea), has not yet said a word. So Russia seems the most crucial player in this standoff. It's not a comfortable position considering how strong are Zionist interests in Russia too but, as of late, Russia has acted with determination and success against Zionist plans in Georgia, is gaining influence in West Asia (Syria, Turkey and of course cornered Iran).

Clinton has said that they had already persuaded Russia and China to back up their new sanctions package but Russia has spoken with ambiguous words backing the Brazil-Turkey bartered deal.

It's difficult to understand all clues in this complex multilateral situation but I'd say that Russia needs to back up Turkey specially, which is clearly sliding away from US influence, and does not want in any case yet another US engineered war in its West Asian backyard. Afghanistan, Iraq and Georgia are already more than enough. I imagine that, unless the USA offers a lot (something like Taiwan), the interest of China is also to back Russia, Iran, Turkey and Brazil in the UN. China, deeply concerned about its own access to West Asian oil resources, does not want more US military buildup in the Persian Gulf.

On the other hand, US attitude is clearly set up for a remake of the Iraq blockade, eventually leading to an outright invasion. This is totally consistent with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the rallying of friendly Arab dictatorships into its military alliance system and the government change and potential disintegration of Pakistan. Ideally, for the Pentagon and the White House (and of course for AIPAC, J-street and all the Zionist International), all the area should become submissive to the USA (and Israel), furthering the grip not just in Arab/Muslim nationalist ambitions but also on the access to resources of rising star China and setting advanced positions closer to the soft belly of Russia: Central Asia.

Of course, neutralizing the initiative of free-thinker powers such as Brazil and Turkey is also part of the plan. So, in the best case, expect the new deal to be boycotted by the USA and never gain the seal of approval of the UN Security Council, keeping the situation as it is: an active siege of Iran.

References:
· Thierry Meissan, Strategy Shift in the Middle East (Voltaire Net)
· BBC: Iran hit by fresh UN nuclear sanctions threat
· Al Jazeera: Brazil criticises USA over Iran

Geopolitics of today (or "BRICs are heavy")

I finally made a satisfactory map that reflects as well as possible the imperfect multipolarity of today's geopolitics:

Click to expand

Legend:

• Red shades: The Empire (dark red: USA and dependencies, bright red: other NATO members, other "central" US allies and their colonies, pink: other important US allies/EU members, stripes: under military occupation).
• Turquoise: Russia (stripes: under military occupation), Cyan: main allies
• Blue: China, lighter blue shades: under Chinese influence
• Orange: India, lighter orange shades: under Indian influence
• Green: Brazil, light green: other Mercosur countries, dark green: ALBA
• Dark Grey: other regional powers
• Regular Grey: other countries

Notice that I could not mark all US/NATO allies on risk of almost all the map becoming pink and that way maybe exaggerating the influence of The Empire even more. On the other hand I may have maxed the areas of influence of China (excepting Pakistan) and India. Many countries, of course, play multilateral diplomacy and try to keep a pretense of independence, what makes more difficult to decide what side are they in. The use of similar colors for Brazil/Mercosur and ALBA is somewhat justified but was mostly chosen to underline the differences between the USA/NATO bloc and the "Latin-Americanist" powers in the American continent. Anyhow, the latest developments in Honduras, Colombia and Haiti have clearly pushed Venezuela and Brazil closer in a joint bid to support the independence of Latin American and Caribbean nations, which obviously plays in their interest rather than in that of the USA, as imperialist power.


Overview:

There are two basic elements in the reality reflected in this map: The Empire and the BRIC.

The Empire is incredibly large (even if I tended to reflect only its strongest influence) and is clearly based on naval hegemony, which is supported by proportionally large navies, not just from the USA but also from France, UK, Italy, Spain, Australia and Japan in particular.

BRIC is an acronym that stands for Brazil, Russia, India and China. Even if it's an informal group, it has no other entity that reflect the four major powers that are still independent from The Empire. Each one of them has its own geostrategical interests and also different cultures and political systems. The only thing in common they may have is that they all are more or less confronted with The Empire... with one exception: India.


India:

It seems that India and China perceive each other as most direct rivals. Also India has a large maritime facade and hence clear naval interests in the Indian Ocean specially, which is also the ocean where The Empire has an arguably weaker presence. However India has with good reason distrusted The Empire in the past and instead kept stronger ties with the former USSR. The China-USA entente and the conflicts with Pakistan (an ally of both USA and China) on Kashmir, led the South Asian republic to act that way. However it has played both sides and has always kept major ties with Israel and other members of the Western bloc.

In the current circumstances, India still keeps good relations with Russia but the approach between Moscow and Beijing is pushing the old friend somewhat apart and throwing India in the arms of The Empire.


China and Russia:

But, of course, the most important power of all BRIC countries is nowadays China. And it is the growing conflict between China and the USA what really describes the scene. We can't still talk of a new Cold War, very specially because the Chinese take due care in no pushing the conflict to military but economic and diplomatic terms but, in any case, the conflict is clear and growing stronger, as knows anyone who reads the news.

China however is relatively weak in the military aspect, even if less so than in the past, and hence its growing alliance with the decadent but heavily armed Russia is of crucial importance. The "thirdworldized" Russia with loads of ICBM nukes, offers China an almost ideal ally: China does not dispute Russia its political and military clout on Central Asia but rips many of the economic benefits, not just of Central Asia but also of Siberia. It also offers China a military shield that prevents a direct conflict with The Empire.

On its side Russia also feels threatened by The Empire, which has been growing towards its borders and even threatens it with new missile deployments. The latest developments (defeat of Georgia, pro-Russian government in Ukraine, restive Turkey) may imply that Russia is scoring some goals but still it does feel threatened by NATO and siding with China is the best alternative it has (as together they control most of non-tropical Asia, while divided they would only play in the hands of their common rival).

China's worries are mostly a fear of being blockaded out of the oil supplies from the Middle East. Hence it's following two parallel strategies: on one side, cooperation with Russia to keep The Empire out of Central Asia (and as much as possible of The Middle East as well, for example protecting Iran) and, on the other side, securing as much as possible the shipping lines to West Asia (for which it has recently obtained bases in Bangladesh and Sri-Lanka).

In parallel, China is painfully working to weaken the imperial bloc in its immediate area of East Asia itself (seducing South Korea and even Japan and Taiwan as much as possible, supporting little Cambodia against Thailand, etc.), as well as gaining random friends in Polynesia and Africa and, specially, making business even where The Empire makes military alliances.


Brazil:

The other BRIC power is Brazil, whose confrontation with the USA has been growing hot in the last year. Brazil has been playing, even more than China, a soft diplomatic game, gradually strengthening its position both internally and internationally. While it has got its bad moments with the Bolivarian bloc led by Venezuela, the crisis of Honduras seems to have eventually opened its eyes. And if that did not, the growing US military presence in Colombia and the unbelievable massive invasion of Haiti have put things clear for Brazil: there's no room for two powers in America... unless they fight each other. Surely Brazil would like to grow in power more gradually and without conflicts but it seems that those days are now gone and The Empire is striking back. That situation obviously pushes the Bolivarian bloc (the ALBA) and the Brazilian-led bloc (Mercosur) into each other's arms.

The latest growing tensions around the Falklands/Malvinas disputed archipelago, as well as the repeated protests of Venezuela against the US-Colombia-Netherlands siege, show that the issue is serious.

However Brazil in comparison with the Asian BRIC countries has three disadvantages:

• Like India, it is a naval oriented country with a large maritime facade. Hence it's potentially more exposed to the Imperial naval hegemony. But, unlike India it's much closer to the USA and its area of immediate interests.
  
• It competes with the largest global power for Latin America, which the USA still considers its "backyard".
  
• It is the only BRIC power that has no nuclear weapons. It might develop them (as did India not long ago) but that would mean breaching international agreements (NPT) and giving hence a pretext to the USA to behave even more aggressively.
  

On the other hand it has some major advantages:

• Latin America in general is fed up with the USA and is clearly willing to try something new. Brazil has the potential of playing a leading role in this aspect and the recent formation of a distinct Latin American and Caribbean association without the USA nor Spain is a clear step in this direction.
  
• Not only Latin America but eventually even large parts of Africa, very specially South Africa (particularly sympathetic to Brazil and India, and leader of a large bloc, not represented in the map) and the former Portuguese colonies, could be interested in some sort of cooperation with Brazil and other Latin American nations with common goals of emancipation and development.
• The legitimacy of the people: unlike the other US rivals (China and Russia) and unlike most US allies (vassals) in the region, Brazil and its allies (excepting Cuba) are clear democracies, with more or less "progressive" leaning. Machiavelli himself would applaud that as a great asset.
• Oil: Venezuela seems to have become the largest oil reserve in the World, replacing Saudi Arabia in this position. Brazil itself has discovered large deposits offshore and there are others in Cuba, Haiti and the Falklands, fueling the confrontation with the USA and Britain. But also allowing for some decent bargaining as well.
  

The Empire:

The Imperial bloc lead by the USA has clear advantages: the largest share by far of the global GDP, a huge military, presence almost anywhere on Earth, lots of nukes, total naval hegemony... But it has also some disadvantages, namely: overextension, huge debt (largely caused by military overexpending), being dominated by a small oligarchy with very peculiar interests, often conflicting with those of the people and even The Empire itself (particularly Zionism), and now a brutal overproduction crisis that might well seal its fate once for all.

Overgrowth crisis are not alien to large empires. Rome itself faced one after consolidation and languished for centuries in it, while the British Empire decayed largely because it was too large to be defended against its own peoples. But the closest parallel is surely the Habsburgian Empire of Charles V and Philip II, who similarly were forced to overexpend in military adventures, often ill fated, almost everywhere (Germany, the Mediterranean, Britain...). At the time there was no larger empire and the Habsburgs thought they had no rival... but soon they had to experience a harsh reality check and declare bankrupticy, as well as making huge concessions to their rivals.

This is in fact what The Empire is facing today: the crisis is, as we all know, far from over and it is affecting severely both major pillars of the bloc: the USA and EU. It is primarily an structural overproduction crisis but it's also a debt crisis (with China getting rid of less and less solid US bonds) and an overextension crisis as well.

Just count the unfinished major wars The Empire is involved in: Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia-plus, Yemen, Somalia. Not to mention the never accoplished threat of attacking Iran, the extreme instability of most US vassals in Latin America (Colombia, Mexico, Honduras and poor occupied Haiti at least), which can any day turn against their master by popular acclamation, and those of other regions (Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, Thailand and even some European countries like Greece).

And then count the cost: the nominal US public debt is of almost 8 trillion USD but, in fact, more than 5 trillion are excluded from these accounts. Only counting the nominal fraction, the US public debt has never been so high since the late 1950s (as percentage of GDP, c. 70%) and, when we count all the real debt, it's as high as at the height of WWII (again as percentage of GDP, c. 115%). This kind of heavy indebtment, paid with the booty of conquest maybe but not without serious economic implications, is again another striking parallel with the Habsburgian Empire of Charles V and successors, very specially as most of it is wasted in both cases in military expenses.

But, of course, The Empire remains as of today as a mighty power, the only real superpower on Earth. Meanwhile, the Frances, Englands and Ottoman Empires of our day (the BRIC and particularly China) bid their time as much as they can avoiding direct confrontation as much as possible.

And this is the scenario we have now. Though admittedly it may well be obsolete in a decade or less.


Addendum: naval might:

Aircraft carriers may well reflect with some approximation the real naval might of each of the powers at play. They are as follows:

NATO and allies:

• USA: 11 ships in use, 1 projected
• Britain: 2 ships in use, 2 projected
• Italy: 2 ships in use
• Spain: 2 ships in use
• France: 1 ship in use
• Australia: 2 ships projected
  
• Japan: 2 ships projected
• Thailand: 1 ship projected

Total Empire: 18 aircraft carriers in use, 9 projected

BRIC:

• India: 1 ship in use, 2 projected
• Russia: 1 ship in use
• Brazil: 1 ship in use
• China: 1 ship projected
  

Total BRIC: 3 aircraft carriers in use, 4 projected


Sources: most data freely adapted from diverse Wikipedia articles and maps. See also this post on the China-US competition, this one on the latest US invasion of Haiti and its geostrategical implications and maybe this one on how Venezuela is being surrounded by US military deployment.

Note: of course, the secondary title is a silly wordplay with the superb record of L7, Bricks Are Heavy.

Liberal International attempts coup in Nicaragua

The President of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, has denounced that European MP and President of the Liberal International, Hans van Baalen, attempted to seduce Nicaraguan military officers into organizing a coup in the Central American country. However, according to Ortega, the reaction of the officers was patriotic and instead of joining such an anti-democratic plot, they reported the conspiration attempt.

Van Baalen, member of the Dutch VVD party, also managed to appoint recently Honduran coup leader, Roberto Micheletti, as one of the many vice-presidents of this global political bloc that sponsors Capitalism and supposedly also democracy and human rights, and that is mostly made up of small European parties.

Source: Tercera Información (found via Rebelión).

So, essentially, this "democrat" is trying to impose military regimes in Central America, surely acting as agent for other powers like the USA, and smash genuine democracy in the continent.

These maneouvers must be understood in the context of increased US-NATO intervention in Latin America, of which the occupation of Haití, the coup in Honduras and what has been called "the annexation of Colombia to the USA" (the new military treaty that gives full operative freedom to US troops and absolute impunity) are just the tip of the iceberg. There is increased tension in the continent and not just anymore between the USA and Venezuela: the interventionist attitude of the USA is also rising tensions with Brazil, which is naturally trying to counter the North American imperialism in its area of interests (for example supporting the legitimate Honduran President Manuel Zelaya).

Watch Latin America closely because I would not be surprised if the rumors of war could become true. However the Latin American peoples are pretty much tired of being treated as a colony and I doubt that these imperialist interventions will anymore have much effectivity.

And, on a side note, the brutal drought in Mexico can bring this crucial country one step further towards a revolution (it has been leaning to it for 15 years now) and shift the power balance in America still more against US hegemony.
.

Why the uncontacted tribe air photos?

Al Jazeera has today an interview with Jose Carlos Mereilles, the man who located and pictured the uncontacted Amazonian tribe that made headlines some days ago:

"... the Peru side of the Amazon is a no man's land where everything is permitted.

"The Indians are being pushed into Brazil, which causes conflict with Indians already here, but if they stay in Peru they know they will die after contact with loggers".

(...)

"Alan Garcia [president of Peru] declared recently that the isolated Indians were a creation in the imagination of environmentalists and anthropologists - now we have the pictures. Now the pictures exist for the whole world".

(...)

He claims Brazil has 69 references to isolated tribes with little to no contact with the outside world – 22 of which have been confirmed, several by Meirelles himself.

Previously the government policy was to integrate isolated tribes into society after contact, but studies showed two-thirds died within months of the first contact.

"That is not contact, that is genocide," Meirelles said.

So he and some colleagues were instrumental in changing policy to "no contact".

"These people have lived on their own for 500 years and that is their choice," he said.

"They can decide when they want contact, not me or anyone else. The policy of FUNAI is protection, we do not want to contact them; to run experiments on them to know about who they are, how they live or what ethnic group they belong too."

"As long as they are there, they are fine."

Amazon minister resigns. Ecology low in Lula's agenda.

Marina Silva, for the last 6 years Minister of Enviroment in the Brazilian Government, a staunchly defender of the integrity of the rainforest (about whom I wrote a month ago), has resigned.

Source: BBC: Brazil's Amazon Minister resigns.

Reasons? Many but basically that the ecological prorities of Lula's government are heading towards none at all. Two huge hydroelectric dams, a nuclear plant, authorization for genetically modified crops and the centralization of Amazonian matters in a different ministry basically meant she was being sidelined by the right-wing cattle-rancher and blindly developist anti-ecological forces.

It's, as I see it, sad news for the planet and sad news for Brazil as well. Once again it becomes evident that right-wing policies can be carried on by nominally leftist authorities. They had a name for that: violin governments, because they are held with the left hand but played with the right one.

Amazon Queen

All right, excessive title maybe - but catchy, certainly. It's an inspiring story anyhow.

Al Jazeera reports on the life of Marina Silva, Brazilian Minister of Enviroment, in charge of the protection of most of the Amazon rainforest. It's pretty interesting: she was born in a seringueiro family, who extracted rubber from wild trees in regime of semi-slavery, she used to be an illiterate maid who lernt to read and write in just 15 days when she was 17. Inspired by Chico Mendes, the seringueiro enviromentalist and social leader who was murdered by landowners' death squads in 1988, she took up the cause of the Jungle and now she is in charge of its protection.

Her boss, President Luis Inázio Lula da Silva, is also from modest extraction: he was a shoe-shiner before becoming politician.

Marina Silva in her youth

She says:

The Amazon forest lost 17 per cent of its vegetation in the last 400 years but the majority of this deforestation was done in the past 30 or 40 years.

That is why it is necessary to change the course of the process of development that has been happening in the region and take it into a new direction. Reduce the level of deforestation, and make a change in the model of development that has been implemented.

We need to bring a new paradigm where the standing forest is more valuable and viable than cutting the forest for other economic activities. That is possible.