SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Today, the Oakland Institute and /The Rules, along with other NGOs and farmer and consumer organizations from around the world launch a campaign, Our Land Our Business, to hold the World Bank accountable for its role in the rampant theft of land and resources from some of the world's poorest people--farmers, pastoralists, and indigenous communities, many of whom are essential food producers for the entire planet.
Today, the Oakland Institute and /The Rules, along with other NGOs and farmer and consumer organizations from around the world launch a campaign, Our Land Our Business, to hold the World Bank accountable for its role in the rampant theft of land and resources from some of the world's poorest people--farmers, pastoralists, and indigenous communities, many of whom are essential food producers for the entire planet.
"The World Bank is facilitating land grabs and sowing poverty by putting the interests of foreign investors before those of locals," said Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute.
"Smallholder farmers and herders are currently feeding 80 percent of the developing world. Casting them aside in favor of industrial farming corporations from the West betrays the World Bank's reckless and short term approach to development," said Alnoor Ladha, Executive Director of /The Rules.
The Bank's "Doing Business" rankings, which score countries according to how Washington officials perceive the "ease of doing business" there, have caused many developing-country leaders to deregulate their economies in hopes of attracting foreign investment. But what the World Bank considers beneficial for foreign business is very often the exact opposite for existing farmers and herders.
In the agricultural sector, the rankings encourage governments to commoditize their land--and to sell or lease it to foreign investors, regardless of environmental or social impact. Smallholder farmers, pastoralists, and indigenous people are casualties of this approach, as governments and foreign corporations work hand-in-hand to dispossess them of their land--and gain World Bank approval in the process.
The results have already been devastating. Thanks to reforms and policies guided by the Bank, Sierra Leone has taken 20 percent of its arable land from rural populations and leased it to foreign sugar cane and palm oil producers. And in Liberia, British, Malaysian, and Indonesian palm-oil giants have secured long-term leases for over 1.5 million acres of land formerly held by local communities.
Now the land grab problem is about to get worse. Under pressure from the G8 and with funding from the Gates Foundation, the Bank is doubling down on its rankings fetish by introducing a new program called "Benchmarking the Business of Agriculture" (BBA). The BBA's explicit goal is to promote "the emergence of a stronger commercial agriculture sector." Its rankings will prize deregulation of the agriculture sector and is expected to enable further land grabbing around the world.
"We're standing up with farmers, herders, and indigenous peoples of the developing world who are being steamrolled by the World Bank's pro-corporate agenda," added Mittal. "Initiatives like the World Bank's 'Doing Business' rankings encourage governments to steal from the poor in order to give to the rich. That must end."
###
For more information or to schedule an interview with Anuradha Mittal and Alnoor Ladha, please contact Kristen Thomaselli at (202) 471-4228 ext. 101 or kristen@keybridge.biz.
Russia's hold over Crimea was seemingly finalized Monday after the government in Kiev ordered the withdrawal of all Ukrainian troops from the region. And Russian troops, meanwhile, successfully capturing the Feodosia naval base, completing their hold over all bases on the peninsula.
In an attempt to punish Russia for these actions, world leaders Monday announced the ouster of Russia from the G8 consortium. Leaders of the G7 countries--Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the U.S. and the UK--meeting at a nuclear security summit in The Hague revealed that an upcoming G8 summit in Sochi, Russia will be cancelled and that the group will be meeting in Brussels instead.
In a joint statement, dubbed the "The Hague Declaration," G7 leaders condemned Russia's actions over Ukraine and threatened to "intensify actions" against the country:
This clear violation of international law is a serious challenge to the rule of law around the world and should be a concern for all nations. In response to Russia's violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to demonstrate our determination to respond to these illegal actions, individually and collectively we have imposed a variety of sanctions against Russia and those individuals and entities responsible. We remain ready to intensify actions including coordinated sectoral sanctions that will have an increasingly significant impact on the Russian economy, if Russia continues to escalate this situation.
Meanwhile, reflecting the political flexing of world leaders over the crisis in Ukraine, media reports of troop build-ups and "war games" on both sides of the Russian border have enhanced the drama on the ground.
News outlets sounded the alarm after Tony Blinken, White House deputy national security adviser, speculated to CNN's Candy Crowley on Sunday that Russian troop build up along Ukraine's eastern border may signify preparations to mobilize.
"It's deeply concerning to see the Russian troop buildup along the border," Blinken said. "It creates the potential for incidents, for instability. It's likely that what they are trying to do is intimidate the Ukrainians. It's possible that they are preparing to move in."
Ukraine's interim leadership echoed these claims, as well. "The aim of Putin is not Crimea but all of Ukraine," National Security and Defence Council chief Andriy Parubiy told a mass rally in Kiev on Sunday. "His troops massed at the border are ready to attack at any moment."
Responding to the these accusations of an amassing force, the Russian defense ministery issued a statement that their troop presence "is in compliance with all international agreements limiting the number of troops in the border areas with Ukraine."
Mirroring the Russian build-up, news of U.S. "war games" in Poland and reports of NATO troop build up in Baltic and other eastern European states have contributed to the growing alarm in the region.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron told ITV News on Monday that, although he would not answer calls for the deployment of British troops, the UK is working with their NATO allies to bolster defense along neighboring Baltic states, which generally include Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.
"I think what is important is that we send a very clear message to our NATO partners and allies that we believe in NATO and we believe in their security," Cameron said. "That's why, for instance, we're helping some of the Baltic states with their defense and their needs. That's what we should be doing and that's what we're very much committed to doing."
_____________________
Dear President Obama:
As you ponder your potential moves regarding President Vladimir V. Putin's annexation of Crimea (a large majority of its 2 million people are ethnic Russians), it is important to remember that whatever moral leverage you may have had in the court of world opinion has been sacrificed by the precedents set by previous American presidents who did not do what you say Mr. Putin should do - obey international law.
The need to abide by international law is your recent recurring refrain, often used in an accusatory context toward Mr. Putin's military entry in Crimea and its subsequent annexation, following a referendum in which Crimean voters overwhelmingly endorsed rejoining Russia. True, most Ukrainians and ethnic Tatars boycotted the referendum and there were obstacles to free speech. But even the fairest of referendums, under UN auspices, would have produced majority support for Russia's annexation.
Every day, presidential actions by you violate international law because they infringe upon national sovereignties with deadly drones, flyovers and secret forays by soldiers - to name the most obvious.
President Bush's criminal invasion and devastation of Iraq in 2003 violated international law and treaties initiated and signed by the United States (such as the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter). What about your executive branch's war on Libya, now still in chaos, which was neither constitutionally declared, nor authorized by Congressional appropriations?
"Do as I say, not as I do," is hard to sell to Russians who are interpreting your words of protest as disingenuous. This is especially the case because Crimea, long under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, became part of Russia over 200 years ago. In 1954, Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine, which was then part of the Soviet Union, out of sympathy for what Ukraine endured under the Nazi invasion and its atrocities. It mattered little then because both "socialist republics," Ukraine and Crimea, were part of the Soviet Union. However, it is not entirely clear whether Khrushchev fully complied with the Soviet constitution when he transferred Crimea to Ukraine.
Compare, by the way, the United States' seizure of Guantanamo from Cuba initially after the Spanish-American War, which was then retained after Cuba became independent over a century ago.
The Russians have their own troubles, of course, but they do have a legitimate complaint and fear about the United States' actions following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Led by President William Jefferson Clinton, the United States pushed for the expansion of the military alliance NATO to include the newly independent Eastern European countries. This was partly a business deal to get these countries to buy United States fighter aircrafts from Lockheed Martin and partly a needless provocation of a transformed adversary trying to get back on its feet.
As a student of Russian history and language at Princeton, I learned about the deep sensitivity of the Russian people regarding the insecurity of their Western Front. Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union took many millions of Russian lives. The prolonged Nazi siege of the city of Leningrad alone is estimated to have cost over 700,000 civilian lives, which is about twice the total number of United States soldiers killed in World War II.
The memories of that mass slaughter and destruction, and of other massacres and valiant resistance are etched deeply in Russian minds. The NATO provocation was only one of the West's arrogant treatments of post-Soviet Russia, pointed out in the writings of Russian specialist, NYU professor Stephen Cohen (see his pieces in The Nation here: https://www.thenation.com/authors/stephen-f-cohen). That sense of disrespect, coupled with the toppling of the elected pro-Russian President of Ukraine in February, 2014 (which was not lawful despite his poor record) is why Mr. Putin's absorption of Crimea and his history-evoking speech before the Parliament, was met with massive support in Russia even by many of those who have good reasons to not like his authoritarian government.
Now, you are facing the question of how far to go with sanctions against the Russian government, its economy and its ruling class. Welcome to globalization.
Russia is tightly intertwined with the European Union, as a seller and buyer of goods, services and assets, and to a lesser but significant degree with the United States government and its giant corporations such as oil and technology companies. Sanctions can boomerang, which would be far worse than just being completely ineffective in reversing the Russian annexation of Crimea.
As for sanctions deterring any unlikely future Russian moves westward into Ukraine, consider the following role reversal. If Russia moved for sanctions against the United States before Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and other attacks, would that have deterred either you or George W. Bush from taking such actions? Of course not. Such an outcome, politically and domestically, would not be possible.
If you want continued Russian cooperation, as you do, on the critical Iranian and Syrian negotiations, ignore the belligerent baying pack of neocons who always want more United States wars, which they and their adult children avoid fighting themselves. Develop a coalition of economic support for Ukraine, with European nations, based on observable reforms of that troubled government. Sponsor a global conference on how to enforce international law as early as possible.
Drop the nonsense of evicting Russia from the G8 - a get-together forum of leaders. Get on with having the United States comply with international law, and our constitution on the way to ending the American Empire's interventions worldwide, as has been recommended by both liberal and conservative/libertarian lawmakers, along with much public opinion.
Concentrate on America, President Obama, whose long unmet necessities cry out from "sea to shining sea."
Sincerely,