

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
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.
"I have 18 of my family members being buried under the debris and soil that I am standing on, and a lot more family members in the village I cannot count," one survivor said.
A landslide that struck a remote part of Papua New Guinea on Friday may have killed more than 2,000 people.
The death toll was reported in a letter seen by The Associated Press that was sent by National Disaster Center Acting Director Luseta Laso Mana to the United Nations resident coordinator on Sunday.
"The landslide buried more than 2,000 people alive and caused major destruction to buildings, food gardens, and caused major impact on the economic lifeline of the country," Mana wrote.
"This situation necessitates immediate action and international support to mitigate further losses and provide essential aid to those affected."
The landslide buried the village of Yambali in Enga Province beneath 20-26 feet of earth, according to U.N. News. It took place at around 3:00 am local time on Friday, May 24.
"It has occurred when people were still asleep in the early hours and the entire village has gone down," Elizabeth Laruma, the president of the Porgera Women in Business Association, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).
Laruma said the entire face of the mountain collapsed, squashing homes. Images showed rescue workers moving around downed trees and boulders. Some of the stones unleashed were larger than shipping containers.
"I have 18 of my family members being buried under the debris and soil that I am standing on, and a lot more family members in the village I cannot count," resident Evit Kambu told Reuters. "But I cannot retrieve the bodies, so I am standing here helplessly."
Initial reports put the death toll at around 100. Then, on Sunday, Serhan Aktoprak, country head of the U.N.'s International Organization for Migration (IOM), said that approximately 670 people were thought to be buried under the debris and that "hopes of finding them alive are shrinking."
It is not clear how the government reached its figure of more than 2,000 dead, and IOM has not altered its figures.
"We are not able to dispute what the government suggests but we are not able to comment on it," Aktoprak told AP, adding, "As time goes in such a massive undertaking, the number will remain fluid."
The landslide covered 150 homes and displaced around 1,250 people, according to IOM. It also blocked off the only highway traveling into the affected province, making rescue operations more difficult. So far, only five bodies have been pulled from the debris, according to AP. Rescue workers and survivors had been attempting to dig people out of the earth with shovels and farm equipment until the first excavator was donated by a local construction business on Sunday.
In the letter to the U.N., Mana said the ground was still shifting, making the situation "unstable" and posing "ongoing danger to both the rescue teams and survivors alike."
There have also been challenges delivering aid to the survivors: a Saturday delivery brought tarps and water but no food, while the local government gathered food and water on Sunday for only 600 people, The New York Times reported.
"This situation necessitates immediate action and international support to mitigate further losses and provide essential aid to those affected," IOM spokesperson Anne Mandal told the Times.
"If you increase that intensity, you're taking the landscape into an environment it's never experienced, and it will respond. And a landslide is the inevitable response."
International leaders have expressed support.
"Jill and I are heartbroken by the loss of life and devastation caused by the landslide in Papua New Guinea," U.S. President Joe Biden said in a statement. "Our prayers are with all the families impacted by this tragedy and all the first responders who are putting themselves in harm's way to help their fellow citizens."
Australia's Foreign Minister Penny Wong pledged her country's support, saying Friday: "The loss of life and destruction is devastating. As friends and partners, Australia stands ready to assist in relief and recovery efforts."
U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres offered "deep solidarity to the people and the government of Papua New Guinea" and "condolences to the victims of the devastating landslides that have caused horrific death and destruction."
The cause of Friday's landslide is under investigation, according to The Washington Post, but some people in the area have attributed it to a lightning strike or a month of heavy rainfall. The mountain was also already unstable because of a previous landslide, according to U.S. Geological Survey geologist Kate Allstadt.
Papua New Guinea is often struck by fatal landslides, according to ABC. Partly this is because it is a mountainous, tropical country on the Ring of Fire, where both heavy rainstorms and seismic events can destabilize hillsides. It also has a poor, rural population who are more likely to live in a landslide's path.
However, human activities also increase the risk, with industries such as mining, logging, and liquefied natural gas destabilizing terrain or contributing to deforestation. The climate crisis also makes extreme weather events that trigger landslides more likely.
"Slopes are particularly sensitive to short-duration, high-intensity rainfall events," University of Hull vice-chancellor Dave Petley told ABC. "You can go back to first principles—imagine a landscape evolves to deal with the most intense rainfall it experiences. If you increase that intensity, you're taking the landscape into an environment it's never experienced, and it will respond. And a landslide is the inevitable response."
Stand.Earth international program director and chair of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Tzeporah Berman spoke out in response to Friday's landslide, as well as a heatwave in India and Pakistan and a cyclone in Bangladesh.
"Every ton of new oil, gas, and coal projects will cost lives," she wrote. "It's time for a fossil treaty."
"I am prepared to pay this price, if it helps raising awareness among the public and the societal leadership on the desperate situation we are in," said Giancarlo Grimalda.
A climate researcher based in Kiel, Germany said Monday that he was prepared to lose his job at a globalization think tank, after his employer gave him an ultimatum and demanded he go against his climate-based objection to aviation travel in order to return to his place of work—a requirement at least one critic said was rooted in retaliation for the scientist's activism.
Gianluca Grimalda has been working on a field assignment in Papua New Guinea for the past six months, studying the relationship between globalization, climate change, and social cohesion for his employer, the Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW). He traveled to Papua New Guinea without the use of airplanes and has planned to get back to Germany the same way, boarding cargo ships, ferries, trains, and coaches to avoid 3.6 tonnes of carbon emissions.
Grimalda was originally scheduled to be finished with his work on September 10, but said in an essay on Monday that he received permission from the head of his department to remain in Papua New Guinea after wrapping up the project and noted that he is able to complete his work while traveling.
Nevertheless, on Friday the president of IfW informed Grimalda that he was required to be back in Kiel on Monday, which would require him to board a plane—a demand that he said ignores the climate impact of aviation travel and the effects already being felt by communities across the globe, including in Papua New Guinea.
"Traveling by plane would produce around four tons of carbon dioxide—the greenhouse gas responsible for global warming," wrote Grimalda. "In my outbound journey, I limited my emission to two tons by traveling over land and sea for 35 days over 16,0000 of the 22,000 kilometers. In my inbound journey I plan to cover the entire distance without catching a plane, which would limit carbon dioxide emissions to 400 kilograms—ten times less than traveling by plane."
By resolving to carry out his "slow-travel" plans instead of flying back to Kiel, Grimalda said he is risking his job.
"I know that most people would swallow the bitter pill, take a plane, and go ahead with their work—both as a professional and as an activist," wrote Grimalda. "With this job, I have enough economic stability and spare time to pursue environmental causes. Nevertheless, I believe that we have reached the point where instrumental rationality is no longer applicable. The most recent scientific evidence says that we have transgressed six out of nine planetary boundaries and that several ecosystems are close to collapse (or likely past their point of collapse) because of temperature rise—in turn caused by greenhouse gases emissions."
Grimalda acknowledged that his individual refusal to support the airline industry is no match for the continued emissions of the sector as well as fossil fuel giants, industrial farming, and other corporate actors.
"My decision not to catch a plane will mean close to nothing for the protection of the environment," he wrote. "'That plane will fly even if you have not boarded it,' many people have already told me. This is true, but giving less money to the aviation industry may mean fewer planes in the future. In any case, all the science I know, all the evidence I see, point to the fact that we are in [an] emergency. In [an] emergency, extraordinary actions should be taken. That is why, with enormous sadness, I have decided not to take a plane and face all the consequences this will lead to."
"I am prepared to pay this price, if it helps raising awareness among the public and the societal leadership on the desperate situation we are in," Grimalda added. "It is my act of love to the current and future generations, to the animal species under threat of extinction, to the idea of humanity that I instinctively and undeservedly abide by."
Grimalda and direct action group Scientist Rebellion went public with the researcher's dilemma on the same day the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) in the U.S. released a report on private jet travel out of Laurence G. Hanscom Field near Boston, the largest private aviation field in New England.
Constrasting with Grimalda's commitment to reduce his support for carbon-intensive activities, IPS found that over 18 months, private jet owners and operators were responsible for an estimated 106,676 tons of carbon emissions, with half of those flights used for recreational or luxury travel. More than 40% of the flights were less than an hour long.
Climate groups in the area are currently pushing to ensure developers don't expand Hanscom in order to avoid even more planet-destroying emissions.
Grimalda told Scientist Rebellion that IfW has withheld his pay for the month of September without notice.
Julia Steinberger, a lead author of the latest report by the International Panel on Climate Change—which reiterated that "human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gasses, have unequivocally caused global warming" and warned that "approximately 3.3 to 3.6 billion people live in contexts that are highly vulnerable to climate change"—said it was "extraordinary that a research institute threatens to dismiss a researcher for doing his job too diligently and for avoiding flying during a climate emergency."
She added that she believes IfW aims to "retaliate for Gianluca's past participation in civil disobedience on climate change with Scientist Rebellion."
Grimalda has taken part in actions such as a blockade of the entrance of a biofuel refinery controlled by Eni, Italy's energy company.
The researcher expressed hope that his latest action "will sound yet another alarm bell to the ears of an inactive political leadership."
"As a scientist, I feel I have the moral responsibility to be proactive in sounding such alarms," Grimalda wrote. "It is true that thus far hundreds, if not thousands, of protests have all but gone unheard and have changed very little. Nevertheless, 'social tipping points' have existed for much progressive social change and things have changed rapidly for the good after a critical mass of support has been garnered."
"Rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and environmental degradation are already threatening many people's existence and threatening our way of life," said one local, warning the project will worsen the climate crisis.
More than two dozen advocacy groups from Papua New Guinea, the Asia Pacific region, and the United States on Tuesday urged the U.S. export credit agency to reject a liquefied natural gas project that they warned "presents significant financial risks and opportunity costs, as well as harmful climate impacts."
The groups—including the Center for Environmental Law and Community Rights Inc. (CELCOR), Food & Water Watch, Friends of the Earth (FOE) United States, Global Witness, Oil Change International (OCI), and Sierra Club—wrote to U.S. Export-Import Bank (EXIM) Chair Reta Jo Lewis about the Papua LNG project led by TotalEnergies.
The coalition argued that approving Papua LNG not only would contradict the Biden administration's 2021 pledge to end new public support for fossil fuel energy projects abroad and "further position the United States as an international laggard on climate, but would further jeopardize international climate goals, risk $13 billion USD in stranded assets, and put Pacific frontline communities at further environmental, social, and economic risk."
Peter Bosip, executive director of the Papua New Guinea-based CELCOR, stressed in a statement Tuesday that "the people of PNG are already facing the full force of climate change."
"Rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and environmental degradation are already threatening many people's existence and threatening our way of life," Bosip said. "Papua LNG will add to and exacerbate this climate crisis—and financiers cannot, and should not, finance it."
"Approving this project risks wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on infrastructure that will become a stranded asset, and worse, further places our climate goals of minimizing global warming to 1.5°C far out of reach."
The fossil fuel project "has not secured any guaranteed sales—with no long-term sales and purchase agreements (SPAs) or nonbinding heads of agreement supply deals," the letter notes. "In addition to these climate and financial risks, Pacific civil society and governments have repeatedly called for the end of all fossil fuels in order to safeguard a habitable climate for the region, as warming above 1.5°C risks the habitability of many Pacific island communities."
Limiting global temperature rise this century to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels is the more ambitious goal of the 2015 Paris agreement. Representatives of countries who have signed on to the deal—including the United States—are set to gather in the United Arab Emirates in November for the next United Nations climate summit, COP28.
"EXIM's potential support for this project signals that the agency and this administration [are] not serious about achieving international climate goals," OCI export finance climate strategist Nina Pusic charged Tuesday. "Approving this project risks wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on infrastructure that will become a stranded asset, and worse, further places our climate goals of minimizing global warming to 1.5°C far out of reach."
The letter points out that "PNG itself does not need fossil gas for its own energy needs—it could dramatically expand its energy usage and still provide 78% of its on-grid energy needs from renewable energy by 2030 were appropriate financing made available."
During the Obama administration—for which President Joe Biden was vice president—EXIM dumped billions of dollars into PNG LNG, a project led by ExxonMobil that, as the letter highlights, "has previously been associated with human rights abuses, escalating tensions, land-related issues, and broken economic promises."
FOE U.S. senior international finance program manager Katie DeAngelis said Tuesday that rather than repeating past mistakes of EXIM "by continually approving support for liquefied natural gas projects" that harm local communities and the climate, the Biden administration should "instead invest in renewables that will help the people of Papua New Guinea transition to a clean energy future."
Along with pressuring EXIM to reject the Papua LNG project due to the "enormous risks" associated with it, the letter concludes by calling on the agency to "take immediate action to implement the Clean Energy Transition Partnership (CEPT), by announcing a fossil fuel exclusion policy which most other high-income signatories of the CEPT have already done."
"THIS IS AWESOME!" That's how Fox 5 DC described its story (5/28/19) about Logan Moore of Cedartown, GA, a disabled two-year-old whose parents were unable to afford to buy him a walker, so employees at Home Depot fashioned one together themselves for him.

The clear implication in these stories was that those children would have been left permanently unable to move if not for the help of underpaid employees or the kindness of other children. How many disabled American children with poor parents were not so lucky? The articles did not ask. Instead, they were presented as "uplifting" human interest pieces.
Cillian's story is part of CNN's Good Stuff series, which asks its readers:
Want more inspiring, positive news? Sign up for The Good Stuff, a newsletter for the good in life. It will brighten your inbox every Saturday morning.
Unfortunately, these stories are part of a popular trend of unintentionally horrifying "uplifting" news, which we at FAIR have catalogued before (FAIR.org, 8/3/17; 3/25/19), where out-of-touch corporate media give us supposedly charming, wholesome and positive news that actually, upon even minimal retrospection, reveals the dire conditions of late capitalism so many Americans now live under, and makes you feel worse after reading it.
A lot of these stories involve mothers and the extremely difficult circumstances of raising children in the US while poor. CNN's "feel good" story (8/24/18) about a teacher sitting in a car with her student's baby so the new mom could attend a job fair raised far more questions than it asked (which was zero). Why is there so little public childcare in the US? Should a new mother really need to immediately find a job so badly? Is this good for infants' development?

Many outlets (CBS, 5/20/16; Huffington Post, 8/6/16; People, 4/11/16) cheerfully reported on how one man did at least 15 years of backbreaking labor as a night shift janitor at Boston College so his children could attend for free. But none even mentioned that if he lived in nearly any country in Western Europe, this wouldn't have been necessary, as university there is free or virtually free to attend.
In fact, rather than discussing ballooning tuition costs, Yahoo! (11/15/17) used the story to take jabs at disloyal millennials:
Millennials move from job to job in order to climb the ladder.... For baby boomers and other generations...loyalty and dedication to a single company or career drove, and still drives, much of their working lives.
Any of these stories could have been used to explore the pressing social and economic realities of being poor in the United States, and having to work for things considered fundamental rights in other countries. But instead they are presented as uplifting features, something only possible if we unquestionably accept the political and economic system.
Many of what Think Progress (8/2/18) labels "feel-good feel-bad stories" involve children doing things they wouldn't have to in any reasonable society. CBS invites us to enjoy an account of a boy selling his Xbox computer to help his (single) mom (4/2/19), and another repairing his town's ravaged roads himself (4/12/19). The Hill (6/10/19), meanwhile, describes a nine-year-old saving his pocket money to pay off his school friends' "lunch debts."

This sentence is telling: To corporate media, even the trauma of losing a parent and being forced onto the streets is merely an excuse, not a cause for poor grades. The implication is that poor housing, a lack of an adequate safety net, underfunded schools and a decimated public education system are simply excuses from bellyaching lazy people as to why they did not attend the private Boston University (at over $54,000 per year tuition), like the article's author did.
"No excuses" is a common phrase in "perseverance porn" stories. For example, Today (2/20/17) used it in the headline of a story about a Texas man who is forced to walk 15 miles to work every day. It reveals the ultimate bootstrap ideology of the media, where societal factors are irrelevant and everyone is where they are on merit.
Thus Moseley's story is effectively weaponized by CNN against anyone who would question the system. Terrible work conditions? No excuses! Homeless? Stop complaining!
In case you thought homeless children were something of an aberration in America, CNN (7/2/19) also recently ran a story about how over 100 homeless children graduated high school in New York City this year alone--again without comment on what this says about US society.
Another reprehensible story treated as heroic by media was that of a Michigan mother who had to quit her job to look after her terminally ill son, who died of leukemia. She could not afford a headstone, so his best friend, 12-year-old Kaleb Klakulak, worked many jobs to attempt to pay for one. Many media outlets (e.g., Associated Press, 12/8/18; Fox News, 12/9/18; NBC Chicago, 12/12/18) celebrated Kaleb's spirit, but none asked why children are performing hard, outdoor labor through a Michigan winter so other children can have adequate burials. Such reporting implicitly normalizes this situation, and the system that allows it to happen.

Or how about the story of a New Mexico girl selling lemonade trying to fund her mother's kidney transplant? People magazine (5/9/18) applauded her resolve, and local radio described it as "heartwarming" that she had raised over $1,000. The massive problem is a kidney transplant in America can cost over $400,000. To anyone with a heart, what this story actually represents is the desperate struggle of a child trying in vain to save her dying mother. Worse still is the fact that if she lived in Sweden, Spain or Saskatchewan, she would be given a kidney free of charge and without question.
Any of the numerous other outlets (ABC, 4/30/18; Good Morning America, 5/1/18; Albuquerque Journal, 4/30/18) that picked it up could have used the story to discuss the dysfunctional healthcare system that is the leading cause of bankruptcy in the country, while producing some of the worst health outcomes in the developed world, or to scrutinize how corporate healthcare gouges the sickest and most vulnerable Americans, including children. Surely the most basic function of government should be to prevent its citizens from needlessly dying? Not if you wholly accept the tenets of neoliberalism, where education, housing and healthcare are not basic, inalienable human rights, but commodities to be bought and sold and bargained for on the market.
To be clear, while we can admire the never-say-die attitude of those in tough conditions, this is no substitute for guaranteed public programs to help those in dire need. The problem with perseverance porn is not the brave subjects of the articles, but the lack of any journalistic scrutiny examining the failings of society that placed them in such desperate circumstances to begin with.
What these articles highlight so clearly is not only the grim, inhuman and unnecessary conditions so many Americans are forced to live under, but the degree to which mainstream corporate journalists have completely internalized them as unremarkable, inevitable facts of life, rather than the consequences of decades of neoliberal policies that have robbed Americans of dignity and basic human rights. Because corporate media wholly accept and promote neoliberal, free-market doctrine, they are unable to see how what they see as "awesome" is actually a manifestation of late-capitalist dystopia.
Amazon.com Inc. was brought to court by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in 2017 for transfer pricing discrepancies. In 2005 and 2006, the multinational tech company transferred $255 million in royalty payments to its tax haven in Luxembourg, but according to the IRS these royalty payments should have amounted to $3.5 billion. This transfer pricing adjustment would have increased Amazon's federal tax payments by more than $1 billion. Even for the U.S., a country with decent (although waning) infrastructure, the loss of this much cash in federal tax revenue is substantial. Take for instance the water crisis in Flint, Michigan--if the city's estimated costs of $55 million to replace the pipes are accurate, then Amazon's tax payments could have saved the 100,000 residents from lead poisoning 18 times over.
Water supply is not the only infrastructural problem that arises when export countries suffer from a dramatic loss of tax revenue. Education, hospitals, telecommunications, and roads also decline. And in developing countries--the countries that endure the most severe backlashes of transfer and trade mispricing--this infrastructure is often never properly constructed in the first place. The much-needed cash is, instead, sitting in a tax haven.
Raymond C. Offenheiser, the former president of Oxfam America, in his 2006 description of tax havens as being, "the core of a global system that allows large corporations and wealthy individuals to avoid paying their fair share, depriving governments, rich and poor, of the resources they need to provide vital public services and tackle rising inequality."
The anonymous whistleblower who, in 2015, leaked the 11.5 million documents that we now know as the "Panama Papers" shared in a manifesto that "income inequality" was their motivation in revealing the levels of financial abuse that tax havens create. A key concern for the whistleblower is that tax havens are "metastasizing" across the earth's surface--214,000 offshore entities are cited in the Panama Papers. The "metastasizing" certainly continued after the release of the Panama Papers--just two years later, a U.S. PIRG study found that 73 percent of the Fortune 500 companies operated 9,755 tax haven subsidiaries. The problem of tax havens did not form overnight; in fact, the whistleblower echoes Raymond C. Offenheiser, the former president of Oxfam America, in his 2006 description of tax havens as being "the core of a global system that allows large corporations and wealthy individuals to avoid paying their fair share, depriving governments, rich and poor, of the resources they need to provide vital public services and tackle rising inequality."
Tax havens are a geopolitical nightmare, and transfer pricing is a legal accounting trick to get money into tax havens.
Transfer Mispricing, Defined
There's a wide range of these kinds of tax avoidance games played by multinationals: Transfer mispricing, abusive transfer pricing, trade misinvoicing, base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS), and re-invoicing--they all fall under the umbrella of trade mispricing, or the intentional falsification of transactions on an international level, and are the process that has allowed the old colonial relations of productions to continue. Arguably, the polynymity of this deceptive practice is evidence of its ubiquity, but "thievery" could just as well replace any of these titles.
The short-term goals for mis- or re-invoicing vary. In some cases the desired outcome is to dodge capital controls (a strategy commonly used in emerging markets to reduce rapid cash outflows). In other cases, the incentive for misinvoicing is to claim tax incentives or avoid paying duty. Generally, the scheme is this: shift profits out of high tax countries and into low tax countries, or tax havens, while ensuring that the majority of the expenses are assigned to high tax countries.
In 2015, Global Financial Integrity (GFI) published a study revealing that in 2013 an astounding US$1.1 trillion was stolen annually--or nearly $3 billion a day--from developing countries due to trade mispricing. If you wonder why developing countries seem rather slow to develop, here's a big part of the answer. The head-spinning loss of $3 billion a day in taxable revenue begs the question: is "corporate practice" simply legal thievery?
Depleting the Tax Base, Perpetuating Poverty
Transfer pricing--the pricing of commodities traded between or within multinational enterprises--is a legal practice and a key feature of cross-border and intra-firm transactions. The United Nations prefers to use the broader phrase "trade pricing" in addressing this practice and defines it as a "normal incident of the operations of multinational enterprises (MNEs)." Because the word "incident" evokes concern, it should not go unnoticed. One of the most disruptive consequences of transfer pricing is that international transactions are now governed by the common interests of the "associated enterprises" of an MNE group. That is, market forces no longer control the transactions because with the allowance of transfer pricing, an increasing percentage of global trade (this includes the international transfer of goods and services, capital, and intangible goods, or intellectual property) now occurs as an internal practice between affiliated entities.
Theoretically, internal transfer pricing is supposed to follow the arm's length principle. This principle follows the idea that transfer prices should be controlled and recorded as if internal trades were happening amongst independent entities, or at "arm's length." But like the IRS case against Amazon.com reveals, proving arm's length is not so straightforward. So while the "arm's length principle" is very much written into place (Brazil is listed as the only country without domestic legislation or regulation that makes reference to the arm's length principle), even research from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations recognize that this principle is very much impossible to implement.
Unable to ignore the ease with which a company could engage in abusive transfer pricing, the OECD and the G20 countries first drafted the "BEPS Action Plan" in 2013 as part of a broader effort to enhance transparency for tax administrations to assess transfer pricing. At large, base erosion and profit shifting undermine the integrity of any tax system. But the direct "harm" BEPS created for individual taxpayers and governments was only part of the motivation for implementing the 2013 action plan. The other motivating factor was the added risk to businesses, including the risk to an MNE's reputation in the event its effective tax rate was viewed as being "too low" as it would impede, locally, "fair competition" for corporations functioning only in those domestic markets. With this latter motivation, little promise ought to be expected from the plan as it maintains a focus on risks brought to MNEs.
Setting potential reputation risks aside, the incentive for companies to strategically misprice trade or shift their profits is to avoid tax or duty payments. The incentive is to shield wealth. And while there is no single way to avoid tax payments and dues, there is one necessary component: tax haven subsidiaries.
The Art of Creating Political Asylum Networks for Wealth
Tax haven subsidiaries function as cash canals to transport taxable profits with the goal of lowering or, if you are Amazon Inc., entirely avoiding tax payments. But a company's subsidiary in a tax haven requires financial sleights of hand to get the cash safe. Take for instance the Goldcrest method Amazon used in Luxembourg. It shifted its intellectual property rights (or intangibles) that were held by its U.S. parent company to its subsidiary, Amazon Lux. The subsidiary then collected royalties tax-free on international sales. Google and Ikea, similarly, decided to play the "Going Dutch" move, using their subsidiaries in the Netherlands.
The "Swiss Sidestep" is another tax play, and rather than royalty payments, "management service fees" are the key element. By paying a value-added service fee to a sister company in a European tax haven, a company can "side-step" tax payments by converting profits into fees. And, then, of course, there is the privacy and protection that a company gets on the island of Mauritius--with the "Mauritius Maneuver" a person can send their cash to Mauritius to avoid income tax and then bring it back--without a trace--as "foreign investment."
Each of these fictional narratives that frame the legal movement of cash across borders has one theme in common: wealth protection and, therefore, poverty production.
The Colonial Undertones of Transfer Pricing
It is not the case that some industries are more prone than others to transfer mispricing, or even that developed countries are immune to this manipulative business practice--the IRS case against Amazon is a great example of this. But, it is the case that developing countries are more vulnerable to the impact of transfer mispricing. Suppose a company extracts 2 megatons (MT) of cobalt from Papua New Guinea (PNG) and then exports the 2 MT (or 1 million kilograms) at the price of US$5 per kilogram, but imports into Canada--by way of Mauritius or the Netherlands--the same 2 MT of cobalt at the price of US$10. The result for PNG is the loss of tax revenue on $5 million. Even at a mere 5 percent tax rate with these modest and imaginative figures, a loss of US$250,000 for PNG is significant.
The impact of trade and transfer mispricing on developing countries is not just monetary. There is a series of moral effects as well. In the hypothetical PNG scenario, for instance, one glaring concern that arises from this manipulative business practice is the implication that the people of PNG are somehow unaware of the value of their own resources.
Trade mispricing, then, alienates people from their own place, and in a manner similar to a worker's alienation from their product. A red flag must be raised to the psychological impact of pricing discrepancies that suggest cobalt, somehow, has a lesser value within the borders of PNG than within, say, Canada or Belgium.
The combination, or the intersection, of these two matters--these monetary and moral effects--is evidence that trade and transfer (mis)pricing, the crux of an MNE--are symptoms of an ongoing colonial hangover. The antidote? Establish strict and enforceable regulations so that one nation's economic sovereignty does not come at the expense of another nation's resource sovereignty.
This article was produced by Globetrotter, a project of the Independent Media Institute.
Raising alarm about human rights violations and the global climate crisis, activists from around the world are traveling to Washington, D.C. for the first annual Indigenous Peoples March, which will kick off at 8am local time on Jan. 18 outside the U.S. Department of the Interior's main building.
"Our people are under constant threat, from pipelines, from police, from a system that wants to forget the valuable perspectives we bring to the table. But those challenges make us stronger. We look forward to gathering together and raising awareness."
--Chase Iron Eyes, Lakota People's Law Project
"It's wonderful--and needed, now more than ever--to see so many tribes and organizations coming together to raise awareness about the ongoing need to preserve and respect the rights of Indigenous peoples," said organizer Phyllis Young of the Lakota People's Law Project.
Launched by the Indigenous Peoples Movement, a newly formed coalition dedicated to fostering positive change on "issues that directly affect our lands, peoples, and respective cultures," the march will be preceded by a group prayer at 9am and followed by an evening fundraising concert at the Songbird Music House.
"Indigenous people from North, Central and South America, Oceania, Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean are a target of genocide," the organizers charge. "Currently, many Indigenous people are victims of voter suppression, divided families by walls and borders, an environmental holocaust, sex and human trafficking, and police/military brutality with little or no resources and awareness of this injustice."
More than 10,000 marchers are anticipated to descend on D.C. for the event, including people from Australia, Guatemala, Papua New Guinea, Canada, the Caribbean and across the United States. Those interested in participating or supporting the march can check for updates on the official Facebook event, and are encouraged to post updates to social media using the hashtags #IPMDC19 and #WHYIMARCH.
Chase Iron Eyes, lead counsel for the Lakota People's Law Project, said in a statement on Wednesday that his delegation will also advocate for a Green New Deal--an increasingly popular proposal championed by the Sunrise Movement and other grassroots organizations as well as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and a growing number of Democratic lawmakers that would pair climate and economic policies--"as a way to combat climate change and create green jobs, especially in Indian Country."
"It's going to be a beautiful day," he said of the march. "Our people are under constant threat, from pipelines, from police, from a system that wants to forget the valuable perspectives we bring to the table. But those challenges make us stronger. We look forward to gathering together and raising awareness. We must remind the world, again, that Indigenous people matter. We are all made better when we respect one another and lift each other up."
Iron Eyes' comments come just a day after global protests spurred by outrage over the Canadian government's support for TransCanada's plans to build a fracked gas pipeline through unceded Wet'suwet'en territory, despite opposition to the project from First Nations leaders. Public anger ramped up on Monday afternoon, ahead of the demonstrations, after the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) invaded a checkpoint established by Indigenous land defenders and arrested 14 of them.
Plans for the march also come amid growing concern over the presidency of Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro, who was sworn in at the beginning of the year and has not wasted any time launching attacks on the environment and Indigenous communities in his country.
As Common Dreams reported, "On his first day in office, Bolsonaro introduced an executive order that will effectively take away land rights for indigenous Brazilians and descendants of former slaves and gave control of Amazon lands to the agriculture ministry; eliminated LGBTQ rights from the purview of the country's human rights ministry; and set the minimum wage lower than the rate his predecessor's government had budgeted for."
We wash our hair with it, brush our teeth with it, smother our skin in it and use it to powder our cheeks, plump our lashes and color our lips. We clean our houses with it, fuel our cars with it and eat it in chocolate, bread, ice cream, pizza, breakfast cereal and candy bars.
Palm oil: you may never have walked into a supermarket with it written on your shopping list but you've certainly walked out with bags full of it.
An extremely versatile ingredient that's cheaper and more efficient to produce than other vegetable oils, palm oil is found today in half of all consumer goods including soaps and toothpaste, cosmetics and laundry detergent and a whole array of processed food. Palm oil is also found in biodiesel used to power cars (more than 50 percent of the European Union's palm oil consumption in 2017 reportedly went to this purpose).
Our modern lives are inextricably intertwined with the commodity, which can appear on ingredient labels under a myriad of alternative names including sodium lauryl sulphate, stearic acid and palmitate. But activists warn that our insatiable demand for palm oil has fueled one of the most pressing environmental and humanitarian crises of our time.
The equivalent of 300 football fields of rainforest is destroyed every hour to make way for palm oil plantations, according to the Orangutan Project. This rampant deforestation -- which has occurred in some of the world's most biodiverse hot spots, mostly in Indonesia and Malaysia -- has decimated the habitat of endangered species like orangutans and Sumatran tigers, displaced indigenous communities, contributed to a regional smog problem linked to tens of thousands of premature deaths and is a significant driver of climate change.
Last month, palm oil and its impacts became the story of the hour when the U.K. banned a stirring ad about the commodity from TV broadcast. The ad, which featured an animated orphaned orangutan and was released by British grocery store Iceland, was deemed too political for television. The ban triggered a flurry of interest and outrage worldwide.
"There's been a huge spike in awareness about palm oil because of the Iceland ad," said conservationist and Mongabay.com founder Rhett Butler, who's been monitoring trends in the palm oil industry for years. "It was quite astonishing actually. It seems like global interest in this issue is at an all-time high."
But this spotlight on palm oil has revealed a troubling stagnation of the industry's progress in tackling the environmental and human rights issues that have dogged it for years.
On the surface, significant progress appears to have been made since the early 2010s: Public awareness of the palm oil crisis has significantly increased; some of the world's largest producers and buyers of palm oil have made very public and very lofty sustainability and human rights commitments; and governments -- notably Indonesia's -- have vowed to do more to protect the people, species and habitats exploited by the palm oil industry.
Yet, in spite of all this, "unfortunately from an environmental perspective, not a lot has changed," Butler said.
Deforestation is still occurring at an alarming rate in Indonesia and Malaysia, which supply about 85 percent of the world's palm oil. A September Greenpeace investigation found that more than 500 square miles of rainforest -- about the size of Los Angeles -- had been cleared in Indonesia, Malaysia and the neighboring nation of Papua New Guinea for palm oil production since the end of 2015.
According to the Greenpeace report, 12 of the world's largest brands including Nestle, General Mills, Kellogg's, Colgate-Palmolive, PepsiCo and Unilever continue to source palm oil from producers and growers that were found to be "actively clearing rainforests" -- despite the "zero-deforestation" commitments that these companies have made in recent years.
"We're consuming their products on a daily basis," said Annisa Rahmawati of Greenpeace Indonesia, according to Mongabay.com. "So we're ... indirectly [participating in these] deforestation and human rights violations."
Some companies including Unilever and Nestle responded to the Greenpeace report by reiterating their sustainability commitments. "Our ambition is that by the end of 2020 all of the palm oil that we use is responsibly sourced," Nestle said on its website.
"Greenpeace rightfully addresses serious and systematic issues that we know are fundamentally broken in the palm oil supply chain," Unilever noted in a statement, adding that the company is "actively driving change in both our own operations and across the industry."
This summer, Wilmar International, the world's largest palm oil trader, was embroiled in controversy after its billionaire co-founder Martua Sitoris was accused of running a "shadow company" with his brother that had cleared an area of rainforest twice the size of Paris since 2013 -- the same year that Wilmar had promised to work toward "no deforestation" and "no exploitation" in its supply chain.
Sitoris was forced to resign in the wake of the allegations, and Wilmar -- which controls almost half of the world's trade in palm oil -- vowed this month to strengthen its sustainability policy.
"Wilmar's [scandal] makes abundantly clear that these companies cannot be trusted to police themselves," said Tomasz Johnson, head of research at Earthsight and founder of The Gecko Project, speaking from London last week.
Emma Lierley, forest policy director at the Rainforest Action Network (RAN), echoed this sentiment. "The same problems are still happening in this industry," she said. "Deforestation is continuing, threatened species are still being put at risk, and there's evidence that labor abuse including child labor and forced labor are still commonplace across plantations in Malaysia and Indonesia -- and all of this is happening despite corporate policy changes."
"Corporate policy is all well and good but it has to be worth the paper it's written on," Lierley added. "We're just not seeing that real change taking place."
And the clock, she warned, is ominously ticking: The palm oil industry is causing potentially irreparable damage to the planet -- and its climate -- and if we don't take prompt and comprehensive action, the outcome could be catastrophic.
"What a lot of people don't realize is how much of an impact palm oil has on our future climate stability," Lierley said.
Palm oil cultivation is currently conducted disproportionately in high-carbon areas like tropical forests and carbon-rich peatlands. When these areas are deforested to make way for plantations, enormous volumes of climate-warming gases are released into the atmosphere.
It's estimated that tropical deforestation is responsible for between 15 and 20 percent of global warming emissions -- more than the emissions from cars and other forms of transportation.
Indonesia's peatlands alone now release more than 500 megatons of carbon dioxide every year -- an amount greater than California's entire annual emissions, The New York Times reported in November. And the deforestation of Borneo, an island shared by Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei, has contributed to "the largest single-year global increase in carbon emissions in two millenniums," the paper said, citing NASA research.
Palm oil plantations are the main driver of deforestation on Borneo, which has lost more than 16,000 square miles of ancient rainforest -- and critical habitat for a wide variety of creatures -- because of the commodity. Almost 150,000 critically endangered Bornean orangutans were killed between 1999 and 2015, partly because of palm oil.
"Scientists have warned us that we have just 12 years to avert the worst effects of climate change," Lierley said, referring to a grim United Nations report released in October. "The stakes are incredibly high. A lot of people are trying to pass the buck in the palm oil industry, but we need to see really bold action from companies all along the supply chain, as well as government actors and other institutions."
This is particularly pressing given the expected ballooning of demand for palm oil in the coming years. The Center for International Forestry Research estimates that world consumption of palm oil will increase by 62 percent in a "medium growth scenario" and 94 percent in a "high demand scenario." Other countries, particularly in Africa, are expected to see a boom in palm oil production to meet this growing demand.
Johnson, who for years has been investigating corruption in the palm oil industry, warned that the same broken agri-industrial model of palm oil production in Indonesia and Malaysia is already being replicated in parts of Africa.
"The same palm oil companies that have been operating in Indonesia have announced plans in recent years to do the same" in countries like Liberia and Uganda, said Johnson. "And you could just see the disaster slowly unfolding."
Companies like Wilmar and the Malaysian conglomerate Sime Darby have been granted enormous concessions, or cultivation areas, for palm oil in these countries -- and reports have already emerged of deforestation and land-grab issues.
"Many of these countries are fragile, post-war states," said Johnson of the African nations where the palm oil industry has been steadily encroaching. "If these [companies] aren't even following the rules properly in Indonesia," where President Joko Widodo has taken steps to crack down on conflict palm oil, "what's the chance they'll do things better in these fragile states?"
The problems with palm oil may feel complex and entrenched, but activists insist that solutions are within reach.
Though reducing consumption of palm oil could be a positive step, boycotting the commodity entirely doesn't appear to be the answer. Producing alternative vegetable oils like soybean would have similar, or even worse, environmental impacts, Lierley noted.
"It's not palm oil itself that's the problem," she said. "It's the way it's produced."
And that, activists say, is what needs to change.
Consumers should push companies to be more transparent about where their palm oil is coming from, said Mongabay.com's Butler.
"Look at the ingredient lists on the things that you are buying and figure out what products actually contain palm oil," he said. "Then contact the company and ask them what their palm oil policy is. It doesn't actually require that much feedback from consumers to send a strong message to a company."
Companies, in turn, need to be more transparent about their practices, Johnson said.
"If they want to be trusted, they need to put everything on the table, they need to be as transparent as humanly possible and people need to be watching them closely. If not, we're just going to see more 'zero deforestation' companies buying from dodgy suppliers," he said.
Consumers can use their dollars to support companies that have made -- and fulfilled -- sustainability commitments. The "bare minimum," said Butler, is to choose companies and brands that are certified by the RSPO, or the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil.
The RSPO, which is the world's leading certification body for sustainably sourced palm oil, has been widely criticized in the past for not setting high enough standards for its members and for inadequately enforcing its rules. Last month, however, the group significantly strengthened its criteria -- a move lauded by activists.
WWF, RAN and the Union of Concerned Scientists have palm oil scorecards that track how some of the world's biggest companies and brands are faring when it comes to sustainable palm oil.
"Companies often say it's a lack of resources or lack of information that make it difficult for them to fulfill their sustainability commitments. But if a small nonprofit like RAN can identify labor abuses, deforestation and land-grab issues, there's no reason why a huge multinational can't do it too," Lierley said.
"It's not an impossible problem," she continued. "It's a matter of willpower."
At the end of July, as the American wildfires began to take hold in California, British oil giant BP made its biggest financial deal in nearly twenty years.
In retrospect it would have been hugely symbolic if one of the largest oil companies in the world, BP, which had so badly devastated the Gulf of Mexico eight years earlier with the Deepwater Horizon spill, had taken this moment to say it was investing in renewables.
All you had to do was look at the flames burning - and listen to the experts saying this was climate change in action - to know that urgent action was needed.
But BP did not do that. As Reuters reported, BP agreed to buy U.S. "shale oil and gas assets from global miner BHP Billiton for $10.5 billion, expanding the British oil major's footprint in some of the nation's most productive oil basins".
That's a whopping $10 billion invested in more climate failure. BP Chief Executive, Bob Dudley, said in a statement: "This is a transformational acquisition for our (onshore U.S.) business, a major step in delivering our upstream strategy and a world-class addition to BP's distinctive portfolio."
Dudley told analysts in July: "I can't remember when it has looked this good," referring to the growth opportunities he saw for BP over the coming decade.
What is a "world class" reserve of oil to BP, is "world destroying" to everyone else. It may look good to Bob Dudley, as long as he doesn't look at the news regarding soaring temperatures and wildfires ripping parts of California to burnt shreds.
Remember this is the company that promised to go "beyond petroleum" nearly twenty years ago. But still it just keeps on drilling.
And here lies the disconnect the oil industry is in. No matter how many scientific papers there are warning about climate change, no matter how many scientists there are saying that climate change made this summer's heat-wave twice as likely, no matter how many financial experts are warning about stranded assets and that the oil industry is risking billions of share-holders' money, the oil industry carries on drilling.
It is not as if BP doesn't know the financial penalties of reckless oil exploitation: it is still paying off some $66 billion nearly in penalties and clean-up costs, related to the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010.
There are other warning signs too. As Reuters expands: "The sale ends a disastrous seven-year foray by BHP into shale on which the company effectively blew up $19 billion of shareholders' funds. Together, that is $85 billion of funds destroyed by investing in oil and gas.
Even the FT noted that : "The poor record of international companies in making successful acquisitions in US shale is a reason for investors to be wary."
Not content with burning $85 billion, they want to risk another $80 billion. As a recent report from Wood Mackenzie outlined this week, the industry is also about to splurge another $80 billion on upcoming mega projects in LNG development in Mozambique, the Arctic, Papua New Guinea, and Canada, and oil projects in Nigeria, Brazil, the Gulf of Mexico, Senegal, and the North Sea, as well as the Caspian, and Uganda.
The oil industry carries on burning money, oblivious that they are driving us all over a "climate cliff". Since BP's announcement, new scientific research about the dangers of positive feedbacks on climate change, which I blogged about here, and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has received huge media attention. And rightly so.
As Dr. John Abraham, a professor of thermal sciences at the University of St. Thomas in the US, noted two days ago in the Guardian, "The problem is, humans collectively are not doing enough ... There still is time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. But, it is far too late to avoid all climate change - it is already here. What we are hoping for now is enough wisdom and will to at least stop short of going off these cliffs."
The oil industry is full of very well-paid people who should understand the science and risks of climate change. They may be rich, but they do not seem to be wise. They drive blinkered towards the cliff.
Early last month, at a tiny military post near the tumbledown town of Jamaame in Somalia, small arms fire began to ring out as mortar shells crashed down. When the attack was over, one Somali soldier had been wounded -- and had that been the extent of the casualties, you undoubtedly would never have heard about it.
As it happened, however, American commandos were also operating from that outpost and four of them were wounded, three badly enough to be evacuated for further medical care. Another special operator, Staff Sergeant Alexander Conrad, a member of the U.S. Army's Special Forces (also known as the Green Berets), was killed.
If the story sounds vaguely familiar -- combat by U.S. commandos in African wars that America is technically not fighting -- it should. Last December, Green Berets operating alongside local forces in Niger killed 11 Islamic State militants in a firefight. Two months earlier, in October, an ambush by an Islamic State terror group in that same country, where few Americans (including members of Congress) even knew U.S. special operators were stationed, left four U.S. soldiers dead -- Green Berets among them. (The military first described that mission as providing "advice and assistance" to local forces, then as a "reconnaissance patrol" as part of a broader "train, advise, and assist" mission, before it was finally exposed as a kill or capture operation.) Last May, a Navy SEAL was killed and two other U.S. personnel were wounded in a raid in Somalia that the Pentagon described as an "advise, assist, and accompany" mission. And a month earlier, a U.S. commando reportedly killed a member of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), a brutal militia that has terrorized parts of Central Africa for decades.
And there had been, as the New York Times noted in March, at least 10 other previously unreported attacks on American troops in West Africa between 2015 and 2017. Little wonder since, for at least five years, as Politico recently reported, Green Berets, Navy SEALs, and other commandos, operating under a little-understood legal authority known as Section 127e, have been involved in reconnaissance and "direct action" combat raids with African special operators in Somalia, Cameroon, Kenya, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, and Tunisia.
None of this should be surprising, since in Africa and across the rest of the planet America's Special Operations forces (SOF) are regularly engaged in a wide-ranging set of missions including special reconnaissance and small-scale offensive actions, unconventional warfare, counterterrorism, hostage rescue, and security force assistance (that is, organizing, training, equipping, and advising foreign troops). And every day, almost everywhere, U.S. commandos are involved in various kinds of training.
Unless they end in disaster, most missions remain in the shadows, unknown to all but a few Americans. And yet last year alone, U.S. commandos deployed to 149 countries -- about 75% of the nations on the planet. At the halfway mark of this year, according to figures provided to TomDispatch by U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM or SOCOM), America's most elite troops have already carried out missions in 133 countries. That's nearly as many deployments as occurred during the last year of the Obama administration and more than double those of the final days of George W. Bush's White House.
Going Commando
"USSOCOM plays an integral role in opposing today's threats to our nation, to protecting the American people, to securing our homeland, and in maintaining favorable regional balances of power," General Raymond Thomas, the chief of U.S. Special Operations Command, told members of the House Armed Services Committee earlier this year. "However, as we focus on today's operations we must be equally focused on required future transformation. SOF must adapt, develop, procure, and field new capabilities in the interest of continuing to be a unique, lethal, and agile part of the Joint Force of tomorrow."
Special Operations forces have actually been in a state of transformation ever since September 11, 2001. In the years since, they have grown in every possible way -- from their budget to their size, to their pace of operations, to the geographic sweep of their missions. In 2001, for example, an average of 2,900 commandos were deployed overseas in any given week. That number has now soared to 8,300, according to SOCOM spokesman Ken McGraw. At the same time, the number of "authorized military positions" -- the active-duty troops, reservists, and National Guardsmen that are part of SOCOM -- has jumped from 42,800 in 2001 to 63,500 today. While each of the military service branches -- the so-called parent services -- provides funding, including pay, benefits, and some equipment to their elite forces, "Special Operations-specific funding," at $3.1 billion in 2001, is now at $12.3 billion. (The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps also provide their special operations units with about $8 billion annually.)
On any given day, more than 8,000 exceptionally well-equipped and well-funded special operators from a command numbering roughly 70,000 active-duty personnel, reservists, and National Guardsmen as well as civilians are deployed in approximately 90 countries.
All this means that, on any given day, more than 8,000 exceptionally well-equipped and well-funded special operators from a command numbering roughly 70,000 active-duty personnel, reservists, and National Guardsmen as well as civilians are deployed in approximately 90 countries. Most of those troops are Green Berets, Rangers, or other Army Special Operations personnel. According to Lieutenant General Kenneth Tovo, head of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command until his retirement last month, that branch provides more than 51% of all Special Operations forces and accounts for more than 60% of their overseas deployments. On any given day, just the Army's elite soldiers are operating in around 70 countries.
In February, for instance, Army Rangers carried out several weeks of winter warfare training in Germany, while Green Berets practiced missions involving snowmobiles in Sweden. In April, Green Berets took part in the annual Flintlock multinational Special Operations forces training exercise conducted in Niger, Burkina Faso, and Senegal that involved Nigerien, Burkinabe, Malian, Polish, Spanish, and Portuguese troops, among others.
While most missions involve training, instruction, or war games, Special Forces soldiers are also regularly involved in combat operations across America's expansive global war zones. A month after Flintlock, for example, Green Berets accompanied local commandos on a nighttime air assault raid in Nangarhar province, Afghanistan, during which a senior ISIS operative was reportedly "eliminated." In May, a post-deployment awards ceremony for members of the 2nd Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group, who had just returned from six months advising and assisting Afghan commandos, offered some indication of the kinds of missions being undertaken in that country. Those Green Berets received more than 60 decorations for valor -- including 20 Bronze Star Medals and four Silver Star Medals (the third-highest military combat decoration).
For its part, the Navy, according to Rear Admiral Tim Szymanski, chief of Naval Special Warfare Command, has about 1,000 SEALs or other personnel deployed to more than 35 countries each day. In February, Naval Special Warfare forces and soldiers from Army Special Operations Aviation Command conducted training aboard a French amphibious assault ship in the Arabian Gulf. That same month, Navy SEALs joined elite U.S. Air Force personnel in training alongside Royal Thai Naval Special Warfare operators during Cobra Gold, an annual exercise in Thailand.
The troops from U.S. Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command, or MARSOC, deploy primarily to the Middle East, Africa, and the Indo-Pacific regions on six-month rotations. At any time, on average, about 400 "Raiders" are engaged in missions across 18 countries.
Air Force Special Operations Command, which fields a force of 19,500 active, reserve, and civilian personnel, conducted 78 joint-training exercises and events with partner nations in 2017, according to Lieutenant General Marshall Webb, chief of Air Force Special Operations Command. In February, for example, Air Force commandos conducted Arctic training -- ski maneuvers and free-fall air operations -- in Sweden, but such training missions are only part of the story. Air Force special operators were, for instance, recently deployed to aid the attempt to rescue 12 boys and their soccer coach trapped deep inside a cave in Thailand. The Air Force also has three active duty special operations wings assigned to Air Force Special Operations Command, including the 24th Special Operations Wing, a "special tactics" unit that integrates air and ground forces for "precision-strike" and personnel-recovery missions. At a change of command ceremony in March, it was noted that its personnel had conducted almost 2,900 combat missions over the last two years.
Addition Through Subtraction
For years, U.S. Special Operations forces have been in a state of seemingly unrestrained expansion. Nowhere has that been more evident than in Africa. In 2006, just 1% of all American commandos deployed overseas were operating on that continent. By 2016, that number had jumped above 17%. By then, there were more special operations personnel devoted to Africa -- 1,700 special operators spread out across 20 countries -- than anywhere else except the Middle East.
Recently, however, the New York Times reported that a "sweeping Pentagon review" of special ops missions on that continent may soon result in drastic cuts in the number of commandos operating there. ("We do not comment on what tasks the secretary of defense or chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may or may not have given USSOCOM," spokesman Ken McGraw told me when I inquired about the review.) U.S. Africa Command has apparently been asked to consider what effect cutting commandos there by 25% over 18 months and 50% over three years would have on its counterterrorism missions. In the end, only about 700 elite troops -- roughly the same number as were stationed in Africa in 2014 -- would be left there.
Coming on the heels of the October 2017 debacle in Niger that left those four Americans dead and apparent orders from the commander of United States Special Operations forces in Africa that its commandos "plan missions to stay out of direct combat or do not go," a number of experts suggested that such a review signaled a reappraisal of military engagement on the continent. The proposed cuts also seemed to fit with the Pentagon's latest national defense strategy that highlighted a coming shift from a focus on counterterrorism to the threats of near-peer competitors like Russia and China. "We will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorists," said Secretary of Defense James Mattis in January, "but great power competition -- not terrorism -- is now the primary focus of U.S. national security."
A wide range of analysts questioned or criticized the proposed troop reduction. Mu Xiaoming, from China's National Defense University of the People's Liberation Army, likened such a reduction in elite U.S. forces to the Obama administration's drawdown of troops in Afghanistan in 2014 and noted the possibility of "terrorism making a comeback in Africa." A former chief of U.S. commandos on the continent, Donald Bolduc, unsurprisingly echoed these same fears. "Without the presence that we have there now," he told Voice of America, "we're just going to increase the effectiveness of the violent extremist organizations over time and we are going to lose trust and credibility in this area and destabilize it even further." David Meijer, a security analyst based in Amsterdam, lamented that, as Africa was growing in geostrategic importance and China is strengthening its ties there, "it's ironic that Washington is set to reduce its already minimal engagement on the continent."
This is hardly a foregone conclusion, however. For years, members of SOCOM, as well as supporters in Congress, at think tanks, and elsewhere, have been loudly complaining about the soaring operations tempo for America's elite troops and the resulting strains on them. "Most SOF units are employed to their sustainable limit," General Thomas, the SOCOM chief, told members of Congress last spring. "Despite growing demand for SOF, we must prioritize the sourcing of these demands as we face a rapidly changing security environment." Given how much clout SOCOM wields, such incessant gripes were certain to lead to changes in policy.
Last year, in fact, Secretary of Defense Mattis noted that the lines between U.S. Special Operations forces and conventional troops were blurring and that the latter would likely be taking on missions previously shouldered by the commandos, particularly in Africa. "So the general purpose forces can do a lot of the kind of work that you see going on and, in fact, are now," he said. "By and large, for example inTrans-Sahel [in northwest Africa], many of those forces down there supporting the French-led effort are not Special Forces. So we'll continue to expand the general purpose forces where it's appropriate. I would... anticipate more use of them."
Earlier this year, Owen West, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, referred toMattis's comments while telling members of the House Armed Services Committee about the "need to look at the line that separates conventional operating forces from SOF and seek to take greater advantage of the 'common capabilities' of our exceptional conventional forces." He particularly highlighted the Army's Security Force Assistance Brigades, recently created to conduct advise-and-assist missions. This spring, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, recommended that one of those units be dedicated to Africa.
Substituting forces in this way is precisely what Iowa Senator Joni Ernst, an Iraq War veteran and member of the Armed Services Committee, has also been advocating. Late last year, in fact, her press secretary, Leigh Claffey, told TomDispatch that the senator believed "instead of such heavy reliance on Special Forces, we should also be engaging our conventional forces to take over missions when appropriate, as well as turning over operations to capable indigenous forces." Chances are that U.S. commandos will continue carrying out their shadowy Section 127e raids alongside local forces across the African continent while leaving more conventional training and advising tasks to rank-and-file troops. In other words, the number of commandos in Africa may be cut, but the total number of American troops may not -- with covert combat operations possibly continuing at the present pace.
If anything, U.S. Special Operations forces are likely to expand, not contract, next year. SOCOM's 2019 budget request calls for adding about 1,000 personnel to what would then be a force of 71,000. In April, at a meeting of the Senate Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities chaired by Ernst, New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich noted that SOCOM was on track to "grow by approximately 2,000 personnel" in the coming years. The command is also poised to make 2018 another historic year in global reach. If Washington's special operators deploy to just 17 more countries by the end of the fiscal year, they will exceed last year's record-breaking total.
"USSOCOM continues to recruit, assess, and select the very best. We then train and empower our teammates to solve the most daunting national security problems," SOCOM commander General Thomas told the House Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities earlier this year. Why Green Berets and Navy SEALs need to solve national security problems -- strategic issues that ought to be addressed by policymakers -- is a question that has long gone unanswered. It may be one of the reasons why, since Green Berets "liberated" Afghanistan in 2001, the United States has been involved in combat there and, as the years have passed, a plethora of other forever-war fronts including Cameroon, Iraq, Kenya, Libya, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, Tunisia, and Yemen.
"The creativity, initiative and spirit of the people who comprise the Special Operations Force cannot be overstated. They are our greatest asset," said Thomas. And it's likely that such assets will grow in 2019.
"A shepherd must isolate such an animal (with scrapie) from healthy stock immediately because it is infectious and can cause serious harm to the flock." --German agricultural publication, 1759.
Scrapie is a prion disease, similar in its effect to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (Mad Cow Disease) and to the wasting disease that afflicts herds of deer, and to kuru, a disease first seen among tribes in Papua New Guinea that was transmitted in part through the ritual cannibalism of the tribe's dead. Elsewhere in Asia, the custom of eating the brains of a monkey was responsible for cases of Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease, yet another prion illness. Once established in the victim, prion disease destroys the human nervous system. It eats away at the higher functions of the brain. So, when I talk about the prion disease that afflicts the Republican Party, and the conservative movement that is its only life force any more, I do not use the metaphor idly. The party has lost what's left of its mind.
Far too many people are far too delicate about this. The Republican Party is completely mad, and it has been going in that direction for a very long time. It has been raving through all the halls of all the governments, large and small, like a lost soul with a big knife. The symptoms of the enveloping disease have been obvious for decades, ever since Ronald Reagan served up the first helping of monkey brains in 1976, when he nearly wrested the party's nomination from Gerald Ford. It is full-blown now, and it is general throughout the Republic. The Republican Party has infected every institution with its own private insanity.
Just on Monday, the President* of the United States declared insufficient applause at his State of the Union address to be a treasonous act. From The New York Times:
"Can we call that treason?" Mr. Trump said of the stone-faced reaction of Democrats to his speech. "Why not? I mean, they certainly didn't seem to love our country very much."
The White House dismissed this as simply a "tongue-in-cheek" remark by our laff-riot president*. I guarantee you that most of his intended audience, fed as it is with daily doses of the monkey brains by its favorite radio and TV stars, did not take it that way. They cheered because, in their minds, he meant every word.
The Republican Party is completely mad, and it has been going in that direction for a very long time.
While the president* was speaking in Cincinnati, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by Republicans in Pennsylvania of a ruling by that state's supreme court that Pennsylvania's electoral maps were rigged to favor Republicans. Time was when something like this would cause the offending party to get a little humble and try to fix the damage it's done, perhaps even with a little help from the other side of the aisle. That is not the way things work when the prion disease is raging. From The Daily Beast:
State Rep. Cris Dush went after five judges of the state's high court after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling from last month, which found that 18 districts must be redrawn. Dush reportedly asked his fellow Republicans to co-sponsor legislation late Monday to have the state's justices impeached for the court-ordered redrawing, which he described as "misbehavior in office." Dush claims the justices' order "blatantly and clearly contradicts the plain language of the Pennsylvania Constitution." Despite the state having more registered Democrats than Republicans, Republicans hold 13 of 18 congressional seats. It wasn't immediately clear whether Dush's initiative had won any support among his colleagues.
Dush is a product of the afflicted political party. He also is a symptom. There is only one solution. Isolate the afflicted from the rest of the herd before we all go truly mad.