Annual Fundraising Appeal

Here’s an important message to CounterPunch readers from Chris Hedges….

Hedges2

Chris Hedges calls CounterPunch “the most fearless, intellectually rigorous and important publication in the United States.” Who are we to argue? But the only way we can continue to “dissect the evils of empire” and the “psychosis of permanent war” is with your financial support. Please donate.

Day5

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

paypal-donate-21

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Miranda Rights

What Europe Could Learn From Latin America’s Independence

by MARK WEISBROT

With a few exceptions, most of Europe hasn’t had an independent foreign policy for the past 70 years, and the U.K. stands out as a prime example of this.   I remember discussing British foreign policy with a U.K. Member of Parliament a few years ago, and he said to me, “Do you want to know what the Foreign Office is going to do?  Just ask the (U.S.) State Department.”

The British government proved its first loyalty once again by detaining Glenn Greenwald’s Brazilian partner, David Miranda, under the U.K.’s Terrorism Act 2000 as he passed through London’s Heathrow airport on Sunday.  He was interrogated for the maximum of 9 hours and his laptop, cell phone, and other stores of digital information were seized.  It is clear that Miranda was not suspected of any connection to terrorism.  To detain and rob Miranda on this pretext is no more legal than to have done so on trumped up allegations that he was transporting cocaine.  The White House has admitted that Washington had advance knowledge of the crime, and so we can infer approval – if not active collaboration.

It is interesting, too, because the U.K. government had previously kept a relatively low public profile on the Snowden case, despite the fact that Snowden had leaked files from its own intelligence gathering and not just the NSA’s.  Until Sunday it looked as though the British authorities had learned at least a little bit about public relations after their international embarrassment last year, when they threatened to invade Ecuador’s embassy in order to capture Julian Assange.  Although they are still keeping Assange trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, illegally, and presumably at the behest of you know who.  And the editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, now reveals that the U.K. government, at the highest levels, has been very seriously threatening and harassing his newspaper in an attempt to silence it.

At the other end of the spectrum of national sovereignty are the independent nations of Latin America, three of whom have officially offered Snowden asylum, and others who would never turn him over to the United States if he were to land on their territory (or in their embassies).  These governments  have played a significant role in the Snowden affair and NSA spying scandal because they  have achieved a “second independence” over the past 15 years that enables them to pursue an autonomous foreign policy.  The exercise of this new independence is largely ignored or, more often, denigrated in the major media as populist demagoguery.  But it is easy to see that the “problem” is much deeper than that.

Brazilian foreign minister Antonio Patriota demanded answers from U.K. foreign secretary William Hague over the detention of David Miranda.  Last week, at a news conference with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in Brazil, Patriota spoke of a “shadow of distrust” caused by Snowden and Greenwald’s revelations that Brazilian citizens were a major target of NSA surveillance. He called for the Obama administration to “stop practices that violate sovereignty.”   Patriota was previously Brazil’s ambassador to Washington and nobody can accuse him of holding a grudge against the United States.

Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff had also expressed her “indignation” over what Bolivia described as the “kidnapping” of President Evo Morales by the European governments who forced down his plane last month on the basis of false allegations that he was transporting Edward Snowden.  “We believe this constitutes not only the humiliation of a sister nation but of all South America,” said Argentine president Cristina Kirchner, and the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) also issued a strong denunciation.

Brazil is the main target of Washington’s most recent charm offensive, with President Dilma Rouseff scheduled for an official state visit in October — the first by a Brazilian president in nearly two decades. The U.S. does not even have ambassadorial relations with Bolivia or Venezuela.  But the U.S. attempt to improve relations with Brazil is not going any better than its “diplomatic efforts” with the other left governments of the region. This is not because these governments wouldn’t want better relations – they all, including Venezuela, have significant trade and commercial relations with the U.S. and would like to expand these.

The problem is that Washington has still not accepted Latin America’s second independence, and expects its southern neighbors to behave in the same embarrassingly obedient way as Europe.  And U.S. officials still don’t understand that they are dealing with a team – they can’t be hostile or aggressive towards one country and expect the others to give them a big hug.  So we cannot expect better relations between Washington and its southern neighbors any time soon.

On the positive side, Latin America has done quite well over the past decade, since its people became free enough to elect left governments, which have subsequently led the fight for independence and transformed regional relations.  Regional povertydropped from 41.5 to 29.6 percent from 2003-2009, after showing no significant improvement for more than 20 years.  Income per person has grown by more than 2 percent annually over the past decade, as opposed to just 0.3 percent over the prior 20 years, when Washington’s influence over economic policy in Latin America was enormous.  The left governments’ detractors attribute these improvements to a “commodities boom,” but this is just a fraction of the story.  The region would never have seen such improvements in employment and poverty reduction if the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were still calling the shots.

As for Europe’s leaders, well, they have nothing to lose but their national dignity, which they don’t seem to value very highly.  But the world will be a better and safer place when Europe, like most of Latin America, declares its independence from Washington.

Mark Weisbrot is an economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: the Phony Crisis.

This essay originally appeared in The Guardian