Sandra Finley

2014-11-18 Food security: California droughts could leave B.C. high and dry on food, Globe & Mail

 Climate, Food  No Responses »
Apr 212015
 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/california-droughts-could-leave-bc-high-and-dry-on-food/article21644937/

This article is part of Globe B.C.’s eight-part weekly series on food security in Canada. Visit this page  for the rest of the series so far.

When California Governor Jerry Brown declared a statewide emergency in January, there was hope water conservation and increased pumping from aquifers could blunt the impact of a withering drought.

Now, as the driest year in the state’s history is coming to a close, the aquifers are so overdrawn there are concerns about long-term damage – and the National Weather Service is predicting a fourth year of drought.

The dry spell, which some studies blame on climate change, is raising concerns about future food price hikes across North America.

In B.C., which over the past 20 years has relied increasingly on crops from California, food security experts describe the situation as alarming.

If California’s agriculture productivity collapses “we’d be in huge trouble,” says Brent Mansfield, co-chair of the BC Food Systems Network.

“The urgency is … as prices go up, will we be able to [afford to] put food on the table?” Mr. Mansfield asks. “First off, they are going to feed their own and then they are going to feed those who can pay the most. And that might not be us.”

Mr. Mansfield recently wrote a report predicting produce prices in B.C. could jump by 25 per cent to 50 per cent over the next five years as California’s productivity declines.

This year, rice production in California fell by 20 per cent, cotton was down 32 per cent and 170,000 hectares of farmland were fallowed, putting more than 6,000 farm labourers out of work. Revenue losses and the higher expenses of pumping water cost the state $2.2-billion (U.S.).

It could get worse next year.

In a recent report, the Association of California Water Agencies warned “a dry 2015 would have disastrous consequences,” which could include the complete failure of the state’s $1-billion annual cotton crop; the death of 20,000 hectares of citrus trees and the exodus from the state of non-farm businesses that rely heavily on water.

“Hundreds of thousands of acres of annual and permanent crops throughout the state would be idled,” the report says. “For consumers it means loss of jobs and higher prices for food and other products. It also means less locally produced food, which affects food security and our carbon footprint.”

Mr. Mansfield said while California’s loss of productivity will be felt across North America, B.C. is particularly vulnerable because of a shift in the province to imported produce. B.C.’s vegetable production fell more than 20 per cent between 1991 and 2011. Currently, more than 67 per cent of all B.C. vegetable imports come from the United States, with more than half that coming from California.

“We’ve seen a decline of [B.C.] staple crops in the past 20 years,” he said. “We’ve more or less stopped growing the crops we are now reliant on California for. … We are importing from California when we could be producing it ourselves.”

Broccoli, lettuce, strawberries and other crops that used to be grown in B.C. for consumption there are now largely imported from south of the border.

At the same time, he said, B.C. growers have shifted increasingly to export crops, growing more cherries and blueberries, for example, because of overseas demand.

B.C., Mr. Mansfield said, needs a dramatic shift back to local supply, and that means getting more agricultural land into production.

“Hopefully, this is a wake-up call for us,” he said.

Kent Mullinix, director, Institute for Sustainable Food Systems at Kwantlen Polytechnic University, said the drought dramatically underscores the need for B.C. to produce more food locally.

“We have messed up the climate. We have changed the climate, which is going to have profound effects on weather patterns and the incidence of severe weather events,” he said. “So our dependence on food from anywhere is iffy, much less central and southern California or Mexico. And that’s just all there is to it.”

Dr. Mullinix is working on a project to figure out how B.C. can best maximize the agricultural productivity of its different bio-regions. The goal is to provide a road map that will show how each environmentally distinct region can develop its own food system networks, where everything from genetic research, through production and processing, is done within that region.

He says this “re-regionalizing” of B.C.’s agriculture industry is urgent in the face of a changing climate.

“A sustainable food system has to be seen as the basis of a sustainable society in British Columbia, and elsewhere,” said Dr. Mullinix. “We are blessed with natural resources to achieve what maybe other areas can’t achieve as easily or as broadly. … And what we need to do and what we can do and what I think we’re in a better position to do than any other jurisdiction, is to figure out how to re-regionalize our food systems.”

He is working with several municipal and regional governments interested in encouraging the development of local food systems, and hopes the California drought will spur action at the provincial level.

“The fact of the matter is we can’t count on agriculture from anyplace, any more,” said Dr. Mullinix. “Even if California doesn’t suffer a drought next year, it might very well suffer the most devastating drought that it’s ever experienced the year after that – and we will be without fruit and vegetables.”

Shifting to regional production, and moving away from imports from massive, industrial scale farms in distant jurisdictions will be good environmentally, socially and economically, he said.

“The beauty of it is we will, through our food systems, start reconnecting with our environment and the environmental capacity of the place we live. I mean, connect our being with the place we live,” said Dr. Mullinix. “ I believe we can substantially enhance our regional economies. I think we can create a huge number of jobs, and I think we can probably produce more nutritious, wholesome foods.”

More Related to this Story

2015-04-18 Hundreds of Millions of Dollars already paid out to corporations because of trade deals. It’s about to multiply many times over (TPP, CETA, etc.).

 Trade Deals, PPPs, Integration Canada-U.S.  No Responses »
Apr 182015
 

Arising out of:

2015-04-15    A Trade Rule that Makes It Illegal to Favor Local Business? Newest Leak Shows TPP Would Do That And More, David Korten, Yes! Magazine

 

I remind Canadians of how much we are already paying out to Corporations for fines under NAFTA.   One example:

Here’s a make-you-sick example of how the system works:

With thanks to the Council of Canadians:

http://canadians.org/nafta 

Possibly the most anti-democratic legacy of NAFTA is its investment chapter (Chapter 11), which protects U.S. and Mexican corporations in Canada from all kinds of public policies that could get in the way of profits. There have been about 20 investor lawsuits filed by U.S. firms under NAFTA, many of them challenging environmental policies such as a ban on trade in gasoline containing the suspected neurotoxin MMT. These lawsuits are heard in private by a three-person panel of paid arbitrators whose decisions are final and binding. Canada has paid more than $160 million in fines already and is facing another $4-5-billion worth of NAFTA lawsuits, including one from Lone Pine Resources, which is seeking $250-million compensation for Quebec’s publicly supported moratorium on fracking in the St. Lawrence River Valley.

2015-03-20    Bilcon wins NAFTA challenge against Canada over gravel quarry expansion   (Bilcon won the ruling.  They are going for $188 million in damages.)

See also,  the fines we would pay out under  CETA  (the Trade Deal with Europe):

2011-02-08   CETA plus Harper signs new security perimeter deal without consultation

 

 

2015-04-15 UPDATE TPP: A Trade Rule that Makes It Illegal to Favor Local Business? Newest Leak Shows TPP Would Do That And More, David Korten

 Trade Deals, PPPs, Integration Canada-U.S.  No Responses »
Apr 182015
 

We have been engaged in the battle over the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) since October 2012.   Americans, Canadians, and people in the “Partnership” countries are fighting it.  It is a deal for corporations, at terrible expense to citizens.

Julian Assange (Wikileaks) published the early leaks about the TPP.

Our American colleagues have been successful in fighting down one aspect of the trade deal.   2015-02-26  Huge Win!  FCC votes to protect the internet with Title II regulation

David Korten is the author of the following,  an elucidation of “recently leaked” documents.  (I attended a 4-day workshop in Washington a few years ago.  David Korten, author of “When Corporations Rule the World” was a presenter and participant.  He is very down-to-earth, personable, hard-working, a man of integrity.

TPP, links to earlier postings – – see  APPENDED.

See also:   2015-04-18   Hundreds of Millions of Dollars already paid out to corporations because of trade deals. It’s about to multiply many times over  (TPP, CETA, etc.).

Bloody obscene.   Worthy of a revolution for this reason alone.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

A Trade Rule that Makes It Illegal to Favor Local Business?
Newest Leak Shows TPP Would Do That And More
David Korten,  Y es! Magazine

http://www.yesmagazine.org/thisweek/20150417?segment=df&utm_source=YTW&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=20150417

The leaked text is full of dense legal jargon. But a close reading makes its corporate agenda crystal clear.

Secret negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade and investment agreement involving 12 nations of the Pacific Rim, are coming to a close, and President Barack Obama will soon submit the final agreement to the U.S. Congress for approval.

Presumably, he will urge the deal’s passage with the same unsubstantiated and misleading claims his administration has offered all along: that the TPP will support Made-in-America exports, enforce fundamental labor rights, promote strong environmental protection, and help small business.

But a newly leaked document belies those claims. The Trans-Pacific Partnership’s text consists of a number of chapters, among the most important of which is the one on investments. On March 25, WikiLeaks released a confidential draft of that chapter dated January 20. The draft contains instructions indicating that it will be declassified only “Four years from entry into force … or, if no agreement enters into force, four years from the close of the negotiations.”

A quick reading of the leaked chapter makes it clear why TPP sponsors have gone to great lengths to keep their negotiations secret. The document substantiates claims by opponents that the TPP is a corporate-rights agreement designed to facilitate the export of U.S. jobs, allow corporations to sue governments for enacting labor and environmental protections, make it illegal for governments to favor local businesses, and advance the colonization of national economies by global corporations and financiers.

As problematic as this chapter is, we can be thankful that it is out in the open. Now the need is to understand what all the legalese means.

The leaked document includes many technical details decipherable only by trade lawyers. Here are the Cliffs Notes in simple English.

1. Favoring local ownership is prohibited

Let’s start with the Investment Chapter’s section on how the TPP’s member countries should treat foreign investors:

Each Party [country] shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.

Put in plain English, the above paragraph means that signatory countries renounce their right to favor the domestic ownership and control of the lands, waters, and other productive assets and services essential to the lives and well-being of their people.

The 12 countries further renounce their right to favor locally owned businesses, corporations, cooperatives, or public enterprises devoted to serving their people with good local jobs, products, and services. They must instead give equal or better treatment to global corporations that come only to extract profits.

2. Corporations must be paid to stop polluting

Another provision limits what member countries can do in regard to corporate investments:

No Party may expropriate or nationalize a covered investment either directly or indirectly through measures equivalent to expropriation or nationalization (“expropriation”), except: (a) for a public purpose; (b) in a nondiscriminatory manner; (c) on payment of prompt, adequate, and effective compensation [emphasis added] … ; and (d) in accordance with due process of law.

This provision may sound reasonable, until you look at the chapter’s definition of “investment,” which includes “the expectation of gain or profit.” This odd definition means that a corporation can sue a signatory nation if the country deprives the corporation of expected profits by enacting laws that prohibit the company from selling harmful products, damaging the environment, or exploiting workers. Other language in the chapter makes it clear that this applies to actions at all levels of government.

In other words, a country in the TPP has every right to stop a foreign corporation from harming its people and the environment—but only if the country compensates the corporation for the expense of not harming them.

Similar provisions are already on the books in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). According to Public Citizen’s Trade Watch,

Foreign firms have won more than $360 million in taxpayer dollars thus far in investor-state cases brought under NAFTA. Of the 11 claims currently pending under NAFTA, demanding a total of more than $12.4 billion, all relate to environmental, energy, land use, financial, public health and transportation policies—not traditional trade issues.

3. Three lawyers will decide who’s right in secret tribunals

The leaked chapter also describes how disagreements will be settled:

Unless the disputing parties otherwise agree, the tribunal shall comprise three arbitrators, one arbitrator appointed by each of the disputing parties and the third, who shall be the presiding arbitrator, appointed by agreement of the disputing parties.

The arbitrators are private lawyers who are not accountable to any electorate. They are empowered by the TPP to order unlimited public compensation to aggrieved investors. The proceedings and the identities of the tribunal members are secret, and the resulting decisions are not subject to review by any national judicial system.

According to The New York Times, NAFTA tribunals, on which the ones in the TPP are modeled, even have the power to overturn judgments of national courts—including the U.S. Supreme Court. John D. Echeverria, a law professor at Georgetown University, has called this method of dispute settlement “the biggest threat to United States judicial independence that no one has heard of and even fewer people understand.”

4. Speculative money must remain free

Yet another provision prohibits restrictions on movement of money from one country to another:

Each Party shall permit all transfers relating to a covered investment to be made freely and without delay into and out of its territory. …

Forms an investment may take include: (a) an enterprise; (b) shares, stock, and other forms of equity participation in an enterprise; (c) bonds, debentures, other debt instruments, and loans; (d) futures, options, and other derivatives.

Thus, the TPP guarantees the right of speculators to destabilize national economies through the manipulation of exchange rates and financial markets, without interference from national governments.

In so doing, the TPP strips national governments of the right to limit speculation in favor of investment in strong, stable, and productive national economies.

5. Corporate interests come before national ones

Another passage assures that corporations need bear no obligation to serve the interest of the people who live in the countries where they do business:

No Party may … impose or enforce any requirement or enforce any commitment or undertaking: (a) to export a given level or percentage of goods or services; (b) to achieve a given level or percentage of domestic content; (c) to purchase, use or accord a preference to goods produced in its territory, or to purchase goods from persons in its territory.

The article continues on with six additional provisions, which together prohibit governments from requiring that a foreign investor be under any obligation to serve the host country’s people or national interest.

Obama administration officials say these provisions are needed to level the playing field for American companies doing business abroad. This raises an important question: What is an American company?

The Institute for Policy Studies reports that U.S. corporations and their subsidiaries currently hold $2.1 trillion in profits offshore to avoid paying taxes to the government of the United States. These include highly profitable companies like Microsoft, Google, Apple, General Electric, Exxon Mobil, and Chevron. One wonders on what basis we should consider these globe-spanning, tax-dodging, job-exporting corporations to be American.

Approval of the TPP means sacrificing our democracy and our right to manage our markets and resources for the public good. And for what gain? To secure rights for corporations—which claim an American identity only when convenient—to exploit the peoples and resources of other countries that have signed the same nefarious agreement.

David Korten is co-founder and board chair of YES! Magazine, co-chair of the New Economy Working Group, president of the Living Economies Forum, an associate fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies, and a member of the Club of Rome. His books include the international best-seller When Corporations Rule the World, which will be released in an updated 20th anniversary edition in June 2015.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
APPENDED
RELATED POSTINGS:Bombshell from Wikileaks re TPP.  Plus secret TPP Meetings next week in Salt Lake City. Protests.2013-11-14 Bombshell from Wikileaks: giant U.S. conglomerates are about to obtain extreme Internet censorship. Attempting fast wrap up of Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).2013-11-14 Leaked Asia trade text sees US backing firms, The Malaysian Insider. (TPP includes Canada) Assange’s Wikileaks.

 

2013-11-09 Contrast: Transatlantic Trade Deals (CETA & TTIP) vs “We Are Living in the World Occupy Made”

 

2013-11-04 (Canadians: we will be paying Eli Lilly $500M. Wake up & rise up!) “This transatlantic trade deal is a full-frontal assault on democracy”, The Guardian, George Monbiot.

 

2013-10-13 Very Important Video: Ronnie Cummins on Turning the Tide Against Monsanto.

 

2013-06-13 Food Safety Alert, Subverting Democracy, Passing GMO Labeling Laws, and More on the Farm Bill

 

2012-10-10 Canada joins closed door Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations: Critics warn Canadian Internet rights will suffer. Vancouver Sun.

 

2015-04-15 NEW BOOK: ”THE ARROGANT AUTOCRAT: Stephen Harper’s Takeover of Canada” by MEL HURTIG

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?  1 Response »
Apr 152015
 

Mel Hurtig to Canada’s rescue, as always!

We owe so much to this passionate man.

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

Mel Hurtig

The Arrogant Autocrat: Stephen Harper’s Takeover of Canada.

 

Dear Friends,

 

I am very happy to be able to tell you that my new book about Stephen Harper is at the printer. Copies should be available through bookstores any day now. We have purposely kept the book to under 150 pages so we could keep costs down and get it out well in advance of the next federal election. The book will be a quality trade paperback retailing for $19.95.

Only a very few people have had a chance to read it yet but there has been much praise – “powerful,” “explosive”… Everyone who has seen the manuscript is very excited about the book. The one person who won’t be is Stephen Harper.

The title is – The Arrogant Autocrat: Stephen Harper’s Takeover of Canada and it is an excellent description of how Stephen Harper has been ruining our country.

If your bookstore doesn’t have copies, you will be able to order them through your bookstore or from Chapters.ca or Amazon.ca. If you have any difficulties whatsoever, give me a call at the number below.

Given that the election is just around the corner, this book is very, very timely and should have an impact on the results. The Arrogant Autocrat contains all kinds of information that you won’t find in other Stephen Harper books. There is a great deal of new material here and much of it is shocking. I hope you will tell all your friends and family about the book.

 

Best regards,

Mel

604-684-8443

https://www.facebook.com/#!/mel.hurtig?fref=nf

– – – – – – – – – – –

I (Sandra Finley) acknowledge a special debt of gratitude to Mel.

He was very active in the effort to stop the contracting-out of work at Statistics Canada to Lockheed Martin Corporation (American military). (2003 – 2006 and beyond)

When I was subsequently charged for failure to comply with the Census, Mel was there with emotional and moral support. Through the years I received occasional, brief but important words of encouragement from him.

“Arrogant Autocrat” will be another valuable contribution to the history of Canada. Bless you and thank-you Mel.

 

Thanks to Janet who writes:

. . . I can’t  wait to read  Mel’s “powerful,” and “explosive” new book . . .

My Pre-Election Reading List:

1. Mark Bourrie.  “Kill the Messengers: Stephen Harper’s Assault on Your right to Know.” 2015

2. Michael Harris.. “Party of One. Stephen Harper and Canada’s Radical Makeover” October 2014

3. Donald Gutstein. “Harperism, How Stephen Harper and his Think Tank Colleagues have Transformed” . Sept 3 2014

4. Lawrence Martin. “Harperland : the Politics of Control”. October 5th, 2010

5. Christian Nadeau. “Rogue in Power: Why Stephen Harper is Remaking Canada by Stealth”. 2010

FYI- janet

p.s.   On the  cover of Mel’s new book are found his words:

”I have spent much of my career  warning Canadians of the increasing threat that foreign corporate takeovers of our companies and resource sectors pose to our sovereignty. But in decades of sounding the alarm of takeovers, I never imagined that the greatest threat would come from the takeover of our country by one politician determined to remake our nation according to his own values and priotities.”

THAT ONE POLITICIAN IS, OF COURSE, STEPHEN HARPER.

Open letter to: Mikhail S. Gorbachev – Initiate a World Peace Conference

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials)  No Responses »
Apr 122015
 

Sign the Petition:  http://diy.rootsaction.org/petitions/initiate-a-world-peace-conference

I am chuckling.

Last week I didn’t think it was possible to stop the “defense” industry people who should be locked in an insane asylum.   Their “business plan” is for “growth”, of course. The targeted markets for their “capabilities” (weapons) are areas of tension in the world.   ONE of these corporations alone has annual revenues of $40 billion, the majority of which is Government-funded.   What chance have we against their destroy-the-world-with-war in the name of “growth” action plan?

I am happy I did not tell you my despair.   I wrote:  It would be great if the German people could lend a hand here. Stop Deutsche Bank from investing in Lockheed Martin (whose growth plan it is, along with others that have the same advisors).

See  Strategy, scenarios, and the global shift in defense power.

Today, WHAT A GIFT!   A small number of people in Germany did way better! (Although I would still be happy if they stopped the investment in Lockheed!)

They issued an open letter to Mikhail Gorbachev asking him to initiate a World Peace Conference. It was picked up, translated, and launched in the U.S.

It will go viral, I think. I was the 1,186th to sign (April 12th, 1:30 pm, west coast of Canada).

Let ‘er rip!

I just love it – – there’s always someone among us who comes up with a brilliant idea.   I might not agree with every detail,  doesn[t matter.   Our job is to unite millions – we can bring the pressure to force the talks to happen.   Yes!  to a World Beyond War:

Sign the Petition: http://diy.rootsaction.org/petitions/initiate-a-world-peace-conference

Details from the organizers:

 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dear Anti-War friends,

The German Left Party (DIE LINKE) has recently published an open letter to  Mikhail S. Gorbachev to be presented and put up for vote at the main party convention on June 6/7.

The letter calls on the Former President of the Soviet Union to initiate a World Peace Conference in the face of escalating tensions not only in Ukraine but around the globe.

The petition has initially been signed by 20 members of the german parliament and additionally by about 1000 supporters on a german website.

World Beyond War, an international peace network started by us-peace activists has last week published an english-language version of the german petition, which has so far been supported by more than 1000 people.

We would like to ask you to consider supporting the initiative, by signing or forwarding it.

Please note that many people who are not affiliated with the german Left Party have also supported the initiative, which is ultimately calling on Mikhail S. Gorbachev to initiate a World Peace Conference. The call for a peaceful transformation and for cooperation, is also a central argument of several initiatives and alliances, namely ALBA, UNASUR, CELAC, BRICS, Shanghai Cooporation, and The Non Aligned Movement. It is a call for a policy of non-interventionism –  characterized by the absence of interference by a state or states in the external and internal affairs of a sovereign state without its consent.

The concept of a worldwide appeal of prominent nonpartisan politicians and leaders for desescalation and reconciliation is therefore more urgent than ever and needs our support. –

———   Here the US-initiative http://diy.rootsaction.org/petitions/initiate-a-world-peace-conference

Initiate a World Peace Conference To: Mikhail S. Gorbachev

We ask you to initiate a world peace conference for the international coordination of nonviolent resistance to highly dangerous U.S. and NATO actions in Eastern Europe, Ukraine, and elsewhere.

Such a conference should seek an end to the practices of bombing, of murdering by drone-warfare, and of deploying troops anywhere in the world. There must be an end to the destabilization of entire countries for the purpose of controlling them. Legal standards must no longer be set aside by arbitrary interpretations.

Why is this important?

The United States of America is moving the world toward a new Cold War, which as you have warned “could become a real war.”

When Germany reunited, the United States promised you that NATO would not expand eastward. Now NATO stands in the Baltic States, in Poland, in Romania and in Bulgaria.

Symbolicly at the end of February, in the Estonian city of Narva, a U.S. tank with stars and stripes positioned itself at the border with Russia. In March 3,000 NATO soldiers with 750 tanks and heavy equipment held maneuvers in the Baltics. NATO naval ships are rehearsing in the Black Sea. Bases on Russia’s borders have been expanded and new military structures have been created there.

Threats to world peace are not limited to Ukraine. At no time since the end of World War II have there been as many military conflicts and wars as now, and at no time have there been so many refugees. These wars are driven by economic power and profit, sources of raw materials, and strategically important spheres of influence. No other power on earth defends its interests so aggressively as NATO with the United States at its helm.

The intelligence services of the U.S. and Britain are actually spying electronically on the whole of humanity.

Germany is moving away from the principle that no war can be launched from German soil. The statement by the German President Joachim Gauck at the Security Conference 2014 in Munich, that Germany must take on more responsibility, means a stronger military commitment. Since then, German military missions abroad have been expanded and more money spent on armaments. The new NATO Secretary General declared that Germany is the second most important power within NATO. Germany is the “leading nation” of the new rapid reaction force of 30,000 NATO soldiers.

This rapid reaction force is being mobilized in reaction to the “danger of Russia” in Eastern Europe. We reject this new role for Germany in world politics. We therefore urge the dissolution of NATO and its replacement by a collective security system involving Russia, a project which has disarmament as a central goal.

– – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – –

This petition was inspired by our friends in Germany who created this petition in German, which you should also sign: http://www.weltfriedenskonferenz.org T his effort was initially signed by 20 members of the German Parliament. This English language petition has been signed by: Heinrich Buecker, Coop Anti-War Cafe Berlin Miriam Volkmann, Vigil for World Peace and Human Rights Berlin David Hartsough, World Beyond War, USA David Swanson, World Beyond War, USA

PLEASE SIGN HERE: German-language Initiative http://www.weltfriedenskonferenz.org    (in the box marked STADT you can fill in yor city, in the box on the bottom FUNKTION/KREISVERBAND you can fill in your position or organisation)

english translation of the German-language Initiative weltfriedenskonferenz.org http://wp.me/p1dtrb-3Wu US-initiative (as above) http://diy.rootsaction.org/petitions/initiate-a-world-peace-conference

Please feel free to contact us for further discussion and ideas how to proceed.

Thank you.

Heinrich Buecker

Coop Anti-War Cafe Berlin http://coopcafeberlin.de

World Beyond War, Berlin

2014-07-18 Police Militarization: The New Search and Seizure

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category)  No Responses »
Apr 092015
 

TBF writes:     Our police are not too far removed from this sit. in US  

I would prefer NOT to circulate the article.  However,  examples easily come to mind to support the arguments presented in the article below by Ted Baumann.  Just two supporting articles from a number:

 

 

 

We must get conversations going and each of us add people to our own little network.

= = = = = = = = = =

Police Militarization: The New Search and Seizure

http://thesovereigninvestor.com/diversified-investments/police-militarization-new-search-seizure/

As World War I drew to a close in November 1918, over 2.5 million soldiers of the Imperial German Army remained in the field. They brought training, experience and battle-hardened attitudes with them as they streamed back across Germany’s borders.

These soldaten soon found ways to deploy their skills at home. Supported by Minister of Defense Gustav Noske, right-wingers – including one Corporal Adolf Hitler – organized ex-soldiers into Freikorps, and armed them with surplus military weaponry. These militia brutally crushed Germany’s nascent post-war democratic movement. For the next 20 years, they provided the core of the feared Brownshirts, street thugs who helped Hitler and the Nazis into power.

Fast forward 100 years. Another faltering empire in domestic political crisis, the United States, brings its own frustrated warriors and their weapons back home . Become one of America’s “new rich”.  You no longer need a fancy degree or high-paying job to get rich in America. All you need to do is take advantage of this event now taking place across 32 states.

Brownshirts in America – far-fetched?  Not at all. They’re already here, this time dressed in black or camo. I’ve already told you about the militarization of our borderlands, using tactics drawn directly from the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq. I warned then that events there would soon affect you and me.

I was right. A few weeks ago, a police paramilitary unit raided a house not too far from my home in Atlanta, in search of a teenager suspected of dealing drugs. Upon breaking down the door, they lobbed a flash bang grenade into the crib of a two-year-old child, Bounkham “Bou Bou” Phonesavanh, blowing a hole in the infant’s chest. The teenager they were searching for – a relative in the family – did not even live in that house.

This is the norm in today’s America. The American Civil Liberties Union recently released a report documenting the explosive growth of paramilitary police forces like the one that assaulted Bou Bou. Originally intended for hostage situations and shootouts, police paramilitaries are now deployed tens of thousands of times each year, largely for routine jobs such as search warrants or municipal code violations – all within our own borders.

These boys have some really nasty “toys.” Since the late 1980s, the Department of Defense’s Program 1033 has transferred tons of military-grade weaponry, including machine guns, tanks and aircraft, to state and local police departments, free of charge. As our Middle Eastern wars degenerated into counterinsurgencies, these weapons have become more and more oriented to the sort of urban “combat” that SWAT teams seem to think is their mission.

None of this would have happened, however, if America’s police hadn’t embraced the opportunity to go military with such gusto. Indeed, America’s police culture long ago abandoned any pretense at a Mayberry-style “Officer Friendly” approach. With few exceptions, police now see themselves as an occupying army, confronting a population where every individual is a potential “hostile.” Police routinely refer to their daily beats as “tours,” and to interaction with potential criminals as “combat.”

What accounts for this radical change in attitudes? Where’s Sheriff Andy Taylor? The influx of former military personnel into domestic policing jobs definitely plays a role. So too does the glorification of force that goes with being a militaristic empire surrounded by imagined enemies.

More important, however, is the profound change in the relationship between citizen and government in America since 9/11. In everything that matters, we citizens are no longer treated as the “employers” of civil servants like police, to whom they are accountable, but as the object of government’s efforts to impose its own independent will. From the National Security Agency to your local sheriff’s office, a sense of impunity and utter lack of accountability reigns supreme.

Aiding and Abetting

Today’s police are recruited and trained in a carefully cultivated atmosphere of us vs. them that treats the rest of us as potential threats to be neutralized, not as citizens to be served and protected. But every policeman in the country is theoretically accountable to representatives elected by the citizenry.

If America’s police are out of control, it’s because those elected officials aren’t doing their jobs. And that means we aren’t, either.

Many citizens of interwar Germany’s Weimar Republic craved “law and order” to such an extent that they were willing to overlook blatant abuses of basic rights and freedoms, as long as they were directed at “others.” Political opponents were deemed not to be “real Germans.” As political temperatures rose, the militaristic skills and attitudes developed on the Western and Eastern fronts of 1914-18 were increasingly substituted for democratic debate and process. Many Germans thought this was fine, because the ascendant forces seemed to favor their own interests.

Then came Hitler.  As the courageous theologian Martin Niemöller wrote shortly after his release from a Nazi concentration camp,

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

Americans would do well to meditate on Pastor Niemöller’s words. Too many of us are guilty of looking the other way as our politicians allow America’s police forces to morph into heavily armed, unaccountable paramilitary thugs.

Ultimately, however, it is unlikely that our political process will arrest this trend. That’s why it’s so important to emulate another group of Germans from the 1930s — those who left while there was still time — and escape America while you still can.

Kind regards,

Ted Baumann
Offshore and Asset Protection Editor

Strategy, scenarios, and the global shift in defense power

 Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials)  No Responses »
Apr 082015
 

 

To me,  the economic strategy paper below  for the defense industries, by McKinsey,  is a blueprint for  Obama’s Record Arms Sales . . . bizarre interview with CEO Lockheed Martin.

The economic argument:  the “defense” corporations should target areas of unrest in the world as the way to “grow” their sales of weapons.  The CEO of Lockheed Martin says it in these words:

MARILLYN HEWSON: Even if there may be some kind of deal that is done with Iran, there is volatility all around the region and each one of these countries believes they’ve got to protect their citizens and the things that we can bring to them help in that regard. So similarly, that’s the Middle East. And I know that’s what you asked about, but you can take that same argument to the Asia-Pacific region, which is another growth area for us. A lot of volatility, a lot of instability a lot of things that are happening both with North Korea as well as some of the tensions between China and Japan. So in both of those regions, which are growth areas for us, we expect that there is going to continue to be opportunities for us to bring our capabilities to them.

I remember being surprised by the SOFEX video.  Nations that produce weapons and various at-war factions are ALL together at the annual SOFEX arms bazaar in Jordan.  They all have booths to sell their wares and inter-mingle.  People who are supposedly at war with each other.  The video says the same thing as the Lockheed Martin CEO is saying (above, “bizarre conversation”).   The decision to arm other people is strictly one of self-interest, with no holds barred.  In spite of arms export control laws.  And often funded by Government “aid” (Americans in particular), as explained in the SOFEX video.

2014-07-21 A must see: The Business of War: SOFEX – YouTube

I wondered how in hades the CEO of Lockheed Martin, Marillyn Hewson,  could arrive at a business plan that is based on taking advantage of “unrest”.  The plan is actually one to help de-stabilize the world.  I think I found the answer to my question (below).

This “training” is for people in the “defense” industries and military around the world.   Consider how it evolves:  The U.S. Government (people) don’t have more money for war, not with debt currently at more than $18 trillion dollars and steadily growing.    Their society is in tatters because the resources are funneled OUT of the communities to pay for war (i.e. to pay the bills submitted by Lockheed Martin and colleagues).  AND NOW, to top it all off,  with the flow to the trough being slowed down,  theses corporations are heading offshore, big time.  Gotta have “growth”.  And rest assured – Canadians are not distinguishablfe from Koreans or Japanese or Chinese (some of the targeted nations for “growth” because of increasing tensions.

We have to join hands with American citizens to stop these insane people.  The military-industrial-government-university complex is doing to Canada exactly what they have already done to the U.S.A.   Corruption of democracy is the name of the game.

And by the way,  Hewson was talking with Deutsche Bank analyst Myles Walton.  She was telling him why Lockheed Martin is a good investment.  It would be great if the German people could lend a hand here.   Stop Deutsche Bank from investing in Lockheed Martin.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

 http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/public_sector/strategy_scenarios_and_the_global_shift_in_defense_power?cid=mckinsey_on_defense-eml-alt-mip-mck-oth-1304

 

Strategy, scenarios, and the global shift in defense power
As the strategic landscape shifts, an economic-scenario approach can help defense organizations grapple with uncertainty.

 

April 2013| by Jonathan Ablett and Andrew Erdmann

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

THIS IS THE END OF THE PAPER:

From an aerospace and defense executive’s perspective, such questions could include the following:

•Which markets will matter most for a company’s growth in the next ten years? What should be the relative balance among developed and developing markets in its portfolio?

•What does the possible emergence of India and Saudi Arabia among the world’s top five defense spenders suggest for a company’s strategic priorities?

•How should a company manage the diversity of regulations and laws related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and local content provisions as it seeks to expand into specific developing markets? How should it manage its defense and civilian aerospace businesses in such markets in light of other diplomatic and commercial considerations? What innovative joint ventures, mergers, or other collaborations will fuel growth among aerospace and defense companies based in different countries?

•How should a company leverage the continued robust R&D base in Europe, Japan, and the United States to serve both developed and developing aerospace and defense markets?

•How will developing countries’ aerospace and defense industries “go global” and compete directly against more established Western players in defense markets around the world in the coming decade? What are the implications for Western companies’ strategies, operations, and costs if many systems are produced for emerging markets?

•What should be a company’s global manufacturing footprint in light of these trends and uncertainties in the coming decade?

•What skills and talent will a company need to succeed in the changed global defense landscape?

– – – – – – – – – – – –

TEXT OF THE PAPER – RECOMMEND GOING TO THE URL IF YOU WISH TO READ IT ALL.   I didn’t try to copy the graphs.

The art of strategy, in defense as elsewhere, involves understanding possible futures to inform present decisions. Change, volatility, and uncertainty are perennial challenges to the defense strategist and are likely to increase in the coming years. Formulating strategy in these conditions will test planners in the public and private sectors alike.

To succeed, decision makers should look behind the headlines of the day to ask the right questions about what will affect their organization in the future. This requires considering the deeper underlying trends that will reshape the strategic landscape in the years ahead. Foremost among them is the shift in global economic power. Although often commented upon by economists and pundits, many strategists focused on defense issues have not fully internalized this historic shift and its implications.

Here we offer a perspective on how strategists in defense organizations and aerospace and defense companies should approach this challenge. First, we describe how the profound shift in economic power since the end of the Cold War has already reshaped the world’s strategic landscape, including the distribution of global defense spending. The potential evolution of these economic dynamics is fundamental to strategy. Predicting their future is, of course, impossible. Instead, we offer something more modest and practical: a new approach to scenario planning that is rooted in a deep understanding of global economics. Such an understanding reveals the potential for unexpected scale and pace in the shift of defense spending from the United States and its treaty allies1 to emerging economies.

 

The strategic landscape reshaped, 1991-2012

 

The past 20 years saw dramatic changes on the battlefield, even as some features endured, and the beginnings of an equally dramatic shift in economic power. In combination, these movements have altered the strategic landscape, and provide a glimpse into the future.

 

Continuity and change in military operations

 

For the world’s defense and security organizations, history certainly did not end with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the cessation of the Cold War in 1991. We have since seen conflict on almost every continent, from the last major tank battle of the 20th century at 73 Easting in the Gulf War to numerous wars, clashes, and insurgencies in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, attention has focused on the greater Middle East—Afghanistan, Iraq, and, increasingly, the struggles for control and influence in the aftermath of the Arab Spring.

 

The tempo of military operations has been relentless. Since 1991, for instance, the United States has embarked upon a new military intervention roughly every two years. North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces have been at war in Afghanistan for over a decade. South Korean and Japanese forces have deployed for the first time to the Middle East. Meanwhile, the United Nations has launched a new peacekeeping operation every six months. Moreover, the duration of most of these operations has increased to five to ten years.2

 

Innovations in military technology and operations have marked these past two decades of conflict. Precision-guided munitions have evolved and demonstrated their effectiveness in conflicts beginning with the Gulf War and continuing in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and most recently NATO’s Operation Unified Protector in Libya in 2011. Advanced missiles now pose particular threats to capital ships and fixed bases. Unmanned aerial vehicles (or remotely piloted air systems) are now standard components in many militaries’ intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) tool kits, and they increasingly serve as weapons platforms as well. Harnessing big data and employing advanced analytic techniques are other features of 21st century ISR. Cyberwarfare has moved from theory to practice.3

 

Militaries today confront adversaries who employ a full spectrum of tactics, from conventional to irregular and even criminal (“hybrid war”). Modern navies, for instance, cope with traditional and unconventional foes, including Somali pirates and asymmetrical threats such as terrorist suicide speedboats. Air forces are investing in fifth-generation fighters even as they continue to provide workhorse logistical support for operations in the field. And for foot soldiers, despite the numerous technical advances in communications and equipment, the past decade has been largely spent relearning the lessons of counterinsurgency: “Walk. Stop by, don’t drive by. . . .Situational awareness can only be gained by interacting face-to-face, not separated by ballistic glass or Oakleys.”4 Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

 

The power shift begins

 

Concurrent with these tactical and operational developments, tectonic plates moved at a deeper strategic level. A profound shift in economic power began during this period—one that has already manifested itself in the distribution of traditional “hard” military power among the great powers. This shift will continue to reshape the strategic landscape in the years ahead.

 

Future historians will likely point to 2007–08 as an inflection point in global history. For the first time in over two centuries—since the start of the Industrial Revolution—the majority of the world’s economic growth took place in the developing world, driven in large part by China, India, and other Asian economies. In addition to favorable demographics and reforms to open emerging economies, increasing urbanization—especially in China—drove much of this growth. Significantly, 2008 was also the first time ever that a majority of people lived in cities. The pace of urbanization is staggering. More than 1.3 million people migrate every week to urban areas. And this historic migration will likely continue unabated for the next two decades, mainly in the emerging economies of Asia, Latin America, and, increasingly, Africa.5 The global economic crisis that began in 2008 accelerated this shift in economic power from developing to emerging economies, as the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) weathered the storm well and the developed economies of the United States, Europe, and Japan suffered and remain vulnerable more than four years later. Between 2009 and 2012, China’s economy grew over 30 percent and India’s 22 percent in real terms, whereas Germany’s grew 7.9 percent and the United States’s 7.1 percent.6 And in 2008, for the first time, a Chinese company led the world in international patent applications.

 

Taken together, economic and demographic forces drove the most rapid shift in human history in what the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) calls the “economic center of gravity”—the geographic midpoint of global economic activity (Exhibit 1). MGI projects this movement to continue, at a slightly slower pace, for the next 15 years or so, when, by this measure, most of the regional imbalances ushered in by the Industrial Revolution will have been erased.

 

Exhibit 1

 

The ten years from 2000 to 2010 saw the fastest-ever shift in the world’s economic center of gravity.

 

——————————————————————————–

 

 

 

——————————————————————————–

 

These economic trends have already started to reshape the global landscape of defense spending. To be sure, a nation’s assessment of its security threats plays a critical role in shaping its defense spending in the near term. That said, a major country’s military power flows in large part from its underlying economic strength over the medium to long term: the faster a country’s economy grows, the more likely its defense spending will increase as well. Despite widely different geopolitical complexities and economic dynamics, the countries with the largest defense budgets, which account for the vast majority of the world’s defense expenditures, have fit this pattern since 1991 (Exhibit 2).

 

Exhibit 2

 

Growth in military spending and GDP are correlated over the long term.

 

——————————————————————————–

 

 

 

——————————————————————————–

 

Other more subtle shifts in national power were also taking place between 1991 and 2011. R&D expenditures in all major economies nearly doubled in constant 2011 dollar terms, rising from roughly $740 billion in 1991 to $1.5 trillion in 2011. But just as we saw in defense spending, countries’ R&D investments mirrored trends in their overall economic growth. Europe and Japan’s combined share of global R&D expenditures declined by 11 percent in the 20 years after 1991. Meanwhile, China increased its share of global spending to 9 percent from 1 percent during the same period. Developing countries are thus emerging as true competitors to the developed economies not only with regard to their economies’ sheer scale but also their innovation and technical prowess.7 R&D spending matters: a country’s R&D investments are strongly correlated with the quality of the military’s equipment 25 years later.8 This suggests that in the future, developing countries will narrow the gap in quality between their military equipment and that of developed countries.

 

Glimpses of the future

 

We have seen these dynamics play out around the world since 1991. Sustained operations and the increasing costs of modern weapons platforms have proved too much for many Western governments and their publics as they manage the aftermath of the global economic crisis and structural strains in their aging societies. For example, the United Kingdom’s 2010 Defence and Security Review declared bluntly that its “inherited defense spending plans… [are] completely unaffordable” and that it needs to “confront the legacy of overstretch.”9 France’s earlier national-security review analyzed the changing strategic context and new priorities and thus, through a different logic, reached similar conclusions. The US Department of Defense (DOD), under Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, launched its own efficiencies campaign, which has accelerated under his successors. The planned reductions in the US defense budget in the next decade are literally on the scale of some countries’ GDPs. Other Western militaries are undergoing similar retrenchments. At the same time, however, China, other East Asian countries, India, Brazil, and other emerging economies have continued to increase not only their defense expenditures in real terms, as shown in Exhibit 3, but also, in many cases, the sophistication of their own defense industries.

 

 

 

Exhibit 3

 

 

Developing countries have closed the gap in defense spending since the end of the Cold War.

Enlarge

 

 

 

 

 

Today, the United States remains the world’s preeminent military power in scale, sophistication, battle-tested experience, and global reach. US defense spending in 2011 was more than five times that of the next highest defense spender, China. America’s traditional allies also occupy important positions in the global defense landscape. Japan, France, and the United Kingdom ranked third, fourth, and fifth in defense spending in 2011. The momentum, however, is unmistakable: emerging economies are positioned to displace the other developed economies in the top tier of defense spenders. China’s rise in defense spending is starkest. In 2011 it spent $126 billion, more than twice as much as the countries that are the next largest spenders: Japan, France, the United Kingdom, and Russia.10 Chinese authorities announced in March 2013 that they plan to increase defense spending another 10.7 percent in 2013.11

 

The direction is clear. Developed economies—and the world’s leading military establishments historically—have experienced relative decline vis-à-vis the major developing economies since 1991. Yet the scale, scope, and pace of change of the shift in economic power cannot be simply extrapolated from the recent past to understand the future. Instead, strategists will require a new approach to manage this era’s particular strategic uncertainties.

 

An economic-scenario approach

 

Scenario planning is an established tool for business and defense strategists.12 Done right, scenario planning accounts for the major variables or drivers that could shape the future, in sufficient depth and vividness to enable strategists to draw out potential implications for the strategy and plans of their organizations. Scenarios are not meant to be predictive or comprehensive, covering all possible futures. Rather, the goals are to define a range of possibilities and identify important continuities among them, as well as significant uncertainties or risks that a strategy should address. Such an analysis, in turn, helps to frame critical questions and generate strategic insights that then shape the strategic decisions of today and adaptation tomorrow.

 

Today, defense scenarios typically start with geopolitical, security, or more operational assumptions or with a statement of guiding objectives (such as “Counter violent extremism, deter and defeat aggression, strengthen international and regional security, and shape the future force”; “US forces must be prepared to fight ‘two and a half’ wars simultaneously”; or “Blue Force must be ready to counter Red Force in country X”). For example, the US DOD’s recent strategy documents—the February 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report and the February 2011 National Military Strategy of the United States—briefly review the changing strategic environment but do not offer alternative scenarios. The importance of this era’s economic forces, however, suggests that a different approach, one with a more explicit grounding in these new economic realities, is needed. National-security strategies typically do not explore the full implications of the shift in economic power now under way.13 The approach outlined here is designed to address this gap. The development of rich, sophisticated scenarios for the future course of the global economy provides its starting point. These scenarios, in turn, enable the mapping of changes in countries’ economic power in relative and absolute terms. The trends most immediately relevant for defense and security organizations—especially levels of defense spending and R&D investment—are then built upon these economic foundations.

 

We use a set of economic scenarios for the next decade built with McKinsey’s Global Growth Model (GGM)14 to illustrate this approach. The GGM is a database and modeling tool that supports the construction of detailed economic scenarios down to the country level. Its variables span GDP and more than 100 others, including demographics, education levels, public debt, R&D investments, and urbanization rates.15

 

The baseline economic scenarios employed here are predicated on the assumption that major developed and emerging economies will develop with different growth rates—namely, developing economies will tend to grow at a significantly higher rate than developed economies. We emphasize these different outcomes and groups because, broadly speaking, the challenges faced by countries in each group are similar. Generally, advanced economies have struggled not only with the aftermath of the 2008 downturn but also with meeting their aging populations’ multifaceted challenges. Meanwhile, emerging markets have tried to sustain or accelerate growth through export promotion, the allocation of capital, continued economic reform, urbanization and industrialization, and other tactics.

 

The relative performance of these different groups of economies thus describes a range of four principal scenarios. The GGM scenarios are bounded by emerging markets’ growth rates (between 3 and 7 percent per year from 2013 to 2022) and advanced economies’ growth at 1 to 3 percent annually. These growth rates define four broad-based scenarios shown in Exhibit 4: Global Growth Renewed, Advanced Economies Rebound, Emerging Economies Lead, and Global Lost Decade.16

 

 

 

Exhibit 4

 

 

Four scenarios describe possible paths for the global economy from 2013 to 2022.

Enlarge

 

 

 

 

 

Together, these scenarios portray different potential future international landscapes and balances of economic power among the major economies. They make clear that the stakes are extraordinarily high for the health of the entire global economy. While growth continues across all scenarios, the difference in total global real GDP between the most favorable scenario ($100 trillion, under Global Growth Renewed) and the least favorable one ($84.5 trillion, under Global Lost Decade) is a staggering $15 trillion per year in 2022. That is roughly equivalent to the US economy today.

 

The scenarios also have quite different outcomes for the relative distribution of economic power among countries. Across all scenarios, the US economy remains the world’s largest economy. China’s rapid growth continues, but by 2022, it still does not equal the size of the US economy today. The absolute gap between the two narrows more or less depending on the scenario. The other major developing economies follow a similar pattern; Europe and Japan experience steady growth in the most favorable scenarios and stagnation in those that are less favorable.

 

Defense-spending scenarios to 2022

 

The four baseline economic scenarios paint very different possible futures for the world’s major economies—and thus for their self-confidence, internal political stability, and the vision of their roles internationally. Geopolitical relations (for example, strains among past allies over burden sharing or opportunities for new alignments among rising powers) would also vary under the different scenarios.17

 

To understand these implications, we analyzed global defense spending under the economic scenarios. We focus our analysis on the top 15 defense spenders in 2011. These countries account for the lion’s share of global defense spending under any scenario (that is, nearly 85 percent in 2011) for the sake of simplicity. As mentioned, growth in countries’ defense spending is strongly correlated (r-squared equals 0.84) with their underlying economic growth over longer periods of time. Therefore, we use each scenario’s estimate of countries’ real GDP and a country-specific correlation between defense spending and GDP to derive the percentage of each nation’s real GDP devoted to defense spending in 2022 under each scenario.18

 

The likely changes in countries’ relative share of global defense spending between 2011 and 2022 are striking (Exhibit 5). If we divide the 15 countries studied into the United States and its 9 treaty allies, and the emerging BRIC countries and Saudi Arabia, we see that while the US and its allies still account for the majority of defense spending in all scenarios in 2022, their relative advantage is eroded in all scenarios by emerging markets’ higher rates of economic growth. Most dramatically, in the Emerging Economies Lead scenario, the United States and its treaty allies’ relative advantage in global share of defense spending falls by 23 percentage points in a decade, dropping to 55 percent by 2022.

 

Exhibit 5

 

A substantial share of global defense spending will shift away from the United States and its traditional allies.

 

——————————————————————————–

 

 

 

——————————————————————————–

 

The scenarios likewise suggest dramatic shifts in defense spending in absolute terms. Defense spending in the BRIC countries and Saudi Arabia will increase significantly in all scenarios—from roughly $290 billion in 2011 to between approximately $550 billion and $830 billion by 2022 (in constant 2011 dollars). The fate of the United States and its major treaty allies’ defense spending is mixed, however. When the major developed economies fare well, their combined defense spending increases from a little over $1 trillion in 2011 to more than $1.4 trillion in 2022; when they fare poorly, in the Global Lost Decade and Emerging Economies Lead scenarios, their combined defense spending falls below $1 trillion by 2022.

 

Exploring these scenarios for individual countries again shows shifts in defense spending away from the developed economies. Consider the top five defense spenders in each scenario (Exhibit 6). The United States and China maintain their one-two positions in total defense spending in all scenarios. In those scenarios in which US economic growth remains sluggish throughout the coming decade, its defense spending falls more than 15 percent in real terms. The United States’s relative advantage in defense spending over China, however, declines significantly from 5.4x in 2011 to between 3.2x and 1.6x in 2022. India enters the ranks of the world’s top five defense spenders in all scenarios (see “A bright future for India’s defense industry?” [PDF–417KB]). Russia and Saudi Arabia round out the top five defense spenders in three of the four scenarios. Only in the Advanced Economies Rebound scenario do France and the United Kingdom—two of the US treaty partners—remain in the top five.

 

Exhibit 6

 

The difference between the two biggest defense spenders varies widely by scenario.

 

——————————————————————————–

 

 

 

——————————————————————————–

 

Considering total R&D investments across the different countries provides a rough measure of the dynamism of high-technology industries and innovation, and, as noted above, an indication of long-term trends in the quality of the military equipment the country makes (Exhibit 7).

 

 

 

Exhibit 7

 

 

The combined European, Japanese, and US share of global R&D investment will shrink in any scenario.

Enlarge

 

 

 

 

 

Our scenarios show overall R&D investments tracking the trends seen in defense spending but at different rates. The United States retains its leadership position but by less than before, as emerging economies gain ground on the United States and its traditional allies. Most important, China’s investments in R&D accelerate in the next ten years; in all scenarios, China more than doubles its share of global R&D investment. In the coming decade, we should expect China to place second only to the United States in total R&D investments, just as it became the world’s second-biggest defense spender in the previous decade. China’s rise in R&D is stunning: in all scenarios, it will increase its share of global R&D from roughly $1 of every $100 in 1991 to $1 of $5 spent in 2022. In doing so, it surpasses both Europe and Japan; their investments grow slowly in all scenarios. That said, Europe and Japan will remain major centers of global R&D into the 2020s because of their relatively robust starting point. Meanwhile, Brazil, India, and Russia also gain share, though at a much slower pace than China, and they will continue to lag behind Europe and Japan by a significant margin in 2022 (for example, Japan’s R&D spending will remain roughly five times India’s across the scenarios).

 

This economic-scenario approach enables strategists to assess other underlying factors should a particular analysis require it. These include public-debt burdens (for instance, high for most developed economies, with exceptions such as Australia), subtle variations among some countries’ relative performance (for example, South Korea consistently punches above its weight with regard to defense spending and R&D), education levels (for instance, other countries continue to narrow the US lead in average number of years of education per person), and demographic trends.19

 

From using scenarios to framing the right question

 

Decision makers in ministries of defense and corporate boardrooms require analytic tools to help them manage uncertainties. Without them, they risk falling prey to misguided confidence in a single, clear, but almost certainly erroneous prediction of the future, or they will be forced to rely on their gut. The economic-scenario approach outlined here is one such tool for the strategist’s tool kit.

 

The economic-scenario approach highlights how the global strategic landscape may change in the coming decade. Such scenarios can help organizations identify the specific potential opportunities, risks, trade-offs, and outcomes that their strategies should consider. From a defense official’s perspective, such questions could include the following:

•What does it mean for the United States when the defense spending of its traditional treaty allies will continue to decline in relative, and perhaps absolute, terms? What capabilities might these allies be able to deploy in the future? What new security relationships might be needed to manage the shifting balance of defense power? What might be the implications of such shifts for US force structure, overseas basing, and diplomacy?

•What does it mean for European countries’ role in the world as their relative share of defense power shrinks? Will NATO’s role in the world correspondingly retract? Will NATO’s “out of area” operations become a thing of the past? Will individual European countries have effective expeditionary forces in the 2020s, or will limitations force them to decide among increased dependence on US support (for example, logistical and lift support), increased defense cooperation within Europe, and disengagement from traditional areas of influence such as Africa? What might be the implications of these different scenarios for the future affordability of independent nuclear-deterrence forces in France and the United Kingdom?

•What does the wide range of possibilities for US defense spending in 2022 mean for Asian countries? How will such uncertainties shape their defense postures and diplomacy toward the United States, and one another?

•What does it mean for emerging countries that for the next decade the United States will remain the global leader in military spending and R&D investments despite those countries’ rapid growth? How relevant will European powers be in their strategic calculus? What security relationships should they prioritize to cope with the shifting strategic landscape?

 

From an aerospace and defense executive’s perspective, such questions could include the following:

•Which markets will matter most for a company’s growth in the next ten years? What should be the relative balance among developed and developing markets in its portfolio?

•What does the possible emergence of India and Saudi Arabia among the world’s top five defense spenders suggest for a company’s strategic priorities?

•How should a company manage the diversity of regulations and laws related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and local content provisions as it seeks to expand into specific developing markets? How should it manage its defense and civilian aerospace businesses in such markets in light of other diplomatic and commercial considerations? What innovative joint ventures, mergers, or other collaborations will fuel growth among aerospace and defense companies based in different countries?

•How should a company leverage the continued robust R&D base in Europe, Japan, and the United States to serve both developed and developing aerospace and defense markets?

•How will developing countries’ aerospace and defense industries “go global” and compete directly against more established Western players in defense markets around the world in the coming decade? What are the implications for Western companies’ strategies, operations, and costs if many systems are produced for emerging markets?

•What should be a company’s global manufacturing footprint in light of these trends and uncertainties in the coming decade?

•What skills and talent will a company need to succeed in the changed global defense landscape?

 

Asking the right questions is the starting point for any strategy. We are now living through an unprecedented shift in global economic power. No one can predict precisely what this means for our future. Robust economic scenarios, however, can help strategists frame the right questions and trade-offs for their organizations, which is more helpful than aspiring to predict that which defies prediction.

 

 

About the authors

 

Jonathan Ablett is a consultant with the McKinsey Global Institute, and Andrew Erdmann is a principal in McKinsey’s Washington, DC, office.

 

The authors wish to thank Cody Newman for his assistance with this article.

2015-02- Why is there resistance to mandated vaccinations?

 Mercury poisoning, dental amalgams. See also Vaccinations., Vaccinations (incl corruption of science & govt)  No Responses »
Apr 082015
 

CBC Victoria interviewed a professor  about making vaccinations
mandatory. I was bothered by the interview because the interviewer
(who is usually very good) did not do a good job, in my opinion, of
presenting the other side of the story. There was little attempt to
understand the source of the resistance to vaccinations.

I have paid a bit of attention to the same debate in the U.S. which has
been on-going for quite a long time, people organizing at the state
level to prevent mandatory vaccinations. The efforts centre in the
North Eastern states – – Vermont being one.

From my perspective a significant problem is complexity. The media
and the public attention typically address an issue on a narrow basis,
which does not serve well in this instance. I will elaborate. …

A second significant problem is scientific certainty, a good example of
which is/was the medical certainty that ulcers are caused by
stress. For 10 years a scientist, Dr.Barry Marshall, presented
“science” (rational) to show that ulcers are caused by an organism.
In the end he was reduced to drinking a beaker of liquid that contained
the bacteria – – it was the only way to get the erroneous “scientific
certainty” changed.

It is no easier to get a full and informed debate
around vacinations, especially with the financial interests and
propaganda of Big Pharma added in.

COMPLEXITY OF THE VACCINATION QUESTION

Answer this question: which of the elements are more toxic than
mercury? (none, and you might typically look to radioactive
materials if you want to find something more poisonous)

What has mercury got to do with vaccinations? … “mer” in the
name of a concoction often indicates a mercury-based substance.
Thimerasol. Used as a preservative in some vaccines. Less now in
North America, after growing awareness that the pharmaceutical
companies use it. (They still use it in vaccines shipped overseas to
help “poor people”.)

The use of thimerasol (ethyl mercury) in vaccines, with more and more
vaccinations administered to younger and younger infants (the end of
the 80’s, beginning of the 90’s) was exacerbated by another
problem. Something like 80% of the North American population has
carried mercury in their mouths since sometime in childhood – – for
decades once you get to my age (“silver” fillings – – dental
amalgam). The science is clear (University of Calgary has done
some of the most compelling research on this) – – the mercury
off-gases, it accumulates in the body, crosses the placental barrier
and because it accumulates in fatty tissue, is ALSO transmitted to
the infant through breast milk. (Because the link between mercury
fillings and poisoning of the foetus are known, pregnant Mothers are
advised to forego dental treatment that in any way involves mercury
fillings.)

This is some of the complexity that the scientific community avoids:
an infant is hit with mercury in utero, gets continuing strong doses if
a breast-feeding Mother has mercury fillings – – AND THEN, to top it
off, the developing infant may (did) receive more mercury by direct
injection in the form of the thimerasol in vaccines. There are
plenty of sources – – let me provide just this one:

I don’t know what you think of Robert F Kennedy Jr. I have read some
of his work and attended a lecture he gave. To me he comes from the
same mold as his Father, Robert Kennedy. Their number one drive is
to serve the public interest (which cost Robt Kennedy his life).
They are/were altruistic people. Robert Kennedy is a lawyer and
an activist. He does solid work and is more credible than the
vaccine manufacturers like GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, or Wyeth.

I am disposed to believe his account (I don’t particularly like the
place where this is published, but never mind – – he is the author, he
is the messenger):
2009-07-25 Vaccinations: Deadly Immunity by Robert F Kennedy Jr (Role
of Big Pharma)

You will be too young to know, and I doubt it would have been
discussed at Med School: the attempts by GloxoKleinSmith to get a
vaccine for rotavirus registered. The doctors who spoke in support
were appalling, nothing more than schills. Three or four babies die
per year from rotavirus (diarrhea) in the U.S. They die from
ignorance, the parents don’t know to keep the baby with diarrhea hydrated. Big Pharma
likes mandatory vaccination – – the Government picks up the tab.
. : 2010-01-06 2009 – Rotavirus vaccine, contaminated with a pig
virus, injected into more than a million kids in the U.S. alone.

Also,  numbers on the rise in autism, the work of Dr Stephanie Cave.

I hope the preceding is useful.
Call if you have questions I might be able to help with.

THE ABOVE IS IN REPLY TO:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 21:48:40 -0600,
>
> We heard there were 7 more cases of measles reported today in the
> Niagara region. The CBC coverage of the issue is excellent. Despite
> this information, many parents still don’t trust the scientific
> evidence, including my cousin Sandra  (INSERT:  me). By copy of this e-mail, we’ll
> ask Sandra to explain her views about the dangers of vaccinating
> children….
>

2015-04-08 Obama’s Record Arms Sales . . . bizarre interview with CEO Lockheed Martin

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials)  No Responses »
Apr 082015
 

Amy Goodman, Democracy Now.   I find this to be a stunning video.

 

A few perspectives are addressed: http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/04/08/are-obamas-record-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia-yemen-egypt-and-iraq-fueling-unrest-in-middle-east/  

 

Canada is now entangled with U.S. foreign policy. Pay attention to what’s going down!  Due to “a slight blip in Pentagon procurement” U.S. arms dealers are looking to international “growth markets.”  (In the Lockheed Martin example, increase it from 20 to 25% of sales)

I would add to the analysis:  Take a look at this “Report”.   It’s a blueprint, an economic analysis that advocates what the “bizarre interview” with Lockheed Martin CEO talks about.    Strategy, scenarios, and the global shift in defense power .

So, after the war industry has bled America dry and trashed their international reputation, these corporations are now targeting areas of “unrest” to sell arms into. After the Middle East comes the Asia-Pacific region.

By the time they‘re finished we should each have our own personal drone from which to terrorize our “enemies”. Listen to the video – – these people (LOckheed CEO) are high on something . . . or maybe they’re imported aliens.

Pay attention because Lockheed Martin is working very hard in the Canadian “growth market”. Reminds me of an earlier email: Lockheed Martin is desperate – – to get our money! And what is the cost of one F-35 stealth bomber?

 

EXCERPT FROM THE VIDEO

AMY GOODMAN: I’d like to ask about a recent exchange between Deutsche Bank analyst Myles Walton and Lockheed Martin Chief Executive Marillyn Hewson during an earnings call in January. Financial industry analysts use earnings calls as an opportunity to ask publicly-traded corporations like Lockheed about issues that might harm profitability. Hewson said that Lockheed was hoping to increase sales and that both the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region were “growth markets.”

MARILLYN HEWSON: Even if there may be some kind of deal that is done with Iran, there is volatility all around the region and each one of these countries believes they’ve got to protect their citizens and the things that we can bring to them help in that regard. So similarly, that’s the Middle East. And I know that’s what you asked about, but you can take that same argument to the Asia-Pacific region, which is another growth area for us. A lot of volatility, a lot of instability a lot of things that are happening both with North Korea as well as some of the tensions between China and Japan. So in both of those regions, which are growth areas for us, we expect that there is going to continue to be opportunities for us to bring our capabilities to them.

AMY GOODMAN: During the call, Lockheed CEO Marillyn Hewson, who you were just listening to, also noted that 20 percent of Lockheed’s sales in 2014 were international, that is, to non-American customers. She added, Lockheed has set a goal to get to 25 percent over the next few years. Can you talk about the significance of this, Bill Hartung?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, there’s been a slight blip in Pentagon procurement. Still quite high, but the companyies need to grow constantly. And so they’re looking to up foreign sales to make up for any reductions at the Pentagon. As we heard in the clip, they’re looking to areas of conflict. And it’s not surprising, but I’m surprised that she said it so explicitly. She was asked about the Iran question, would that depress the market. She basically said, oh, there’s plenty of turbulence there, don’t worry about it, as there is in East Asia, these will be our growth markets. So she is more or less acknowledging they thrive on war and the threat of war, which is not surprising to a lot of people, but nonetheless, to say it like that, I think is a bit shocking. To just put it right out there.

AARON MATÉ: I want to ask you about drones. Earlier this year, the White House announced it will allow foreign allies to purchase U.S. made armed drones for the first time. Under a new policy American firms can sell their drones abroad, but will be subjected to a case-by-case review. Talk about this policy. Your were very critical of it. . . .

2015-04-08 4th International March Against Monsanto (MAM), May 23, 2015

 Genetically Modified  No Responses »
Apr 082015
 

Have a listen, music video, the rockin’ party music for May 23rd .   You’ll like it, even if you can’t march!

Time to get groups up and going.  Doesn’t take much.  Ask, if you need help.  A call to some friends,  name a date, time and place for people to congregate for the March.  Keep it short – an hour is lots. Some people will bring signs.  Turn on the music and way you go!  It’s a great way to create awareness, conversation and build community solidarity.

The sharing of information about GMOs since the first March (May, 2013) is incredible. The Marches are mostly organized through facebook groups.   In two years MAM has accomplished more than the oldies like myself accomplished in ten years!   Hallelujah! For the young people!

IS THERE A MARCH NEAR YOU?

I will update:   List of March Against Monsanto’s (MAM’s), No to GMO, & GE Free Groups, emphasis on Canada 

 

DO YOU WANNA “MARCH”?   (a great time to meet your friends!)

You might have to set up a facebook group for your community, if there isn’t one. Best way for others to find you and join in.

THE MUSIC VIDEO:

Ron Fuller 7:10am Apr 8

We have them “on the ropes!” But we need a Knockout Punch! And the only way to do that is for each of us to invite 10 to 20 people to our local March Against Monsanto, May 23, 2015, and exponentially grow this mother! and this time, yes this time……together……WE!….. W I L L R O C K M O N S A T O ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9l5RJTegkU

WE WILL ROCK MONSANTO Ron FullerTIME IS SHORT! We Must Stop Monsanto Now! Now before our rights, our freedoms and our access to the …
 Older Entries  Newer Entries