Sounds like an interesting story.
I find it amazing that we think that if we change the names things
will be different. A pyramid is still a pyramid regardless of what we
call it. Nations are all built on pyramids. Regardless of the
changing names, Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Feudalism, or the
Land of Oz, they all require a broad base to support a smaller and
smaller population. I believe that we get into a mess because we each
have, at some level, a belief that we are better, or more deserving
than those around us. Maybe if we could build defenses to protect us
all from ourselves, maybe we could enjoy a more socialistic form of
government. Or maybe a day will come when our geneticists can do a
bit of a modification, and we will breed greed right out of
existence...only to discover that we need greed in order to have any
progress.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/30/20, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
While reading your pleasant little essay, it occurred to me to mention that
in each country that has been defined as a Communist or Socialist country,
there has been an elite , people who tend to have more material possessions,
opportunities, and comfort than the majority of citizens. That was true in
he Soviet Union. It is true in Cuba, and as for China, which is, as far as I
can tell, a planned capitalist economy, it is certainly true. The other
thing that came to mind is a fiction book that I'm currently reading called
The Terranauts. The story takes place in the early 90's. A billionaire is
funding a scientific experiment which involves a controlled earthlike
environment enclosed in glass which will be manned by successive teams of
eight people, 4 men and 4 women, for 100 years, to demonstrate how people
might survive in the future if the real environment on earth becomes
unlivable. But although the people involved in this very complicated
project are highly involved and motivated, things fall apart because of
human fallibility. The story is narrated alternately by three characters
and you can see how each person's individual needs and blind spots, prevents
him or her from seeing how destructive their behavior is. So basically, the
book is a comment on the human condition.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 12:36 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] What's for dinner...oh, it's us!
Several folks continue to defend Capitalism as a superior economic system.
Following is my morning ramble.
Carl Jarvis
No doubt about it, poverty has always been with Mankind...at least as far
back as recorded history. In fact poverty thrives today under Capitalism,
just as it did under Serfdom, or under the Roman Empire.
And by the way, if you happen to be in a poverty situation, does it really
matter to you just how many of you there are, or what economic system you're
living under?
But just what are we talking about, this comparison of how much poverty
existed under differing economic systems? We look back on what we call "the
Dark Ages", and the poverty suffered by the peasants as being so much worse
than our "enlightened Capitalism". Folks back then did not have the luxury
of making that comparison. But one consistent thread weaves through all
recorded history, the rich get rich and the poor get poorer. Each system
grows out of the need for a group of people to protect themselves and their
land and possessions from the grasp of the groups of people living alongside
them. Out of this need grows what we call Civilization. Think instead of
Armed Camps. Throughout history a wide number of arrangements have been
tried, in the effort to protect the Lands and possessions of the group. But
**always every system tried so far has imploded because of Greed. There
appears to be a wild gene in our gene pool that just can't help taking more
than its fair share. So I will protect your fields if you give me one tenth
of your crop...one fifth...one third...half...hold on, it's my crop and you
get only one tenth. And so it goes until we call it Corporate Capitalism.
But more to the point, poverty is actually another word for Powerless.
In the beginning economic systems are far more equitable, we all share in
the need to protect what we have. But as the Greed gene begins to do its
magic, a few folk figure out how to gain the upper hand, and grab a bit more
than their share.
Anyway it's pretty straight forward stuff. No matter what system we devise,
human nature trumps all. Capitalism, or Corporate Capitalism is just the
current effort by nations to protect their lands and people. It is just as
full of holes as was Serfdom and all other "arrangements" tried in the
past.
We might actually learn from all of this, except for the fact that we have
to lie to ourselves in order to justify that our current economic system is
truly the best ever.
The other problem is that we are like those frogs, sitting in the pan while
the water is becoming hotter and hotter. Living in this complex world, we
sit in our little pans of water while events spin out of control, and we
think everything is going just fine...until it isn't.
Instead of analyzing Capitalism and developing a new and better system, we
fall victim to the propaganda of our present Oligarchy, and we go dashing
about like Chicken Little, convinced that if the sky falls in it will crush
all of us, not just the Oligarchs. While we share less and less in the
prosperity and in the decisions being made, we become merely a buffer that
is used to protect the wealth and property that is claimed by our greed
driven Masters. And just like those Frogs, we think we're smelling
something delicious cooking for dinner...without realizing that it is us.
While Donald Trump cries out that he will "return America to her Former
Greatness", America is on a fast track to self destruction.
Giant international corporations, many of them grown in America's Free
Enterprise System, have begun to be more powerful than the majority of the
Earth's nations. Will Corporate Dictatorships replace today's governments?
Whatever happens, the mighty USA will not survive.
Probably Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada and possibly Idaho
will break away, and the remainder of states will divide into a nation in
the Northeast, one in the Southeast, and those gathered around Texas. The
Midwest could go any direction, or Canada might absorb it. Of course, if
the Polar Caps continue to melt at their current rate, we might be buying
beach front property in Montana.
And here's the big Hoot. People in the future...assuming there will be a
future, will scratch their heads and wonder how stupid folks were, back in
2020, not to realize they were running around promoting their own downfall.
Carl Jarvis
**********
constitutional law.
The nuclear deal established a road map, framed by mutually binding
commitments, that took Iran from zero tolerance over nuclear
enrichment, to a time when Iran would be able to enrich uranium for
peaceful purposes without restriction, as long as the IAEA confirmed
that Iran’s entire nuclear program had no military intentions.
According to the deal, Iran would be subjected to stringent safeguards
inspections that included the additional protocol.
Iran Reacts to Trump’s Move
Zarif (r.) negotiating nuclear deal with then US Secretary of State
John Kerry in July, 2015.
When the Trump administration, acting on President Trump’s belief that
the JCPOA was a “bad agreement,” withdrew from the JCPOA and began
re-imposing U.S. economic sanctions, which had been lifted under the
terms of the deal, Iran indicated that it would reconsider its
participation.
For the time being, Iran continued to abide by its obligations under
the deal, accepting European Union and the other JCPOA nations’
guarantees that regardless of what the U.S. did vis-à-vis sanctions,
the other nations would not follow suit, and thereby fulfill their
commitments to Iran under the terms of the JCPOA.
A year after the U.S. withdrawal from the deal, however, Europe
collectively reneged on that commitment, succumbing to the threat of
U.S. secondary sanctions, which threatened any European business that
engaged in commerce with Iran.
In response, Iran invoked Articles 26 and 36 of the JCPOA. Article 26
holds that if new nuclear-related sanctions are imposed on Iran by any
party to the deal it will constitute “grounds (for its authorities) to
cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.”
Article 36 states that if actions by parties to the JCPOA “constitute
significant non-performance, then (Iran) could treat the unresolved
issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA
in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it
believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance.”
Iran stressed at the time that its retaliatory measures would be
reversible as soon as Europe ignored the threat of secondary U.S.
sanctions and fulfilled its obligations regarding sanctions-free trade
with Iran.
Initially, Iran increased its enriched uranium stockpile to beyond the
300 kilograms limit set by the JCPOA. When the Europeans continued to
balk, Iran began enriching uranium to purity rates beyond the JCPOA
limit of 3.76 percent.
Next, when Europe failed to meet a 60-day deadline to fulfill its
commitments, Iran began to operate advanced centrifuges capable of
boosting its enriched uranium stockpile, as well as activating
advanced centrifuges for research and development purposes.
Lastly, in November 2019, Iran began injecting uranium gas into
centrifuges at its Fordow plant, something which, while prohibited
under the JCPOA, was conducted under IAEA inspection.
Interestingly, the IAEA Board of Governor’s June 19 resolution did not
address these actions in any depth. Instead, the focus of attention
was on the issue of Iran’s implementation of the additional protocol.
As noted, Iran had entered into voluntary compliance with the IAEA of
an additional protocol agreed in 2003, but withdrew in 2006 in the
face of allegations derived from intelligence provided to the IAEA by
Israel of Iranian cheating [see: article published today in Consortium
News, “Israel Leverages Dubious ‘Nuclear Archives’ to Re-Enlist IAEA
in Campaign Against Iran.“]
Under the JCPOA, Iran agreed to implement its additional protocol on a
“provisional” basis for up to eight years before it became legally
binding.
Iran insisted on these terms in order to prevent the kind of scenario
that is, in fact, playing out today, where the United States has
re-imposed sweeping economic sanctions against Iran, and is seeking to
trigger so-called “snap-back” sanctions that would return Iran to the
regimen of measures previously imposed by the Security Council, but
terminated upon the council’s endorsement of the nuclear deal.
Israeli Allegations
Iran nuclear sites. (Wikimedia Commons)
The Board of Governor’s resolution mentions two sites that are alleged
to be engaged in ongoing, undeclared nuclear activity. Normally, these
sites would be ideal candidates for the kind of inspections envisioned
under the protocol, and indeed Iran has a history of providing similar
access to other sites.
What separates these sites from the others is that Iran claims the
allegations about them are a product of Israeli intelligence, and as
such are deemed to be fabrications designed to provoke Iran. “No
country,” Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s ambassador told the Board of
Governors before its vote on the June 19 resolution, “opens its
territory to the inspections only based on continuous allegations
provided by its own enemy, even if it is evident that the result of which
will prove those allegations to be false.”
Iran’s position on the two sites does not appear to be out of fear
over what would be discovered—indeed Iranian President Hassan Rouhani
told the United Nations in September 2019 that, “If the U.S. Congress
ratifies the JCPOA and lifts all sanctions permanently, Iran is ready
to pursue the immediate ratification of the Additional Protocol in the
Iranian parliament as a permanent law.”
‘Nothing to Hide’
Rather, it is a matter of principle for Iran. Indeed, Foreign Minister
Zarif noted in a tweet that “an agreeable solution is possible” for
the IAEA’s request for access to the two nuclear sites in the
country—but not if Iran was subjected to pressure in the form of a
Board of Governor’s resolution predicated on Israeli intelligence.
“We’ve nothing to hide,” Zarif tweeted. “More inspections in Iran over
last
5 yrs than in IAEA history. An agreeable solution is possible, but Res
will ruin it.”
Zarif’s warning was of no avail. Shortly after the Board of Governors
passed its resolution, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a
statement declaring that:
“Iran’s denial of access to IAEA inspectors and refusal to cooperate
with the IAEA’s investigation is deeply troubling and raises serious
questions about what Iran is trying to hide. Over the past months,
Iran has not only continued its nuclear escalation and extortion, but
it has also stonewalled the IAEA. These actions are unacceptable and
underscore the continued threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program to
international peace and security.”
The battle lines have been drawn. By caving into pressure from the
United States to force a resolution by the Board of Governors, the
European nations who are party to the JCPOA have done great harm to
that agreement.
Having forced a showdown with Iran over the issue of access to sites
based upon intelligence of questionable provenance, the IAEA has once
again opted to take the world to the brink of a crisis with Iran which
could ultimately see that nation withdraw not only from the JCPOA, but
also the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Not only would such an outcome undermine the issue of global nuclear
nonproliferation, but also more than likely put Iran on a path toward
the kind of decisive military confrontation that would spell ruin for
the Middle East and, by extension, the entire world.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served
in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the
Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the
disarmament of WMD.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not
reflect those of Consortium News.
