John Perkins a former World Bank
economist reveals how USA through World Bank, IMF and other financial
institutions it controls cheat countries around the world of trillions
of dollars.
John Perkins worked directly with the heads of the
World Bank, IMF and other global financial institutions USA controls. He
quit this job in 1980s because he felt it was morally and ethically
wrong for him to play a part to help creating USA into a bloatedly rich world
empire at the expense of the poor disadvantaged third world countries.
His
job as an "Economic Hit Man" was to convince countries that are
strategically important to USA to accept enormous loans for infrastructure
development and to make sure that the lucrative projects were contracted
to US corporations . He created economic projections for countries to
accept billions of dollars in loans they surely couldn't afford. His
conscience was pricked when he realised how these wicked American
practices have directly resulted in terrorist attacks and animosity
towards the United States.
Perkins defines economic hit men as
"highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of
trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S.
Agency for International Development
(US AID), and other foreign
'aid' organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the
pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet's natural
resources.
Their tools include fraudulent financial reports, rigged
elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old
as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions
during this time of
globalization."
Perkins' was hired as an
economist for the international consulting firm of Chas. T. Main, Inc.
(MAIN). He was told in confidential meetings with "special consultant"
to the company Claudine Martin that he had
two primary objectives:
He was supposed to justify huge loans for countries. These loans would
be for major engineering and construction projects, which were to be
carried out by MAIN and other U.S. companies such as Bechtel,
Halliburton, Stone & Webster and Brown & Root.
He was supposed to help bankrupt the countries that received these
loans after the U.S. companies involved had been paid. This would make
sure that these countries would remain in debt to their creditors and
would
then be easy targets when the U.S. needed favors such as military bases, UN votes and access to natural resources like oil.
Perkins'
job was to produce economic growth projections that would make the case
for a variety of major projects. If the U.S. decided to lend a country
money, Perkins would compare the economic benefits of different
projects
such as power plants or telecommunications systems. He would then
produce reports that showed the economic growth the country would
experience due to these projects. These economic growth projections
needed to be high enough to justify the loans. Otherwise, the loans would be denied.
The
gross national product (GNP) was always the most important factor in
these economic projections. The project expected to increase the GNP the
most would be chosen. In the cases where there was only one project
under
consideration, it needed to be shown that the project would greatly
benefit the GNP. Luckily for the economic hit man, GNP figures can be
quite deceptive. "For instance, the growth of GNP may result even when
it
profits only one person, such as an individual who owns a
utility company, while the majority of the population is burdened with
debt."
All of these projects were meant to make huge profits for the
contractors. The U.S. engineering and construction companies involved
would be assured of great wealth. At the same time, a few wealthy
families and
influential leaders in the receiving countries
would become very happy and very rich thanks to these loans. The leaders
of these countries would also have bolstered political power because
they were credited with bringing
industrial parks, power plants and airports to their people.
The
problem is that these countries simply cannot handle the debt of these
loans and their poorest citizens are deprived of health, education and
other social services for several decades as these countries struggle
economically
to overcome their huge debts. Meanwhile, the huge American media
conglomerates portray these projects as favors being provided by the
United States. American citizens in general have no trouble believing
these messages, and in fact are led to perceive that these actions are unselfish acts of international goodwill.
Ultimately,
due to the large debts, the U.S. is able to draw on these countries for
political, economic and military favors whenever desired. And of
course, the U.S. corporations involved with the expensive projects
become
extremely wealthy.
The U.S. Government was clever in
using economic hitman without directly implicating Washington. US
empowered international corporations and mujltinatioinal organizations
such as the World Bank and IMF. This allowed for US governments, corporations and multinational organizations to form mutually beneficial
relationships . US intelligence agencies like CIA and FBI were able to
use these relationships to their advantage.
Government
organizations such as the National Security Agency (NSA) were now able
to screen for potential economic hitmen (as they did with Perkins) and
then have them hired by international corporations such as
MAIN.
"These
economic hitmen would never be paid by the government; instead, they
would draw their salaries from the private sector. As a result, their
dirty work, if exposed, would be chalked up to corporate greed rather
than
to government policy. In addition, the corporations that
hired them, although paid by government agencies and their multinational
banking counterparts (with taxpayer money), would be insulated from
congressional
oversight and public scrutiny, shielded by a
growing body of legal initiatives, including trademark, international
trade, and Freedom of Information laws."
Southernglory1
Thursday,14th July, 2016
7/14/2016
UN distancing itself from the kangaroo court
These are
the comments from the UN on the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
‘The United Nations said on Wednesday it has nothing to do with
the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which set up a tribunal that handled the
South China Sea arbitration case the Philippines filed unilaterally in 2013.
In a post on its Sina
Weibo micro blog, the UN said the PCA is a "tenant" of the Peace
Palace in The Hague, "but has nothing to do with the UN".
The UN said the
International Court of Justice, its principal judicial organ set up according
to the Charter of the UN, is also located in the Peace Palace.
The construction of
the palace was managed by the Carnegie Foundation, which is still the
building's owner and manager, according to the Peace Palace website.
The UN said it makes
an annual donation to the foundation for using the Peace Palace.
When asked about the
Arbitral Tribunal's case's ruling on Tuesday, Stephane Dujarric, spokesman for
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Tuesday "The UN doesn't have a
position on the legal and procedural merits" of the South China Sea
arbitration case.’ China Daily
The UN’s
comments are a clear indication that the kangaroo court is a can of rotten fish
and did not wan to have anything to do with it. The UN simply did not want to
have anything to do with the PCA and did not want its good reputation to be
tarnished by kangaroos running the circus.
The
Permanent Court of Arbitration is not a court per se but a tribunal where
willing parties brought their cases to be arbitrated, with each side choosing a
judge and has the right to reject the judges appointed by the PCA. It was meant
to be a tribunal that is neutral but not in this case. The judges were
appointed by one party, paid by one party, to arbitrate on a territorial issue
that it has no jurisdiction and with the other party not participating.
American Race Relations at a Crossroad
The police shootings of 2 Black men in
the US cities of Louisiana and Minnesota are grim reminders of the
consequences of losing the never-ending race against racism in the most
developed and, arguably, most civilized modern human society. In a direct
response, a black
sniper-shooter killed 5 white police officers in another distant city of Dallas in
Texas.
In the weeks following Louisiana, Minnesota and Dallas,
the US race against racism veered off its future destiny of true freedom and
equality to run forward towards her bigoted Jim Crow past.
White American racism against Blacks
in particular was thoroughly cooked and boiled in the living hells of her past
institution of chattel slavery from 1619 to the 1865
Presidential Emancipation Proclamation that freed more than 3 million Black
slaves, lasting about 246 years. Their freedom is followed by more than 150
years of systematic and continuous social discrimination and exclusion, as
manifested lately by the Louisiana, Minnesota and Dallas killings.
To be fair, American race relations have in fact improved significantly
since the 1960s. Many Black Americans indeed have moved up the social mobility
ladder through education and achieve prosperous careers as entertainers,
doctors, lawyers, accountants, businessmen, politicians, professioals …
etc. A Black President in the White
House for 2 terms should have convinced Black Americans of the abundance in
life and social opportunities awaiting them that they have access to. For many
Black Americans, these are simply not enough.
Black Americans at 13%
is the largest racial minority, compared with 77% of racial majority
Whites Americans. Hispanic and Latino Americans together amount to 17% of
the population, making up
the largest ethnic minority. Asian Americans at 5.6% are at a far distance, but
more than the 1.2% Native Americans.
Many Black Americans believe that they
are singled out for systematic discrimination by social institutions and by the
law-and–order systems. Their proportion
in prison far exceeds their proportion in over 20 states. On the whole, they made up 35% of jail
inmates and 37% of prison inmates.
Another study concluded that at the time of his birth, a Black American
has a 33% chance of going to prison during his life-time.
Black Americans appeared
to be trapped and languishing in their own self-perception of a persecuted
people who were freed from plantation slavery just to be quickly enslaved by
the larger White society. Poverty,
unemployment and incarceration reinforced inherently low self-image and
perceived lack of economic progress when compared with other better-off
non-White Americans eg Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Hispanics and Latinos,
many of whom were recent immigrants only in the last 30 years.
No wonder White Americans’ stereotypes
of Black Americans are reinforced concerning the capability and suitability of
the Black man to live and work in the civilized and modern American society of
law. This sad state of mutual
misunderstanding affects and retards any significant progress in their race
relations, and can be attributed to the absence of visionary and courageous
leadership in the President, both Houses of Congress, Community and Social
Leaders, Black and White Influencers and Business Leaders.
Leadership failure by both Black and
White leaders is culpable and responsible for the American race against racism
taking off on a momentum with racism in the lead far, far ahead.
Know that American
society was created with white racism. The earliest white God-fearing
Christian settlers in the New World deployed racism as their weapon of choice,
alongside firearms, to expropriate Native American Indians of their legacy
ancestral lands as a matter of their self-assumed divine entitlement in order
to create their own colonies.
Early American colonies have a disdain
for non-White immigrants who were not from countries like England, Ireland,
France, Holland and Sweden. That racism
was nurtured and systematically developed by the early and subsequent colonies
is baffling since they had migrated to the dangerous New World to escape
religious persecution and social ostracism.
The
Chinese who first came to America in 1850s in search of gold and silver fortunes
and who later helped built the Great American Railroads, like other non-White
settlers, also encountered systemic White racism in the forms of legal and
extralegal discrimination in daily living. Considered “the dregs of Asia”, they
were prohibited from public schools, from voting, from citizenship and from
testifying in courts or legal access. They were instead however legally liable
to pay school, property, water, hospital taxes as well as a “permission tax”
for gold and silver mining activities.
The
Chinese were only allowed US citizenship in 1943. It is not until the 1965 Voting Rights Act which banned
discrimination against voters belonging to language minority groups and
provided critically important protections to these and other minority
Americans.
We should regard the USA as becoming a young modern
democracy only in 1965 using the universal franchise measure for a modern
democracy.
Racism has neither a white or back
face. Racism is an evil that has neither
colour nor face. Racism is learnt. We learn it from our parents. We teach it to
our children. The motivation to teach
racism to our children arises out of our own fear. We fear what we do not understand what or
whom looks different from us. Our
natural reaction to the irritating uncomfortable fear is to retaliate, to
defend, to eliminate and to remove the source of the discomfort by causing pain
and possibly its death. Racism counters such
fears by concealing these fears.
Racism feeds on a dangerous diet of
contaminant ideas and lies regarding race and racial superiority, and regarding
the inferiority of other races along various dimensions. Read for example, the Malaysian
Myth of the lazy Malay and the divisive bogus notion of Chinese
privilege in racially harmonious Singapore.
The race against racism is long and
never-ending. We need to conquer the
lingering racism in ourselves. Some may
believe that we cannot live without racism; for sure, we cannot live within it. To win the race against racism, we have to
first conquer ourselves (quoting Chinese philosopher Lau Tzu).
Yes, it is OK to ignore the things we
disagree and focus on those we do, especially that which unite us. Social
harmony does not require consensus or standardisation or assimilation. Harmonious
co-existence in race relations needs only the respectful tolerance of
differences without discrimination or recrimination. A strong united
community can embrace diversities of practice and opinions to allow the
innovations of thought and ideas to make for a better future society.
After Dallas, can
America run and stay increasingly way ahead in her race against racism? Only her
readiness in truly acting out these responsibilities can begin the end of the
long, long race against racism. Over these recent weeks, Americans know now
that the mega-thon race against racism is far from slowing down … or over.
Read the Full Article:
The Never-Ending Race Against Racism: American Update
Is our CPF money a pension fund?
What is a
pension fund? A general definition from Investopedia for pension fund is, ‘A pension fund is a common asset pool run by a financial
intermediary on behalf of a company and its
employees, to generate stable growth over the long term and provide pensions for the employees when they retire.’
Chris Kuan has made some comments on Roy Ngerng’s article on the CPF fund. This is what he said.
‘The “funnelling of CPF funds” thingy inferred by Roy is no different from any first world country in the way pension funds invests in government bonds and then how the proceeds move around in the government.
Typically public and private pension funds are required to hold a certain percentage of their assets in government bonds either because it is a regulatory requirement or because it is the prevailing asset allocation strategy. On a regular basis, the government will issue government bonds and a variety of investors buy them including pension funds. The debt proceeds from the issuance of the bonds are then for the government to use at its sole discretion. In most cases, the proceeds are used to cover the shortfall of revenues over expenditures, i.e. used for spending.
However nobody in the first world countries will say that the monies spent are “pension” monies in the same way we should not be calling the monies the Singapore government has given to Temasek or for GIC to manage are “CPF monies”.
So this “funnelling” is not exceptional. The exception is the design of the Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS) issued to Central Provident Fund (CPF) and maybe the coercive nature of the relationship between CPF and the government but even the latter may not be so exceptional if we think CPF as more akin to a first world national social insurance fund than a pension fund.’
What is wrong with Chris Kuan’s analogy that our CPF fund is similar to other pension funds? In the first place, our CPF savings has never been called a pension fund. The second point is that there is no direct relationship between GIC and Temasek as the fund managers of the CPF savings. For a long time, both funds even denied investing the CPF funds until quite recently when they admitted to have used the funds indirectly to invest. But there is no agreement or commitment by Temasek or GIC that they are the fund managers of CPF funds and whatever commitments to invest and to return the profits to the owners of the CPF funds. How then can these two funds be recognized as the fund managers of CPF funds?
This is definitely very exceptional for anyone to say that GIC and Temasek are the fund managers of the CPF funds and the CPF is a pension fund managed by these fund managers. They are not. They exist for their own agenda and mission, and have no direct relationship or link with the CPF fund.
What do you think of Fund managers managing the CPF fund without an official agreement and commitments, without any terms of reference as to how the funds will be invested, and how the profits should be returned to the owners of the fund? I really cannot remember reading any such agreements that the GIC and Temasek are the official fund managers of the CPF fund and have a direct fiduciary duty to the owners of the CPF fund.
Please correct me if I am wrong. Can we assume that the GIC and Temasek are the fund managers of our CPF fund? Where is the agreement? CPF savings is far from an international fund in the West as described by Chris Kuan. There is no active investment strategies by the CPF Board to maximize profits for the CPF savers other than the rudimentary buying of govt bonds.
Is the CPF savings a pension fund? The money is contributed by the employers and
employees but it stops there. There is no financial intermediary to invest the
fund on behalf of the company and employees to generate a stable growth over
the long term and to provide pensions for the employees. There are agencies taking the funds directly
or indirectly to invest for their own interests, to make profits for
themselves, and the returns to the owners of the fund are incidental or
secondary. The primary objectives of agencies utilizing the CPF funds for
investment is for their own benefits, without the approval of the owner of the
CPF savings, without any agreement that they are investing their savings for
their benefits. Only the CPF Board has a small role in this direction, by
buying govt bonds and to return the proceeds to the owners of the CPF savings.
That is far from managing and investing a pension fund.
Chris Kuan has made some comments on Roy Ngerng’s article on the CPF fund. This is what he said.
‘The “funnelling of CPF funds” thingy inferred by Roy is no different from any first world country in the way pension funds invests in government bonds and then how the proceeds move around in the government.
Typically public and private pension funds are required to hold a certain percentage of their assets in government bonds either because it is a regulatory requirement or because it is the prevailing asset allocation strategy. On a regular basis, the government will issue government bonds and a variety of investors buy them including pension funds. The debt proceeds from the issuance of the bonds are then for the government to use at its sole discretion. In most cases, the proceeds are used to cover the shortfall of revenues over expenditures, i.e. used for spending.
However nobody in the first world countries will say that the monies spent are “pension” monies in the same way we should not be calling the monies the Singapore government has given to Temasek or for GIC to manage are “CPF monies”.
So this “funnelling” is not exceptional. The exception is the design of the Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS) issued to Central Provident Fund (CPF) and maybe the coercive nature of the relationship between CPF and the government but even the latter may not be so exceptional if we think CPF as more akin to a first world national social insurance fund than a pension fund.’
What is wrong with Chris Kuan’s analogy that our CPF fund is similar to other pension funds? In the first place, our CPF savings has never been called a pension fund. The second point is that there is no direct relationship between GIC and Temasek as the fund managers of the CPF savings. For a long time, both funds even denied investing the CPF funds until quite recently when they admitted to have used the funds indirectly to invest. But there is no agreement or commitment by Temasek or GIC that they are the fund managers of CPF funds and whatever commitments to invest and to return the profits to the owners of the CPF funds. How then can these two funds be recognized as the fund managers of CPF funds?
This is definitely very exceptional for anyone to say that GIC and Temasek are the fund managers of the CPF funds and the CPF is a pension fund managed by these fund managers. They are not. They exist for their own agenda and mission, and have no direct relationship or link with the CPF fund.
What do you think of Fund managers managing the CPF fund without an official agreement and commitments, without any terms of reference as to how the funds will be invested, and how the profits should be returned to the owners of the fund? I really cannot remember reading any such agreements that the GIC and Temasek are the official fund managers of the CPF fund and have a direct fiduciary duty to the owners of the CPF fund.
Please correct me if I am wrong. Can we assume that the GIC and Temasek are the fund managers of our CPF fund? Where is the agreement? CPF savings is far from an international fund in the West as described by Chris Kuan. There is no active investment strategies by the CPF Board to maximize profits for the CPF savers other than the rudimentary buying of govt bonds.
7/13/2016
South China Sea – An alignment of forces for domination and control
There are
good and bad things coming out from this Hague circus and its South
China Sea show. Let me start with the bad stuff first. The
Permanent Court of Arbitration, an international institution created to uphold
justice and peace, has unfortunately allowed itself to be embroiled in a power
struggle for hegemony in the South China Sea. It is in the deep end, having
sank into the quagmire for the last few years and unable to extricate itself to
come up clean from the mud of infamy. Its decision is likely to compromise the
good name and reputation of the institution of the Permanent Court of
Arbitration and the judges involved. At
worst, it will destroy the very reason for the existence of such an
international body, a highly respectable, neutral and legal institution to
arbitrate and resolve international disputes.
China does not need to be diplomatic
anymore to appease the hegemon and think the problems of an open military
confrontation will go away. China
would have to take sides and close ranks with its friends against its foes. It
is crisis time and China
cannot afford to compromise its position and security to side with the hegemon
and its foes against its friends. China must take decisive decision
to part ways with the hegemon bent on confrontation. China would have to be resolute and
firm and review all its policies vis a vis the hegemon and be prepared to take
sides against the hegemon and its allies or be left to stand up against the
hegemon and its allies, alone.
The Hague pronouncement is like D Day with the
battle line drawn up. There is no more grey area, no more superficial
friendship. The forces of the two sides will stand up to be counted and all
policies must be realigned to face this new and risky challenge to China ’s
sovereignty and territorial integrity in the South China
Sea .
And here is
the good outcome from the pronouncement by the Court. I would not call it a
legal and enforceable judgment. It is not and it will not be legal but a
political statement from an institution that has lost its credibility as an
independent and impartial world body. The good outcome will come about when
countries with vested interests start to make their stand public to reveal
their private agenda. China would
then know who are friends and who are foes.
There will be no need to hide behind a mask anymore.
There will
be a new alignment of forces for control of the South
China Sea , politically and militarily. The risk of war is real and
eminent as the main protagonist will have the countries in the region fighting
among themselves, leaving the main protagonists safe and sound from afar. The
announcement by the Court would also make China ’s choices and options easier.
To borrow a phrase from George Bush Jr, it is either with me or against me.
There is no need for pretences and speaking in fork tongues. Asean countries will take their chosen places
on both sides of the divide.
A new and
dangerous chapter in the story of the South China Sea
is about to be written. The way forward is military confrontation with the
hegemon and its allies upping the stakes in a winner take all gambit. China ’s appeasement policies to
avoid war are not working. War is coming to China and the earlier China makes up
its mind the better. It is a critical moment in history when China would
have to call on all its friends and allies to act together to face the combined
forces of the hegemon and its allies.
The only
hope for avoiding a nasty confrontation is for the new President of the Philippines to
break ranks and to start negotiation with China , to seek for a peaceful and
mutually beneficial solution for both countries. Such a decision by the Philippines
would be the only way to scuttle the aggressive intent of the hegemon, to give
it no reason and justification to push for a nasty and explosive solution in
open warfare in the South China Sea .
Would there
be wisdom within the Asean ranks, especially those that have no conflicting
claims in the South China Sea , to call out and
walk away from the battle field drawn up by the hegemon? Or would they be
dragged by the less enlightened Asean states into a war that has nothing to do
with them and nor to their national interests?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)