By Haig Hovaness

The government of Saudi Arabia is using munitions sold by U.S. weapons makers to prosecute a brutal campaign against a faction in the Yemen civil war. The weapons in question are laser-guided bombs manufactured by a subsidiary of Raytheon, one of the top weapons makers in the U.S.

GBU-12 Paveway II bomb

The precision guidance capabilities of these bombs are irrelevant to the destruction they wreak on civilians if they are used indiscriminately. The bomb does not choose its aim point. It will accurately strike a school bus, a hospital, or an apartment building if that is where it is aimed, The Saudi military and its Gulf allies have used such high-tech weaponry indiscriminately to inflict death and injury on thousands of innocent Yemeni civilians.

The Saudi government is an oil-rich tyranny heavily influenced by the fundamentalist Wahabi sect of Islam. Saudi Arabia is a nation in which women’s rights activists are arrested and tortured. It is a country with no national elections and no synagogues. Its authoritarian absolute monarchy and intolerant clergy are anathema to American values, yet the U.S. eagerly sells weapons to this regime. We sell them because weapons makers like Raytheon welcome profits from blood money.

The prime directive motivating Raytheon, and all other corporate weapons merchants, is maximizing shareholder value. They have no interest in promoting peace or minimizing human suffering. Indeed, the more their weapons are consumed with devastating effects, the greater their profits. Their corporate hands are stained with the blood of countless victims of the indiscriminate use of their weapons. Maximizing weapons sales is accomplished by influencing the U.S. and foreign governments to adopt policies resulting in stockpiling and use of weapons of war.

There is a clear chain of political influence reaching from the boardrooms of companies like Raytheon through the well-paid lobbying firms of the Washington beltway into the campaign financing of powerful congressional representatives and the career advancement of government officials who authorize arms purchases. This primary mechanism of influence is augmented by extensive subsidies to supposedly independent defense experts at numerous think tanks and academic institutions. These experts provide intellectual respectability to the feeding frenzy of the weapons makers at the enormous trough of the U.S. defense budget.

Raytheon, like other arms makers, publicly asserts that it has no role in shaping foreign policy. Meanwhile its lobbyists privately tie crucial votes in Congress to the promise of large campaign contributions and participate in revolving door career maneuvers that place industry advocates in powerful government positions. This duplicity is so common that it has been normalized as a permanent feature of the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex. The improper influence has become so egregious that a Raytheon lobbyist, Mark Esper, was appointed Secretary of Defense in the Trump administration, and Biden’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, sits on the Raytheon board of directors. With control of both houses of Congress and the Executive branch, Raytheon has nothing to fear from U.S. government oversight over its lavish funding. But there is something that Raytheon would fear: investor activism.

Senior corporate executives are increasingly compensated by stock grants and stock options. Thus, anything that depresses the stock price of their companies directly affects their earnings. This explains the widespread practice of companies buying back their own stock to boost stock prices instead of reinvesting their profits in productive business capabilities. In the past, investors were reluctant to punish companies for socially irresponsible behavior because the conventional economic wisdom was that nothing should interfere with market forces. Motivated only by profit, weapons makers have used campaign contributions to engineer steady increases in U.S. defense spending for decades, with utter indifference to the damage inflicted by the ill-advised use of their weaponry. But the winds of change are reshaping the priorities of investors.

After the sharp recession of 2008, the magic of the marketplace was partially discredited because unchecked exploitation of deregulated mortgage markets had led to a global financial collapse.  Moreover, the looming danger of climate change led economists and investors to add consideration of “externalities,” factors not directly reflected on a corporation’s income statement, to the evaluation of investments. The result has been the growth of socially responsible investing, a practice that balances the profitability of an investment with the associated impacts on society. Initially, the focus of this movement has been on hydrocarbon and mining companies, but there is no reason why this new calculus of investment valuation could not be extended to the arms makers.

I submit that a divestment campaign targeting Raytheon Corporation would be the most direct and efficient means of halting this company’s improper manipulation of U.S. foreign policy and reducing the carnage caused by the indiscriminate use of its weapons in war zones like Yemen. The divestiture of large amounts of Raytheon stock by major public pension funds, academic endowments, and mutual funds, would significantly depress the company’s stock price and lead Raytheon management to heed the following demands:

• • Halt all campaign contributions to elected officials.
  • Halt all contributions to policy organizations advocating aggressive military action.
  • Halt the marketing of weapons to regimes engaged in human rights violations
  • Redirect lobbying funds to foreign aid efforts aimed at relief for war refugees

Although Raytheon is not the only weapons maker engaging in corrupt and harmful practices endangering lives and undermining peace, it is a prominent example of such misconduct, and effective concentrated action against it would send a powerful message to other corporate giants in the Military Industrial Complex, such as  Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman. For too long, the invisible hand of marketplace power has kept the U.S. government on the path of war. It is time for investors to use their economic power to turn arms makers away from being political advocates and enablers of war and limit them to functioning as responsible guardians of peace.

By Rusty Tomlinson

In Truthout, Stephen Zunes examined some of the history of Anthony Blinken, President Elect Biden’s designee for Secretary of State. 

Biden and Blinken have worked together for many years. In 2002, when W. went to Congress asking for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, Biden chaired the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Blinken was the Democratic staff director of that committee. Together, they limited the hearings on the authorization to a day and a half and ensured that all the testimony would come from hawks, allowing no Middle East experts or weapons inspectors to testify. Thus, we were thrust into an unnecessary, illegal and disastrous war.

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force has yet to be repealed, meaning that W., Obama and Trump all had absolute authority to determine the use and disposition of the military. So will Biden, until it is repealed.

Blinken complained that we didn’t send enough forces to the Syrian Civil War and he opposed withdrawing from Syria. He even went against Biden, when Biden opposed our involvement in the Libyan Civil War.

Along with Michele Flournoy.  Biden’s choice for Secretary of Defense, Blinken founded West Exec Advisors, a consulting firm, whose client list is secret, but is thought to include military contractors and  an Israeli artificial intelligence firm with close ties to the military.

Another position Blinken shares with Biden is a refusal to make billions in aid and arms to Israel dependent upon Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian laws. Both Blinken and Biden have often criticized the Palestinian Authority, but not Israel. 

 Israeli authorities are very happy with the choice of Blinken. Former Israeli ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, said, “I can think of no finer choice.” Biden’s  and Blinken’s opposition to making aid to Israel dependent upon Israel’s adherence to humanitarian international law draws into question whether they will insist upon such adherence from other allies.

In 2015, John Kerry made a Palestinian/Israeli peace proposal. Despite Palestine’s recognition of the Israeli State and Israel’s flat refusal to recognize the Palestinian State

The Green Party Peace Action Committee has endorsed the call of the United National Antiwar Coalition(UNAC) to take a stand for peace and hold local antiwar actions on the weekend of July 13th, demanding:

• No War on Iran!

• No U.S. Coup in Venezuela!

• End Sanctions Now!

• Bring all U.S. Troops home now!

There are at least three actions taking place in Illinois: In Chicago, Champaign-Urbana, and Carbondale. (Details below.)

The weekend of July 13th was selected in part because Sunday, July 14th, is the anniversary of the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action between Iran, the United States and other nations, also known as the “Iran Nuclear Deal.”

It was bad enough that the Trump administration reneged on this agreement. Now Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and others in the administration are engaging in dangerous acts of provocation against Iran, in a misguided effort to destabilize that country, promote so-called “regime change,” and perhaps deliberately incite a war. Even if a full-blown war is not intended, its acts of economic warfare against Iran and Venezuela already violate international law, and its reckless acts of brinksmanship and daily barrage of unsubstantiated accusations against Iran demonstrate that it is pushing toward some type of military aggression against that nation – which could easily escalate into a full-blown war.

While some members of Congress are making noise about trying to rein in the Trump administration’s ability to start another disastrous war in the Middle East, most Democratic and Republican members alike have laid the groundwork for such a war. For decades, they have abdicated their constitutional authority to declare war to the executive branch, allowing president after president to commit acts of war with little or no resistance. In addition, most Democratic leaders in Congress go along with their Republican colleagues (and the corporate news media) in proclaiming that Iran is the “world’s leading State sponsor of terrorism,” “the main source of instability in the Middle East,” etc.

These claims are constantly repeated but rarely examined, as if sheer repetition is an acceptable substitute for truth. Whatever one thinks of Iran’s actions towards its neighbors, there is little or no substance to these charges. Cheerleaders for war are using the “terrorism” charge, grainy videos and other dubious “evidence” in an attempt to manipulate the public into believing that future U.S. military attacks on Iran may be justified. Yet there can be no justification for U.S. military aggression against a nation that has not attacked the United States. Any such action would be illegal under well-settled international law, illegal under the U.S. Constitution, and without a shred of moral justification.

Such claims are also monstrously hypocritical, coming as they do from a nation that has literally rained tens of thousands of bombs and missiles against seven different Middle East and African nations in recent years, driving much of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria into the hell of persistent war, political chaos and economic ruin, with no end in sight. Not only has the United States directly supplied terrorist groups in Syria, its efforts at “regime change” generally have fostered an increase in terrorist activity in the region. Americans must wake up to the fact that the world’s leading “State sponsor of terrorism” is their own government.

As UNAC well points out: “In modern history, Iran has never attacked another country, something the U.S. has done continuously. Iran has not threatened to attack the U.S. or other countries, only maintaining its right to defend itself. On the other hand, the U.S. has threatened to annihilate Iran if it interferes with U.S. ‘interests.’ While the U.S. has around 20 times the number of foreign military bases as all other countries combined, Iran only has foreign bases in Syria, a country that asked for Iran’s support in its war against jihadist forces, most supported by the U.S. and its allies, as well as direct attacks from Israel, the U.S. and its NATO allies.”

As it is, the economic warfare (sanctions) against both Iran and Venezuela (another target for so-called “regime change” via blatant U.S. attempts to orchestrate a coup) are already killing people, an estimated 40,000 in Venezuela alone.

It is time for the American people to say: “Enough! No More War!” Democrats and Republicans in Congress are currently debating, not over whether to increase military spending next year, but over how much to raise it. The parameters of the debate are whether to increase the military budget from $716 billion to $750 billion, or “only” $733 billion. Even those colossal sums don’t include the tens of billions of dollars that go into the “overseas contingency operations budget,” where a lot of current war spending is hidden from public view. They also don’t include funding for Homeland Security, the payment of interest on past wars, or the additional health-care costs caused by physical or mental injuries to the veterans, whom all politicians claim to care so much about. Meanwhile, tens of millions of Americans languish in poverty, debt and little or no health care, our infrastructure continues to crumble, and not nearly enough is being done to address climate catastrophe and the collapse of our ecosystem — a major cause of which is militarism and war.

The Green Party is the Peace Party. With only rare individual exceptions, neither Democrats nor Republicans can legitimately claim to be a “lesser evil” on the issues of militarism and war. Just as “nonviolence” is one of our key values, militarism and war must be one of our foremost issues as Greens. We have a responsibility to strongly raise our voices for peace, as we are the leading political expression of the peace movement in the U.S. today.

Accordingly, we call upon all Greens to please join us, and others in UNAC and the broader peace movement, in local actions around the above four demands, on or about July 13th.

In Chicago: Friday, July 12, 5:30 – 6:30 p.m., 190 N. State St., Chicago, IL 60601. Join the Facebook event.

In Champaign: Saturday, July 13, 5 p.m., Southwest corner of West Side Park, Champaign Illinois. Short rally followed by march to downtown Champaign.

In Carbondale: Saturday, July 13, noon – 1 p.m., Corner of Main and Illinois Ave., Carbondale, Illinois, VIGIL TO STOP WAR BEFORE IT STARTS, END SANCTIONS, AND BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW. Join the Facebook event.

Illinois Green Party Outreach
http://www.ilgp.org/

It’s almost time to unwelcome NATO!

Op ed by Keith Brumley March 2019

Edwin Starr, in his 1970 hit single asked “War, what is it good for?” His catchy answer was “absolutely nothing!”

On the face of it Mr. Starr’s point seems obvious. But if so why has the United States engaged in seemingly endless war in places like Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan and Iraq, since Mr. Starr’s song hit the charts? Why are policy makers in Washington D.C. fomenting for more war in Venezuela and Iran? Apparently, war is good for something as the U.S. continues engaging it.

Perhaps our policy makers, being graduates of Ivy League schools, know something of war’s benefits of which mere commoners are unaware? Perhaps they believe endless war is a means to maintaining and sustaining the affluent lifestyle we enjoy in the Unites States?

One argument may be jobs. Isn’t it true the defense industry is a major source of jobs for Americans? After all, President Trump was willing to turn a blind eye to Saudi Arabia’s murdering of journalist Jamal Khashoggi to keep an arms deal in place to “save American jobs.”

While it is true that companies like Raytheon, Boeing and Lockheed Martin make many billions of dollars manufacturing and selling their weapons to the Pentagon and countries like Saudi Arabia, profits are concentrated in the hands of the 1% – the CEOs and shareholders. War is “good” for them. Not so much for the rest of us. Certainly not for people on the receiving end of those weapons, like the war-torn victims of Yemen.

Professor Heidi Garrett-Peltier, in a 2017 studyLinks to an external site. published by Brown University’s Watson Institute, found that “federal spending on domestic programs in health care, education, clean energy and infrastructure creates more jobs, dollar for dollar, than military spending.” The reality, as David Swanson of World Beyond War notes, is “spending those same dollars on peaceful industries, on education, on infrastructure, or even on tax cuts for working people would produce more jobs and in most cases better-paying jobs.”

So it turns out, while war may be “good for” CEOs and shareholders of war profiteering corporations, it’s not for the rest of us. Taxpayers would get a bigger bang for the buck if we funneled money away from the Department of Defense and instead poured that money into funding Medicare for all, free college education, repairing and replacing our nation’s crumbling infrastructure, and enacting a “Green New Deal.” It would produce more and better jobs. And best of all, no more bombs ripping through school buses in Yemen.

Okay, but surely Americans are wealthier and happier because of our bellicose belligerence, right? Surely we enjoy lower “prices at the pump” and have a greater sense of security because of our endless wars?

In a word, no.

The U.S. contains roughly 5% of the world’s population but consumes nearly 30% of the world’s natural resources. If the rest of the world consumed like us we’d need several more planets to sustain all that consumption.

Even with all this consumption, the United States did not make the top 10 list of the World Economic Forum’s “happiest countries in the worldLinks to an external site.” in 2018 (we were 18th). That honor went to Finland, followed closely by Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland and the Netherlands.

Oddly, these countries aren’t making war on anyone at present. Perhaps the adage is true – “Anything war can do, peace can do better.”

The U.S. did lead the field in one area – anti-depressant use. Clearly endless war isn’t making us happier or more secure.

In fact, the imperialist policies of the United States make Americans less secure. It may seem strange but most people resent invading armies, drone strikes in the middle of the night, and covert CIA operations toppling their elected governments. That tends to make enemies, not friends.  

Imagine the friends the United States would have the world over if we spent even a third of the trillion dollar (yes, with a “T”) defense related budget to provide medicine, food, shelter, roads, bridges, and education to countries we presently bomb or occupy with military bases? Rather than being viewed as the most threatening country to world peaceLinks to an external site., the United States would be the most loved.

Bloated “defense” budgets and endless war does not produce “good jobs,” does not make us wealthier or happier, and does not make us more secure.

So, back to Edwin Starr’s question – “War, what is it good for?”

He was right. “Absolutely nothing!”