zaterdag 30 november 2019

When refugees in Libya are being starved, Europe’s plan is working













When refugees in Libya are being starved, Europe’s plan is working










Members of the Sudanese paramilitary Rapid Support Forces Members of the Sudanese paramilitary Rapid Support Forces celebrate stopping a group of migrants as they tried to cross into Libya illegally. Photograph: Ashraf Shazly/AFP/Getty Images


The EU’s dirty work is being carried out by the UN’s scandalous policy on migrants


A
hospital that finds its patients so burdensome that it denies them medical care. A homeless hostel that turfs its residents out on the streets. A refugee agency that refuses to provide food for those under its care.

All might seem implausible. Except that there are credible reports that the third scenario is playing out in the Libyan capital, Tripoli. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is a body that, as its name suggests, is entrusted with the care and protection of refugees. Yet it is apparently trying to shut down a centre that it opened just last year, and to “starve out” the people still inside to force them to leave.
The UNHCR’s actions, if the reports are true, are scandalous. They are also unsurprising. Starving refugees out of a place of safety is a fair metaphor for western policy towards unwanted migrants. The EU, in particular, has been adept at using suffering as a policy lever.
Central to the EU’s strategy over the past decade has been the outsourcing of immigration control, paying countries from Libya to Sudan, from Niger to Turkey, to deter potential migrants to Europe. In this process a new form of imperialism is emerging, whereby rich nations, in the name of protecting their borders from migrants, trample all over the borders of poorer neighbours.
Niger, on the southern edge of the Sahara, is now, in the words of one European ambassador, “the southern border of Europe”. Whereas immigration controls are usually about stopping people entering a country illegally, the new imperialism requires African nations to prevent people leaving their territory if they might be coming to Europe. It’s the 21st century’s version of the Berlin Wall slung across the African continent.
What is really being outsourced, as Mali’s former presidential candidate Aminata Traoré observes, is “violence and instability”. Europe has turned migrants into commodities to be haggled over in a brutal new marketplace. It presents its policies as “a response to criminality”, a recent report on EU strategy notes, but in reality it is “fuelling predatory and criminal behaviour by generating perverse incentives in ‘partner’ countries”.
The EU does not particularly care who its “partners” are, so long as they willing to stop migrants reaching the Mediterranean. Sudan’s former president, Omar al-Bashir, overthrown in a military coup this year, has been indicted by the international criminal court for war crimes in Darfur. His regime was part of the “Khartoum process”, an EU initiative to cut off the migrant route from the Horn of Africa. One of the most effective instruments in policing migrants is Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitaries. Until 2013 they were known as the Janjaweed, a vicious militia that pursued almost genocidal violence in Darfur. Earlier this year, the RSF was responsible for massacres against anti-government protesters in Khartoum. It also plies its trade on behalf of the EU.
Nor does the EU particularly worry about whom its “partners” lock up, so long as they lock up potential migrants to Europe. In the Sahel, 80% of migration is not to Europe but is regional, involving people who for decades have moved around an area in which borders are naturally porous. Militias and security forces don’t care to sift through different kinds of migrants, so all become targets for the new kidnap and detention industry. The result is the disruption of traditional trade routes, growing economic instability and rising discontent – feeding the desire for migration.
The EU turns a blind eye to the treatment of detainees, too. European governments are not just aware of the torture, sexual abuse and extortion to which detainees are subject but also, in the words of Amnesty International’s John Dalhuisen, “complicit in these abuses”. The whole point of outsourcing is to pay others to do Europe’s dirty work. The more hostile the climate for migrants in countries such as Libya or Niger, the more effective the policy of keeping migrants away from Europe.
The consequences of EU migration policy should, as the charity Médecins Sans Frontières puts it, “shock the collective conscience of Europe’s citizens and elected leaders”. Yet it is barely discussed. For those hostile to immigration, it’s a price worth paying. For liberals, it’s a touchy issue, for they fear feeding hostility to the EU. For Brussels, the policy is a political success. For dictators and warlords, it’s a means to riches and power. And so, the biggest scandal of our time has become an outrage that dare not speak its name.
 Kenan Malik is an Observer columnist

Numbers : The US donors who gave generously to rightwing UK groups





Numbers : The US donors who gave generously to rightwing UK groups

A range of charitable foundations have donated millions of dollars to free market thinktanks


 and 

Fri 29 Nov 2019 

Sir John Templeton’s foundations gave millions of dollars to three UK think tanks. Sir John Templeton’s foundations gave millions of dollars to three UK think tanks. Photograph: Ron Bull/Toronto Star via Getty Images


American donors that have given money to British rightwing groups since 2014
John Templeton foundations $3.3m
Three foundations have been created using the fortune of an ultra-conservative US billionaire, Sir John Templeton, who died in 2008. They have given $1.5m to the Legatum Institute, $1.4m to the Adam Smith Institute and $497,000 to the Institute of Economic Affairs.
The John Templeton Foundation said it supports “a variety of projects in an effort to promote individual freedom, free markets, prosperity, and enterprise-based solutions to poverty”. Two of the Templeton foundations maintain public databases of grants, which are acknowledged on the websites of their UK thinktank recipients.
The Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) has also acknowledged that a Templeton foundation had donated to its CapX website, which makes the case for popular capitalism. Internet records suggest that the funding was given between 2015 and 2017. The CPS did not respond when asked how much was given or when.
Pierre F and Enid Goodrich Foundation $115,000
Named after an Indianapolis businessman and his wife, the foundation has funded a series of rightwing groups in the US. It gave $80,000 to the Institute of Economic Affairs in regular donations between 2014 and 2017 for what it called “general support”. It also donated $35,000 to the Adam Smith Institute in 2015.
Rosenkranz Foundation $85,000
The foundation was established in 1985 by US financier Robert Rosenkranz. It gave $84,845 to Policy Exchange in 2014 and 2015. Of this total, $45,000 was earmarked for Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power project in 2014, according to US tax filings.
This project questions whether judges have become too powerful and are undermining parliament. The project’s advocates have argued against legal challenges on Brexit issues. The thinktank said government lawyers made “important use” of its legal arguments to oppose Gina Miller in 2016 when she disputed whether Theresa May could trigger Brexit without a parliamentary vote.
Rosenkranz has been on the board of Policy Exchange since at least 2014.
Earhart Foundation $72,500
Set up by Harry Boyd Earhart, an American businessman who made his fortune as a manufacturer of lubricating oils. It gave $72,500 to the Institute of Economic Affairs in five tranches in 2014 and 2015. The foundation has since closed.
Krieble Foundation $60,000
Established in 1984 by the family of Professor Vernon Krieble, a US businessman who developed Loctite glue. It says its aim is to use its assets “to further democratic capitalism and preserve and promote a society of free, educated, healthy and creative individuals”. It gave the UK Taxpayers’ Alliance $60,000 in three tranches between 2014 and 2016.
Chase Foundation of Virginia $40,000
Founded by Derwood Chase, an investor. Based in Charlottesville, Virginia, it regularly donates to American rightwing groups and causes. It gave $40,000 to the Institute of Economic Affairs in regular instalments between 2014 and 2017.
Chase said it backed the IEA “because it is consistent with our mission to support libertarian organisations, mostly thinktanks, which promote a free economy, and other policies consistent with free societies”. He added a trustee of the foundation worked directly under Antony Fisher who set up the IEA in 1955.
He said the foundation supported organisations that could be considered leftwing on some issues such as drug legislation and reduced military spending.
Center for Independent Thought $15,000
Promotes the views of John Stossel, a former host and pundit on the Fox Business Channel. He has downplayed the scientific evidence of global heating. The organisation says its mission is to work “with teachers, scholars, and international free-market organisations to develop critical thinking and bring the ideas of liberty to people around the globe”.
It gave $10,000 to the Institute of Economic Affairs in 2014 and $5,000 to the Adam Smith Institute in 2015.
It has received donations from groups whose own sources of financing are opaque. The centre said: “The point of anonymous donations is to keep people from being harassed, which seems important regardless of one’s political views.”
Donors Trust $10,000
The trust gave $10,000 to the Institute of Economic Affairs in 2014.
Based in an anonymous townhouse in Virginia, the trust has attracted controversy for some years. It allows wealthy benefactors to support conservative causes anonymously.
Funds that are channelled through this trust and a similar organisation, the Donors Capital Fund, cannot be traced back to individual donors. Both organisations have donated hundreds of millions of dollars in recent years to rightwing groups in the US.
TWS Foundation $10,000
This Florida-based foundation gave $10,000 to the Adam Smith Institute in 2014. It has since closed and transferred its assets to another foundation.
George E Coleman Foundation $4,000
It gave $4,000 to the Adam Smith Institute in 2015.
Figures taken from US tax filings and other public declarations; final amounts paid out may vary slightly because of exchange rate fluctuations.

Wealthy US donors gave millions to rightwing UK groups






Wealthy US donors gave millions to rightwing UK groups

Revelations raise questions about influence of foreign funding on British politics



 and 

Fri 29 Nov 2019 


John Templeton pictured in 1990. The largest visible donations are from foundations funded by the wealth of an ultra-conservative US billionaire financier Sir John Templeton, who died in 2008. Photograph: Ron Bull/Toronto Star via Getty Images


Eleven wealthy American donors who have given a total of more than $3.7m (£2.86m) to rightwing UK groups in the past five years have been identified, raising questions about the influence of foreign funding on British politics.
The donations have been given to four British thinktanks that have been vocal in the debate about Brexit and the shape of the UK’s future trade with the EU, and an organisation that claims to be an independent grassroots campaign representing ordinary British taxpayers.
Many of the donors have also given significant sums of money to a series of like-minded American groups which, like the British organisations, promote a free market agenda of low tax, lightly regulated business and privatisation of public services.
Critics allege that the British groups, which include the Institute of Economic Affairs, Policy Exchange and the Adam Smith Institute, have not been fully transparent about who funds them.
Although some donations are made public, the groups have a general policy of not disclosing their donors, saying they respect their supporters’ right to privacy unless the backers wish otherwise.
The Guardian has compiled a partial list of American donors to the British groups since 2014 by analysing thousands of pages of US tax filings that have been published, and other public declarations. The most recent available year for these filings is 2017.
The donors include foundations funded by the wealth of businessmen who made their money from finance, such as the Chase Foundation of Virginia and the Rosenkranz Foundation, and other businesses such as lubricating oils and glue.
The five British groups and their supporters have raised at least $6.8m in the past five years from US benefactors. However, the identities of many donors remain unknown because their donations cannot be traced in public records.
The largest visible donations, amounting to $3.3m, have been given to three British groups by foundations funded by the wealth of an ultra-conservative US billionaire financier, Sir John Templeton, who died in 2008.
One of the Templeton foundations last year gave a donation worth $1.5m to the Legatum Institute. Legatum said the foundation supported its research on the impact of economic openness on global growth and prosperity.
The thinktank said the donation, which runs out in 2021, had been made public on its website and in other publications, adding that it has “a strong policy of maintaining intellectual independence over all of our research programmes”.
Legatum was required last year by the Charity Commission to remove from its website a report advocating a hard Brexit, which was judged to be too partisan. Charities are required by law to be politically neutral. It stopped its work on Brexit last year.
Another Templeton foundation gave $1.4m to the Adam Smith Institute between 2015 and 2017. The donation was used to make a film about Magna Carta and to fund scholarships. The existence of the donation was made public on the websites of the institute and the John Templeton Foundation.
The Adam Smith Institute has been one of a group of influential rightwing thinktanks credited with kickstarting some of the most controversial privatisations of the Thatcher and Major governments. It received donations from four other US donors.
The John Templeton Foundation also gave $497,000 to the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), another prominent British thinktank, between 2014 and 2017.
The money has been given to researching alternatives to the NHS for an ageing population and to fund work on inspiring young people to become supporters of free markets, according to the foundation.
Andy Mayer, the IEA’s chief operating officer, said: “In any year around 5-10% of our income comes from the US (most of the rest from the UK).” The IEA’s annual income is around £2.5m. It has raised donations from American backers for two decades.
Mayer added that the IEA “is very happy and grateful to be part-funded by American institutes and American citizens who share our values, and whose extraordinary generosity supports our programmes”. Six other US donors to the IEA have been identified.
In February the Charity Commission gave the IEA a formal warning over its failure to be balanced and neutral in a report calling for a hard Brexit. The warning was later withdrawn and the report has since been edited and republished. The original report had been endorsed by prominent pro-Brexit Conservative MPs, including the former Brexit secretary David Davis and Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Investigators from the environmental group Greenpeace last year covertly recorded the head of a US libertarian thinktank saying his group was planning to raise money to give to the IEA to campaign on Brexit. The head of the thinktank said his organisation was planning to raise between $250,000 and $400,000 to campaign on Brexit, most of which it would “ship over to the UK”.
The IEA said at the time that it had not received any cash from US businesses in relation to its work on trade and Brexit, and it did not recognise the sums of money being suggested by the Oklahoma-based thinktank, the E Foundation.
foundation run by the family of Vernon Krieble, a US businessman who developed a brand of glue, donated $60,000 to the UK TaxPayers’ Alliance.
The alliance describes itself as an “independent grassroots campaign” that represents “ordinary taxpayers fed up with government waste, increasing taxation, and a lack of transparency in all levels of government”.
John O’Connell, the chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “At the last count, the average value of over 20,000 donations to the TPA was £548, with less than 1% from corporate sources. We’re proud of our independence and wouldn’t accept money with a condition of controlling what we say – for instance, if a group of communists wanted to give us a fortune to promote communism we would obviously not accept it.”
Policy Exchange did not respond when asked to comment.

donderdag 28 november 2019

Republicans tried to rig the vote in Michigan – but ‘political novices’ just defeated them





Republicans tried to rig the vote in Michigan – but ‘political novices’ just defeated them

After a Republican bragged about cramming ‘Dem garbage’ into certain districts, a grassroots campaign has given the power to redraw political maps to the people

 


Michigan is one of the most gerrymandered states in the country. At that time, Republicans held majorities in the state legislature and congressional delegation, even though Democrats earned a significant share of the statewide vote, and the state is considered politically competitive. And the GOP lawmakers were not subtle: emails made public last year revealed a Republican aide bragging about cramming “Dem garbage” into certain Michigan districts in 2011, as they drew the current electoral boundaries.
But Fahey’s post would create a movement that could provide a roadmap for making US elections fairer. Coordinating over Google Docs and fanning out across the state, her effort grew into a group called Voters Not Politicians that would eventually amend the Michigan constitution to strip redistricting power from lawmakers. This week, Voters Not Politicians succeeded in protecting the new reform from yet another attack from Republicans in the state – underscoring how deeply entrenched gerrymandering has become, and how hard it is to end.
Gerrymandering reform advocates believe the Michigan effort can serve as a model for reform elsewhere (a similar effort recently launched in Oklahoma). Even the supreme court chief justice, John Roberts, who wrote earlier this year that federal courts can’t do anything to fix partisan gerrymandering, has held up the Michigan effort as a pathway for fixing the problem.
But Voters Not Politicians’ success was far from guaranteed. Starting in 2017, Fahey and other members went to all of Michigan’s 83 counties, using public meeting spaces like libraries to gather. They dressed up in costumes in the shape of gerrymandered districts at intersections and other busy places and even wrote jingles about the topic, according to NBC News. As the group grew to thousands of volunteers, its leaders emphasized that people should leave their personal politics at the door once they joined, Fahey said earlier this year.
In 2017, the group drafted the measure to give redistricting authority to 13 Michigan residents – four Democrats, four Republicans and five non-affiliated voters, instead of lawmakers. More than 2.5 million Michigan voters approved the measure to amend the Michigan constitution and create the commission last year.
In the recent lawsuit in Michigan, Republicans took issue with a provision prohibiting anyone with close partisan connections from serving on the panel to ensure the districts are drawn fairly. They argued that those restrictions effectively punish them for their political beliefs and asked a federal judge to stop the creation of the commission. In a decision on Monday, the US district judge Janet Neff declined that request, writing that the Republicans’ arguments were unlikely to ultimately succeed in court. The Republican plaintiffs are appealing against the ruling.
Even though there was overwhelming support for the measure – it passed with about 61% of the vote – Republicans have used every maneuver they can to try to stop it over the past two years. They unsuccessfully tried to kick the measure off the ballot in 2018. And once Michigan voters approved it, they brought two lawsuits in federal court this summer, arguing that the commission violated the US constitution.
The group successfully got the measure to pass and has fended off a mountain of legal challenges, even though the people leading the effort were all “political novices”, said Nancy Wang, the executive director of Voters Not Politicians. “It’s upsetting because these politicians, some of whom are plaintiffs in one of the lawsuits against the amendment, are the ones that are supposed to be working for the voters that passed this amendment,” she said.
Gerrymandering – the practice of drawing political boundaries for partisan gain – has helped Republicans maintain majorities in state legislatures and congressional delegations since 2011. Creating independent redistricting commissions, as Voters Not Politicians did, is seen as one of the most potent ways to fight excessive partisan gerrymandering because it strips the power of redistricting from politicians, who can craft districts to their benefit, and gives it to neutral mapmakers.
The decision on Tuesday means that the independent redistricting commission, not state lawmakers, is still expected to draw the state’s electoral districts in 2021 for the first time. That’s likely to create electoral districts that more accurately reflect Michigan’s political makeup.
Meanwhile, Fahey has joined a new group, The People, and plans to take the organizing lessons to other states. And Wang said the repeated victories in Michigan should also give people thinking about challenging gerrymandering elsewhere hope.
“Victories like ours give people a lot of faith and hope that they still can make a change. That people together are still stronger than the people who occupy political seats,” she said. “Obviously, it’s not gonna be an easy road. People are gonna put up a fight.”