The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Uncategorised

Justice for the Bataan 5

Statement delivered by Sarah Raymundo in the Online Indignation Rally against the Killings of the New Bataan 5 by BAYAN Europe.


31/03/2022

A fervent day to all of us. A heartfelt condolences and solidarity in mourning of the entire movement for losing good children of our nation (mabubuting anak ng bayan).

On February 23, 2021 two Lumad (indiginous people) volunteer teachers Chad Booc and Gelejurain Ngujo II, a community health worker Elegyn Balonga, and two accompanying drivers, Robert Aragon and Tirso Añar, were traveling from New Bataan, Davao de Oro in the South of the Philippines, where they were conducting a community visit as part of their research work. They were on their way back to Davao City, the largest city in the region, when they were massacred by state forces.

It would take five days for the victims of the New Bataan Massacre to be released to their families. I knew Chad personally as a former student and for a longer period as a fellow Save Our Schools advocate and Lumad Bakwit School teacher.

Chad had completed his degree in BS Computer Science at the UP Diliman College of Engineering in Manila. Upon graduation, Chad received multiple invitations for interviews and other work opportunities from established businesses. One reason he was one of the most sought-after graduates of UP Diliman College of Engineering was because of a mental health software he developed to help workers in the various industries.

But Chad had loftier ideals than giving capitalism a human face. The reinvigorated struggle of the national minority in the Philippines that takes its root and links up with the national liberation movement in the country, found its way to Chad’s attention and serious consideration. This people’s movement, as evidenced by Chad’s choices and undertakings, continue to attract the bravest and most brilliant young people.

The forces of reaction and counterinsurgency will say that such phenomenon is a product of communist brainwashing in the university. But the history of revolutions worldwide will tell us otherwise. All revolutions were instigated and often won by the youth. The young Marx and Engels were young intellectuals and organizers of workers when they co-wrote the Communist Manifesto. The Communards, the Bolsheviks, the Katipuneros, the Kabataang Makabayan, even the armed revolutionary movements whether in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and other parts of Asia were all founded by young people. No ageism here. It just so happens that young people do not need to be brainswashed to realize that they don’t have high stakes in the maintaining a social order in which their voices they are often dismissed or marginalized. They’ve got nothing to do with the current power structure in the sense that they did not have a hand in building it. They neither hold positions of power nor are expected to make big decisions to manage the crisis of society and make sure nothing ever changes. In other words, there is always something dangerous about being young in an old oppressive system. The question is, will the restless youth find its voice and power in building an alternative?

Chad Booc did and with such willful intensity. In one of his numerous ruminations on his work as a Lumad teacher, Chad made it very clear:

“Marami mang mga pagsubok at sakripisyo sa gawaing ito, ngunit masaya at payapa ang puso ko sa piling nila. Mahal na mahal ko sila, katulad ng pagmamahal nila sa kanilang lupang ninuno.” (There maybe a lot of challenges and sacrifices in this work, but my heart is joyful and serene when I am with them [the Lumads]. I love them so dearly, like how they love their ancestral lands).

That Chad and the rest of the New Bataan 5 were civilians is a fact that should be emphasized, and not because armed revolutionaries deserve to be murdered. The difference between the massacre of unarmed activists and revolutionary combatants must be asserted in this case because the US-Duterte government and the regimes before it embraced US Counterinsurgency in order to stop people from building alternatives to conditions of misery, hunger, poverty and inequality.

The state forces do for the accumulation of wealth. Every inch of land monopolized by landlords, compradors and foreign investors amounts to the continued dispossession of peasants and indigenous peoples. This is why counterinsurgency is not really about “defeating the insurgents” so to speak but about casting the net wider by calling the armed group a network so they can kill Lumad teachers like Chad and Jurain who are building and rebuilding Lumad Schools so that the Lumad may have an education that is responsive not only to their needs but to the needs and aspirations of the Filipino people. And what they need is not different from established human standards. Chad and the rest of the New Bataan 5 were massacred for making sure that Lumad communities will enjoy the right to ancestral domain, education, ecological food production. Chad was the target of severe political vilification and served prison time for being a devoted teacher to the Lumad youth. He was severely punished and ultimately murdered for serving the people.

Chad was a huge social media figure with thousands upon thousands of followers, in fact, over twenty-thousand on Twitter. He left us with a robust body of notes about his life with the Lumad. He was a tireless teacher teaching the world lessons he learned from his chosen people.

I had the honor of knowing Chad as a student in my class and the greater honor of witnessing how a student of mine exceeded his teacher in so many ways. Our exchanges as fellow Lumad teachers when the Lumad Bakwit School came to Diliman were very satisfying, humorous and hopeful.

It is extremely sad to lose a younger comrade. It is also joyful to be with them. Compared to comrades my age and those older than me, it is those who are younger than me who will witness the time that I will not be able to. But through them and all the work as comrades that we are doing now, I will be part of that time. That is why it is so hard to lose someone like Chad and Jurain, for it was like a part of the future is stolen and will never be taken back.

However, in spite of all, our Lumad brothers and sisters and the great struggle that bounded the teachers are still there and are continued by Lumad Schools. That is exactly where Teacher Chad and Teacher Jurain offered their lives. We will never forget you. I will strive to face the days that you will not be able to see with a constant remembrance of your unparalleled goodness and fervent determination. Highest salute! Justice for Chad, Jurain and other comrades in the New Bataan 5!

## End of Statement

The Call for Justice for the Bataan 5 continues!

Sign the Petition

Donate for the Memorial Fund of the New Bataan 5

“We are all resources being exploited by management to make a profit for the company.”

Interview with an organiser and two of the speakers at tomorrow’s DSA Night School on organising in the Warehouse and at the Office


30/03/2022

Hello everyone. Thanks for talking to us. Could you start by briefly introducing yourself? Who are you and what is your connection to Thursday’s DSA Night School?

Phoebe: I’m Phoebe, an infrastructure engineer at a tech company in Berlin. I’m connected to this DSA Night School through the Tech Workers Coalition Berlin (TWC). TWC is a grassroots organization that empowers tech workers to build collective power and get involved in campaigns that make a positive impact on our society.

At my company I am part of a small group of employees forming a Works Council (Betriebsrat). Works Councils are democratically elected bodies of employees who participate in company decision making. They are internal complements to trade unions. Much of German labor law is pretty vague, because it assumes works councils exist to fill in the gaps.

Antje: I am Antje, I am a member of „Werkstatt für Bewegungsbildung“, a small Movement School here in Berlin that aims to support activists and organizations in building resilient, rewarding, and politically effective vehicles of social transformation.

I was invited to the Night School to talk about our ideas of organizing because we’ve worked with the Tech Workers Coalition, Lieferando riders, and Gorillas riders in the past and probably because our school also has a podcast on organizing called Spadework.

Rob: I’m Rob, I’m helping put together this event with Berlin DSA.

Is there a particular reason for holding the Night School now?

Rob: There’s been a recent uptick in organizing and militant labor activity both in Berlin and worldwide.

The highest profile cases in Berlin have probably been the wildcat strikes at Gorillas and the Hospital movement, both of which are tied to working conditions under Covid-19. Both movements activated a wider group of supporters looking to further build worker power in Berlin.

There’s been a flurry of activity in tech companies in particular, with works councils being formed amongst office workers, like at N26, and bike couriers, like at Lieferando.

Lastly, the Deutsche Wohnen und co. Enteignen campaign helped train so many new organizers, and has been identifying the other powerful forces which are making Berlin less and less habitable – like big tech.

For us, all of this points to the emergence of a broad, dynamic organizing network. This network already exists among a patchwork of political groups, social networks, and friendships. We’re excited to facilitate these connections however we can.

Phoebe: It’s an interesting time because we see more and more Berlin tech companies forming works councils, similar to how we see more US tech companies unionizing (or trying to) each year.

I’m particularly inspired by the recent activism of employees at HelloFresh. Berlin office workers, (engineering, design, operations, etc) engaged many of their colleagues to show solidarity with HelloFresh warehouse workers in the US prior to votes to unionize two warehouses there. Even more Berlin employees were moved to speak up when they learned about how their employer was surveilling them in slack during this activism.

Unfortunately both union votes failed, but I like this example of office workers standing up for the rights of warehouse workers overseas. Since the union votes, that same group of Berlin employees also published an open salary initiative.

Let’s moved onto the campaigns and workplaces that you are involved in. What are the difficulties of organising precarious workers? How have you overcome them?

Phoebe: I’ve been organizing my colleagues for about a year leading up to the current process of forming the works council. We are all white collar workers, many of us have been remote for that whole time (I have). Organizing in tech, arguably the most privileged workers, has its own unique challenges. The first is convincing my colleagues to see themselves as workers at all. There’s a common feeling among the most in-demand roles that “if I don’t like it here, I can just get a different job.”

But this is not true for all tech workers, even in the office. There is a spectrum of precariousness, from people relying on the work for their visa, to parents, or folks in operations and support roles that just have it worse than those in engineering. I don’t have a good answer for overcoming these challenges. And even for those that can just “get a different job”, the largest problems are likely the same at the next company, because they stem from the balance of power in the workplace between workers and management, not from particular executives or policies.

I’ve found making connections with more precarious colleagues, even if they do not join our organizing effort, pays off down the line. The goal is to build trust so they know your organizing effort intends to address their issues, and they become part of a network of information and assistance. I’m hoping I can recruit some of these folks to the council itself, after several conversations during this process.

Antje: Our position as organizing trainers and facilitators, as well as people with direct experience of precarious labor, has provided us with some insight into the problems that face precarious workers.

It is a field of labour organizing with very specific needs. In fact, we quite often see that organizing models are not addressing workplaces without long term contracts or with few to no shared rooms.

We talked with Jane McAlevey on one of our episodes about this issue, and she agreed that the organizing model she promotes assumes stable relationships between workers, as stable relations over time are what allows influence to even emerge. In other words, the more workers are socially organized together, the better political organization can emerge.

But what happens when labor processes – like Lieferando – have been designed so that such social organization between workers is largely impossible? Or when workers bounce from work place to work place, as many cognitive laborers do? Or when workers, like many delivery riders, simply do not identify with their labor, when they do not think of themselves as riders, but as students who are only temporarily laboring as riders?

Then, the starting point is different. At the moment we are trying to get workers to understand workers’ organization as a vehicle of care that allows workers to better care for themselves, their loved ones, and their community. This means developing relationships of care with your co-workers. Building trust. Building community. Building the sociality from which a political process can develop.

How much are non-Germans involved? Do they have any specific problems?

Antje: In terms of specific problems, there is the unfamiliarity with German law and the German political scene. They don’t necessarily know what the infrastructures are through which they can organize, what the legal goals are that they could be fighting for (like a works council).

At the legal level, well, if you don’t speak German, winning legal recognition of a works council will mean having to interface with a legal system that operates almost exclusively in German – a German that is even for native speakers not always easy to understand.

At the organizational level, you’re dealing with a base defined by difference. People are coming from different parts of the world, and according to the specific historical-political processes they come out of they are going to have differing opinions about all sorts of things. Unions mean different things in the United States, Mexico, Brazil, and Russia. The word comrade means something very different to Latin Americans than it does to people from the former Soviet Union. Political organizational cultures are very different..

Phoebe: Our company is very international and our organizing group is mostly non-Germans. In some cases, that means they rely on the job for their visa, so speaking up or doing any sort of activism (like serving on a works council), feels very risky. In other cases, international folks are hard to organize because the conditions in Germany are already much better than their home country. They don’t see a need to speak up.

Is there a link between the struggles of Tech workers, and those of, say, delivery riders?

Phoebe: The link is that we are all resources being exploited by management to make a profit for the company. It’s easier to see how delivery riders are exploited, especially when they are specifically not employees of the app company.

While the conditions of the work are very different, this is still true for engineers and designers. Organizing in this space is so important specifically to trigger this realization that the office workers in tech are workers too. We need to bust the myth that tech companies are families that have the interests of “their people” above profit. Once we are organized, we can more easily stand in solidarity with the most precarious workers.

Rob: The key link is that both are tech workers, since they’re employed by tech companies. It’s not a coincidence that big tech creates new groups of precarious workers. Start-up reveries of innovation and disruption are nothing more than the gloss over the physical labor needed to make an app work. Just as the word tech brings to mind a programmer behind a computer, we should also think of a bike courier on the street, or a content moderator watching yet another gory video.

Building worker power means living in reality, and bringing together everyone whose wage is subject to the whims of big tech. The power of big tech is growing in Berlin, accelerating gentrification and the corporatization of our city, which affects us all, tech worker or not. Worker power inside tech companies would benefit us all.

What has been your experience of official trade unions?

Antje: Any organization is a structure of agency and relations that always has a balance of forces. There are advantages and disadvantages to all forms of organization. Official unions have the advantage that they already have large resources and large bases. The control over resources and the influence over bases is however contested. Some people in decision-making roles have terrible politics. Others have very good politics.

The experiences of many workers when they interface with structures like Verd.i or IG Metall might be terrible or wonderful – depending on whether they interface with the good or the bad currents within the unions. We do have the chance to influence this. The union is not an actor, but an organization consisting of multiple actors. As a union member you are one of them.

Phoebe: I have been working closely with a secretary from Ver.di while organizing a works council. They act as a subject matter expert, give advice, and help us with some logistics during the process. I’m also a member myself.

What would be your advice to someone who would like to fight for better conditions in their own workplace?

Antje: Learn from mistakes that others have made. The struggle for better working conditions is very long. Many of your problems have been encountered in the past, so develop and participate in spaces of formal and informal learning. Read up on organizing, meet with other organizers in other struggles, or find yourself a movement school can really help you in your struggle.

We sometimes forget that struggling for better working conditions, for our communities, for the ability to care for ourselves and loved ones, doesn’t come naturally. The experience of oppression, of exploitation, of an inability to care as we want – that alone doesn’t enable us to understand what causes the suffering. And it certainly doesn’t enable us to understand how to overcome damaging structures.

We also have to learn how to have an efficient meeting amongst co-workers – without any hierarchies that might set an automatic order. We need very specific knowledges – how to have one-on-ones, how to develop systematic outreach structures, how to resolve conflicts – and that only exists amongst those that are active in different struggles.

A last lesson that I really learned a little too late for some very exciting political projects: don’t forget to practice the care you want to reach amongst each other. Take time to bake or cook together. Listen to a little personal story, make room for your co-workers to be not just an activist but also a parent, a lover, a neighbor.

Phoebe: Find the right people to join you. The most political or vocal are not always the right people. Use structure tests to figure out who has time for you. Attend an organizing training. If you are a tech worker, join TWC to meet other folks doing the same thing.

The event is being organised by DSA Berlin. What is the role of political organisations like the DSA?

Rob: Any of us would be the first to admit how silly the phrase “Democratic Socalists of America – Berlin” sounds. But I think this can actually be a strength. We have no illusions of building a political party here or putting ongoing struggles under our leadership. What we can do is use our unique position as migrants, often with structural advantages, to organize our workplaces.

Many of us at DSA find ourselves and our social/political networks at the intersections of office and warehouse workers, new arrivals who are in their first German class and those well-versed in German law. We can use our position to find common ground in tech worker struggles and tap into our organizing power and resources.

Phoebe: I owe a lot of our organizing success to trainings that I did with UNI Global Union and the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung. Political organizations like DSA could offer practical education about organizing, as well as connections with other people also doing organizing work. Also getting laws passed that protect workers and support their right to organize.

Antje: I actually think that the DSA can offer a kind of knowledge transfer that I mentioned before. As an organization that doesn’t have one particular cause – such as forming a workers council or expropriating big for profit landlords – it can provide a certain network to keep consistency between different specific struggles.

What are your expectations from the Night School? What happens next?

Phoebe: This is my first night school! I expect to learn from the other presenters about their work organizing in warehouses, and how my work in the office (remotely) can support them. Thanks for having me.

Antje: I am really looking forward to hearing from the different struggles here in Berlin. They all address fields of work that do not fit into the classic German labor struggles of the past decades. I hope that we can learn from each other, stay connected and win together in coming struggles.

Rob: We hope to build connections between organizers, plug people into these networks, and come up with further angles of attack against big tech. There’s much more work to be done!

Finally, if someone wants to attend the Night School, what should they do?

Rob: They should come to the Aequa Community Centre in Wedding on Thursday March 31st. The panel starts at 7:30pm.

NATO Notes – Berlin Bulletin No. 200

A brief look at NATO’s history shows that it is no force for peace


28/03/2022

On June 26, 1997 a group of fifty prominent U.S. Americans, none leftists, had written Pres. William Clinton a message including the following words:

“Dear Mr. President,

We, the undersigned, believe that the current U.S. led effort to expand NATO, the focus of the recent Helsinki and Paris Summits, is a policy error of historic proportions. We believe that NATO expansion will decrease allied security and unsettle European stability… for the following reasons:

“In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition, undercut those who favor reform and cooperation with the West, bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement, and galvanize resistance in the Duma to the START II and III treaties…

“Russia does not now pose a threat to its western neighbors and the nations of Central and Eastern Europe are not in danger. For this reason, and the others cited above, we believe that NATO expansion is neither necessary nor desirable and that this ill-conceived policy can and should be put on hold.

“Sincerely…

The list was signed by former Senators Sam Nunn, Bill Bradley, Mark Hatfield, Gary Hart, former CIA Director Adm. Stansfield Turner, former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and Navy Secretary Paul H. Nitze, ex-ambassadors, entertainers, business leaders, Prof. Richard Pipes, author Susan Eisenhower…

Perhaps, if Clinton and even one of the presidents who followed him had listened to their advice, Vladimir Putin would not have feared a tightening NATO military noose encircling and threatening Russia – and the current bloody warfare would never have been risked and waged. Who knows?

————————————————————————————————————————

“NATO is the only way to end the war in the Donbas“ according to Volodymyr Zelenskyy in March 2021, for whom a quick membership for Ukraine in the light of the unrest in eastern Ukraine would be “a genuine signal to Russia”.

————————————————————————————————————————

I see two necessities in today’s world. Most urgently: opposing war, a source of immeasurable misery. Condemning the use of deadly weapons, all those hitting civilians – indeed, any human beings. And prevent in every way possible the worst menace to life – all life – since that asteroid hit the earth 66 million years ago; the total eradication by nuclear explosions, ignited on purpose or by accident. Thus we need negotiations, agreements – and not ever more new threats, armaments, soldiers, refugees and so forth.

But while I sharply and emotionally oppose the waging of war by Vladimir Putin, I believe that hypocrisy must also be opposed, above all when it creates an atmosphere further increasing those very dangers I have mentioned.

Both mass media and social media are flooding us with heart-breaking depictions of death, sorrow and destruction in Ukraine. When they are truthful I cannot object. But nor can I overcome my inherent leaning toward occasional skepticism and suspicion; last week a video on Germany’s public TV channel ZDF showed a Russian tank lumbering through Ukraine – and carrying a big red Soviet flag with hammer and sickle – so obviously outdated. It’s hard to believe this was a mistake.

And despite the universal wave of condemnation of Putin, Putinism, Putin-Stalinism or terms like Putler, my overly active memory revives recollections from the past, even such which rarely made the front pages, were often ignored and have been almost totally expunged from memory. In recalling them now I may be risking possible losses of readers or even friends.

I do not wish to outnumber current death and destruction, but only to urge that insistent official calls to protect freedom, democracy and humanitarianism tied to demands for war crime trials are too often based on hypocrisy, distortion,  and greed. These moral one-way streets cover up bitter evidence of earlier bloodshed and tears. So here is a random – but lengthy, painful selection from the past, with help from Google. It does not remove any of the guilt for devastation and death in Ukraine, but seeks to find some balance in its reporting and evaluation.

————————————————————————————————————————

Iraq 1991

On February 13, 1991, two US special bombs from American stealth aircraft hit a civilian bunker in Baghdad. Both targets were perfectly on target. The laser-guided bombs penetrated the meter-thick reinforced concrete ceiling of the bunker. But the “target” around 4.30 a.m. was full of women, children and old men. Approximately 408 of them died in the explosion of almost half a ton of highly explosive explosives – shredded by splinters, slain by debris or crushed by the enormous shock wave.

The US government spokesman said: “It makes us all sad to suspect that innocent people may have died in the course of a military conflict.” The Pentagon stated: “It looks like civilians have been injured here. We will investigate the incident very closely and determine what we can do differently in the future to rule out a recurrence.”

————————————————————————————————————————

Serbia 

Belgrade, August 16, 2016, AP — US Vice President Joe Biden offered condolences to the families of those who lost their lives during the Balkan wars, including the victims of the NATO air war against Serbia.  As a senator, Biden was a strong advocate of the NATO bombing of Serbia. The US-led bombardment in 1999 stopped Serbia’s crackdown against ethnic Albanian separatists, ending Belgrade’s rule over its former province of Kosovo. “I would like to add my condolences to the families of those whose lives were lost during the wars in the 1990s, including those whose lives were lost as the result of the NATO campaign,” he said. The bloody breakup of former Yugoslavia claimed tens of thousands of lives and left millions homeless in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo.

————————————————————————————————————————

“We knew that it would start in a few hours – the war against NATO. Or rather, NATO against Serbia. I was in a state of expectant disbelief. How will it look if NATO, and once again Germany, bomb Serbia?

In the evening, for the first time, I heard the howling of the air raid alarm. Today I recall how varied the sounds of air warfare are: the deep hum of invisible bombers, the hissing of the cruise missiles seeking their target, the rattling of Serbian anti-aircraft guns, the dull or glaring explosions that followed. And the nocturnal scenery: bright traces of Serbian anti-aircraft missiles on a black sky, orange-reddish flames after the impact of the bombs.

We learned terms like: ‘graphite bombs’, ‘guided missiles’, ‘stealth aircraft’, ‘uranium ammunition’, ‘cluster bombs’. … And ‘collateral damage’. That was my favorite term. It was used when NATO hit a line of Albanian refugees in Kosovo, a civilian train, the farmers’ market in Niš, the neurological clinic or the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.”  — Andrej Ivanji, TAZ

Iraq  2003

Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, United States armed forces officials described their plan as employing Shock and Awe. Continuous bombing began on March 19, 2003. Attacks continued against a small number of targets until March 21, when the main bombing campaign of the US and their allies began. Its forces launched approximately 1,700 air sorties (504 using cruise missiles).

According to The Guardian correspondent Brian Whitaker: “To some in the Arab and Muslim countries, Shock and Awe is terrorism by another name; to others, a crime that compares unfavourably with September 11”. A dossier released by Iraq Body Count, a project of the UK non-governmental Oxford Research Group, attributed approximately 6,616 civilian deaths to the actions of US-led forces during the ‘invasion phase’, including the Shock and Awe bombing of Baghdad.

Lt-Col Steve Boylan, spokesman for the US military, stated, “I …can’t talk to how they calculate their numbers…we do everything we can to avoid civilian casualties in all of our operations.”

————————————————————————————————————————

Population-based studies produce estimates of the number of Iraq War casualties ranging from 151,000 violent deaths as of June 2006 to 1,033,000 excess deaths. Roughly 40 percent of Iraq’s middle class is believed to have fled. An estimated 331 school teachers were slain in the first four months of 2006, according to Human Rights Watch, and at least 2,000 Iraqi doctors have been killed and 250 kidnapped since the 2003 U.S. invasion.

Afghanistan 

On July 6, 2008, a large number of Afghan civilians were walking in an area called Kamala. When the group stopped for a rest it was hit in succession by three bombs from United States military aircraft. The first bomb hit a group of children who were ahead of the main procession, killing them instantly. A few minutes later the aircraft returned and dropped a second bomb in the center of the group, killing a large number of women. The bride and two girls survived the second bomb but were killed by a third bomb while trying to escape from the area. Hajj Khan, one of four elderly men escorting the party, stated that his grandson was killed and that there were body parts everywhere.

————————————————————————————————————————

The Granai Massacre refers to the airstrike by a US Air Force B-1 Bomber on May 4, 2009. The United States admitted significant errors were made in carrying out the airstrike, stating “the inability to discern the presence of civilians and avoid and/or minimize accompanying collateral damage resulted in the unintended consequence of civilian casualties”. The Afghan government said that around 140 civilians were killed, 22 were adult males and 93 children.

————————————————————————————————————————

The raid on Narang was in the early morning hours of December 27, 2009. According to an Afghan investigation, at around 1 am American troops with helicopters landed around 2 km away. The raiding party allegedly dragged the victims out of their beds and shot them in the head or chest. Most of the victims were aged between 12 and 18 years and were enrolled in local schools. A local elder, Jan Mohammed, said that three boys were killed in one room and five were handcuffed before they were shot. “I saw their school books covered in blood,” he said. NATO reiterated that the forces conducting the attack were not under NATO command and were of a “non-military” nature. Colonel Gross said US forces were present but did not lead the operation. NATO did, though, concede it authorized the operation and apologized for doing so, admitting the dead were likely civilians and that the intelligence on which the authorization was based was fault. It became known in 2015 that, as part of the US covert Omega Program, SEAL Team Six members carried out the assault in conjunction with CIA paramilitary officers and Afghan troops trained by the CIA.

————————————————————————————————————————

On February 21 2010 the victims were traveling in three buses in broad daylight on a main road in the village of Zerma when they came under attack from US Special Forces piloting Little Bird helicopters using “airborne weapons”. NATO later stated that they believed at the time that the minibuses were carrying insurgents. 27 civilians including four women and one child were killed in the attack while another 12 were wounded.  Gen. Stanley McChrystal said he was “extremely saddened…I have made it clear to our forces that we are here to protect the Afghan people, and inadvertently killing or injuring civilians undermines their trust and confidence in our mission. We will re-double our efforts to regain that trust.”

Amanullah Hotak, head of Uruzgan’s provincial council said: “We don’t want their apologies or the money they always give after every attack. We want them to kill all of us together instead of doing it to us one by one.” Haji Ghullam Rasoul, whose cousins died in the attack, said, “They came here to bring security but they kill our children, they kill our brothers and they kill our people.”

————————————————————————————————————————

In August 2011 we, Médecins Sans Frontières, opened a trauma hospital in the northern Afghan city of Kunduz. The hospital provided high-quality, free surgical care to victims of all types of trauma.

Starting with converting shipping containers, our hospital soon moved into a building in the city centre. By the time of the airstrikes in October 2015, the hospital was equipped with 92 beds, an emergency room, two operating theatres, an intensive care unit, an outpatient department, mental health and physiotherapy wards, as well as X-ray and laboratory facilities.

“Our hospital was the only facility of its kind in northeastern Afghanistan; beforehand, severely injured people were forced to make long and dangerous journeys to the capital Kabul or Pakistan to receive the care they needed. Since opening the hospital in 2011, more than 15,000 surgeries were conducted and more than 68,000 emergency patients were treated.

On the night of the attack, there were 105 patients in the hospital and 140 of our international and national staff were present, of whom 80 were on duty.

Starting at 2:08am on 3 October, a United States AC-130 gunship fired 211 shells on the main hospital building where patients were sleeping in their beds or being operated on

At least 42 people were killed, including 24 patients, 14 staff and 4 caretakers. Thirty-seven were injured. Our patients burned in their beds, our medical staff were decapitated or lost limbs. Others were shot from the air while they fled the burning building. The attack lasted for around one hour… Throughout the airstrikes our teams desperately called military authorities to stop them. They took place despite the fact that we had provided the GPS coordinates of the hospital to the US Department of Defense, Afghan Ministry of Interior and Defense and US Army in Kabul as recently as 29 September.

In the days after the attack, the United States military eventually claimed responsibility for the airstrikes, saying that it had been an accident. The US military claimed they had received reports that the hospital building was holding active Taliban militia. Our staff reported no armed combatants or fighting in the compound prior to the airstrike.

————————————————————————————————————————

December 10, 2014: The US Senate report summary on CIA torture does more than expose serious human rights violations in the US “War on Terror”. Of the sites identified in the report, four are in Afghanistan, where detainees in US custody were subjected to “sleep deprivation, auditory overload, total darkness, isolation, beatings and shackling.” Feeding tubes inserted anally in detainees, resulting in rectal prolapse in at least one case, represented sexual assaults analogous to rape with an object. Many of these abuses occurred as early as 2002, when Afghan detainee Gul Rahman died from hypothermia after being shackled to a freezing concrete floor at the infamous “Salt Pit” detention center. Ultimately, the prison housed nearly half of the 119 detainees identified by the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture.

The prison was dark at all times, with curtains and painted exterior windows. Loud music was played constantly. The prisoners were kept in total darkness and isolation, with only a bucket for human waste and without sufficient heat in winter months. Nude prisoners were kept in a central area, and walked around as a form of humiliation. The detainees were hosed down with water while shackled naked, and placed in cold cells. They were subject to sleep deprivation, shackled to bars with their hands above their heads. One senior interrogator said that his team found a detainee who had been chained in a standing position for 17 days, “as far as we could determine.” A senior CIA debriefer told the CIA Inspector General that she heard stories of detainees hung for days on end with their toes barely touching the ground, choked, deprived of food, and made the subject of a mock execution.

————————————————————————————————————————

Syria

The Battle of Raqqa lasted from 6 June through 17 October 2017, launched by the Syrian Democratic Forces and supported by massive air strikes and ground troops of a US-led coalition. A relentless bombing campaign resulted not only in the collapse of Islamic State (IS) but also in the total destruction of the city, with up to 6,000 civilian casualties, according to human rights organisations.

“Raqqa is the most destroyed city in modern times,” says Donatella Rovera, a veteran researcher with Amnesty International. “Certainly much more destroyed than Aleppo, in percentage terms”. American soldiers were interviewed, and they said, ‘for us, everybody who was within Raqqa was regarded to be a fighter of Isis.’ The result: whole families who tried to flee the violence were massacred indiscriminately. On top of that, artillery shells used by the US-led coalition were “basically unguided with a margin of error of over 100 metres…”

————————————————————————————————————————

Yemen

At about noon on March 15 2016 two aerial bombs hit the market in Mastaba, approximately 45 kilometers from the Saudi border. The first bomb landed directly in front of a complex of shops and a restaurant. The second struck beside a covered area near the entrance to the market, killing and wounding people escaping, as well as others trying to help the wounded. Human Rights Watch interviewed 23 witnesses to the airstrikes, as well as medical workers at two area hospitals that received the wounded. At least 50 people were killed, most of them children and teenagers, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Another 77 people were injured, said the spokesman for the Ministry of Health, Yussef al-Hadri. The ministry blames the airstrike on the Saudi-led military alliance.

Human Rights Watch conducted on-site investigations on March 28 and found remnants at the market of a GBU-31 satellite-guided bomb, which consists of a US-supplied MK-84 2,000-pound bomb mated with a JDAM satellite guidance kit, also US-supplied. Human Rights Watch has called on the United States, United Kingdom, France, and other countries to suspend all weapon sales to Saudi Arabia until it curtails its unlawful airstrikes in Yemen, credibly investigates alleged violations, and holds those responsible to account. Selling weapons to Saudi Arabia may make these countries complicit in violations, Human Rights Watch said.

————————————————————————————————————————

Before dawn on September 10, 2016 coalition aircraft struck the site of a water drilling rig near Beit Saadan village 30 km north of Sanaa. The drill rig was in an unpopulated area reachable only by dirt road. The first strike hit near a workers’ shelter, killing six and wounding five others. At about 9 a.m., after several dozen villagers came to remove the bodies of those killed, three planes returned and bombed the vicinity at least 12 more times, about 15 minutes apart. Human Rights Watch confirmed the names and ages of 21 people who died, including three boys ages 12, 14, and 15.

Yehia Abdullah, a 34-year-old teacher, was on his way back when he heard the bombing: “I saw scattered and charred bodies… I saw five bodies including my brother Muhamad. First I found my brother’s severed leg outside the workers’ shelter, his arm on the door … and half his body buried in the ruins… About 300 people were there to remove the bodies. … I saw two warplanes arriving from the south. Between 8 and 9 am, I saw the missile coming down to the ground as I was next to my uncle’s body.”

Several witnesses said that three coalition planes circled overhead, striking the area in widening circles as those gathered attempted to escape. People ran in all directions to escape the bombing,

Human Rights Watch examined and photographed remnants of a US-made GBU-12 Paveway II laser guided 500-pound bomb. A part of the guidance system (wing assembly) was produced by Raytheon in the US in October 2015, according to markings on the remnants.

Residents of Beit Saadan said that they had pooled together 22 million Yemeni Rials (US$88,000) of their personal funds to pay to drill the well to supply drinking water to their village. The bombing occurred on the last day of planned drilling, after the villagers had struck water, a local farmer said.

————————————————————————————————————————

Immediately following the October 8 funeral hall attack, the US National Security Council announced the US had “initiated an immediate review of our already significantly reduced support” to the coalition and was “prepared to adjust our support.” The US has made no further announcements regarding how it planned to alter support for the war in Yemen nor released any findings from the review. President Obama should ensure that the review examines whether US forces participated in any unlawful coalition attacks in Yemen, and release the review findings before leaving office, Human Rights Watch said.

The United Kingdom also sells arms to Saudi Arabia, despite growing parliamentary pressure over its support for Saudi Arabia’s military campaign in Yemen and evidence of the use of British-made weapons. Human Rights Watch has documented the use of UK-made weapons in three apparently unlawful coalition attacks in Yemen. Since March 2015, the UK has approved £3.3 billion in military sales to Saudi Arabia, according to the London-based Campaign Against Arms Trade.

————————————————————————————————————————

Somalia

Sep 22, 2015: Somali Drone Victim Seeks Justice for U.S. Strike in German Courts

A legal challenge alleges that German officials may be liable for murder, in part for allowing the U.S. to relay drone data from an airbase in Ramstein. A man whose father was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Somalia is seeking to hold Germany accountable for allowing the United States to use its territory for military bases that play a key role in overseas airstrikes.

The Somali man, whose name was given only as “C.D.” described his father, “A.B.” as a herdsman who raised goats and camels in southern Somalia, not far from the coast of the Indian Ocean. According to his son’s testimony, A.B. left home on the morning of February 24, 2012, to graze his livestock. But that night several of his camels came home without him. The next day C.D. found his father’s body severed in two, near a burnt-out car and several dead camels.

The strike that killed A.B. was apparently aimed at Mohamed Sakr, a London-born alleged member of the Somali jihadist group al-Shabaab. By some accounts several other unidentified people also died.

C.D.’s lawyers …ask for an investigation by the public prosecutor in the district that hosts Ramstein, the enormous U.S. airbase that serves as a satellite relay station connecting drone pilots in the United States with their aircraft flying over Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

The complaint … detailing Ramstein’s critical logistical role in the U.S. drone war also points to the fact that U.S. Africa Command, or Africom, headquartered in Stuttgart, oversees operations in Somalia like the one that killed A.B.

In April Obama had admitted the death of innocent civilians in drone strikes. Some criticism of these missions was “legitimate,” he said at the time. There is “no doubt that civilians were killed who should not be killed.” However, the rules of use for the combat drones are “as strict as never before,” said the US President. July 1, 2006 — Die Zeit

————————————————————————————————————————

Libya 

On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya… imposing a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace — a no-fly zone…

US President Barack Obama said the US was taking “limited military action” as part of a “broad coalition”. “We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy,” he said.

The total number of sorties flown by NATO numbered more than 26,000, an average of 120 sorties per day. 42% of the sorties were strike sorties, which damaged or destroyed approximately 6,000 military targets. At its peak, the operation involved 21 NATO ships and more than 250 aircraft… Of these Denmark, Canada, and Norway together were responsible for 31%, the United States was responsible for 16%, Italy 10%, France 33%, Britain 21%, and Belgium, Qatar, and the UAE the remainder…

————————————————————————————————————————

August 3, 2011: BRUSSELS – An international journalists’ group sharply criticized NATO air strikes against Libyan television, which killed three people and injured 15, saying Wednesday they violated international law and U.N. resolutions.

————————————————————————————————————————

May 20, 2011 marked the 60th day of US combat in Libya. President Obama notified Congress that no congressional authorization was needed since the US leadership had been transferred to NATO and since US involvement was somewhat “limited”. In fact, as of April 28, 2011, the US had conducted 75 percent of all aerial refueling sorties, supplied 70 percent of the operation’s intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and contributed 24 percent of the total aircraft used, more resources than any other NATO country. The US deployed a naval force of 11 ships, A-10 ground-attack aircraft, two B-1B bombers, three Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, AV-8B Harrier II jump-jets, EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft, P-3 Orions, and both McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle and F-16 fighters. The Libyan government response to the campaign was totally ineffectual, with Gaddafi’s forces not managing to shoot down a single NATO plane.

————————————————————————————————————————

BRUSSELS – An international journalists’ group sharply criticized NATO air strikes against Libyan television, which killed three people and injured 15, saying they violated international law and U.N. resolutions.

————————————————————————————————————————

The National Transitional Council (NTC) forces initially claimed Gaddafi died from injuries sustained in a firefight… although a graphic video of his last moments shows rebel fighters beating him and one of them sodomizing him with a bayonet before he was shot several times.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shared a laugh with a TV news reporter moments after hearing deposed Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi had been killed. “We came, we saw, he died,” she joked.

————————————————————————————————————————

An in depth investigation into the Libyan intervention was started in July 2015 by the U.K. Parliament’s House of Commons’ Foreign Affairs Committee, the final conclusions of which on 14 September 2016 were strongly critical of the British government’s role in the intervention. The report concluded that …Gaddafi was not planning to massacre civilians, and that reports to the contrary were propagated by rebels and Western governments. The feared threat of the massacre of civilians was not supported by the available evidence… For example, on 17 March 2011 Gaddafi had given Benghazi rebels the offer of peaceful surrender and when Gaddafi had earlier retaken Ajdabiya from rebel forces … they did not attack civilians, and this had taken place in February 2011, shortly before the NATO intervention. Gaddafi’s approach towards the rebels had been one of “appeasement”, with the release of Islamist prisoners and promises of significant development assistance for Benghazi.

 

Gorillas Workers Collective: “The political space we created served as a place of resistance”

Interview with Camilo, a former Gorillas rider about organising workers in the fast food sector


27/03/2022

How did you start and what was your position at Gorillas?

Camilo: I started working in Gorillas in October 2020. I was working as a rider in different warehouses and districts.

The working conditions changed quite a bit as Gorillas grew very quickly, expanding the number of warehouses and delivery orders.

At first it was an easy job. You had enough time to sit down, read a book, and have a cup of coffee. Then we had the first winter of the pandemic. The weather became worse and there were a lot of people ordering. All those little breaks disappeared. That became a heavy load to carry—both literally and metaphorically.

What was your experience carrying this heavy load?

Camilo: It was very bad. By law, you’re not supposed to carry more than 10 kilograms on your back, but this is never actually measured in the warehouses. People would order a bunch of beers or water and it would be terrible.

Having back pain after a shift was probably the most common reason why people wouldn’t go to work. People were on sick leave because of back pain, and this can be chronic in the long run. But at the very beginning we all assumed it to be part of the job. We weren’t aware of this limit of 10 kilograms.

We also have to bear in mind that most Gorillas workers are immigrants. They are either students or people on a working holiday visa. They don’t know much about the legal framework here. Also, the working conditions are still better than what people have in their home countries.

It was pretty bad in the warehouse I was working at—the heating was broken and they never fixed it. This was the winter when there was a snowstorm in Berlin. You would get back to the warehouse all wet, and all they gave us was hairdryers to try to warm our hands. I caught tonsillitis and was sick for about two months.

There was little protection against COVID. The warehouses were packed. It was not a safe place to work.

But I didn’t have an option, as I needed the work. Like most people who worked there, I was put on a six-month probation period, meaning we could get fired for no reason. This made it scary to complain, especially for people who are really dependent on this job.

Can you tell me more about the working conditions in the warehouse? You mentioned working during the blizzard.

Camilo: That was something else. Gorillas now provide equipment for you, like bikes, helmets sometimes and winter gear. This has been improving over the last few months. But at the very beginning it wasn’t like that. They always promised to give people jackets, but many never received them so we had to share. During the pandemic this was not so hygienic.

The bikes were not owned by Gorillas but rented from another company. Sometimes they would have weird noises or the handle would be loose; the brakes wouldn’t work properly. I didn’t have any accidents, but a lot of people did because they were sitting on the bike and the seat fell off or the brakes didn’t work, so they crashed against a car.

Again, people felt like they could not complain or individually refuse to work because they could get fired. They had to expose themselves to these very dangerous conditions.

We also have to remember that the Gorillas business model is providing groceries in under 10 minutes. Even though they tell you to be careful when you drive, you have to get there in under 10 minutes. You are pressured to be quick. You often disregarded your own safety.

You were also part of the Gorillas Workers Collective. When did the GWC get started?

Camilo: Before the blizzard came, somebody had written an open letter to Gorillas Management. A colleague of mine read out the letter at the end of a shift and said: “Who wants to sign it?” The letter was asking the company to listen to workers and try to find a way to fix the problems. I signed, hoping to find people that I could talk to about this.

Then the blizzard came. People from two warehouses refused to work. Basically, they organized a spontaneous strike.

This forced the company to acknowledge that working conditions were precarious and to close down operations for the day. It gave a signal to the workers that if we organize, we can do something about it.

On that day, all other delivery companies had decided not to continue operations but Gorillas said, “We’re so cool. We’ll still do it,” which is the attitude of Gorillas’ marketing.

I reached out to this person who had presented the letter and said that I’d like to contribute to whatever’s happening because we should do something. I was invited to an online meeting. I think that was the first meeting of the collective.

There were maybe eight people, and a member of FAU, who gave us a general framework of possibilities. He suggested a Betriebsrat, which is something that many of us had never heard about.

We tried to have meetings every one or two weeks. We didn’t have a clear idea of what to do. We just knew that we needed some kind of critical mass in the company, because if we wanted to create a workers’ council, we needed support from people.

There was a lot of undercover work like putting stickers up in the bathrooms with a QR code to join a Telegram group. That was fun. We also tried to organize social gatherings with riders outside work. That was difficult because of COVID, as people had not yet been vaccinated.

Then we made a logo and printed a bunch of stickers.

In July 2021, the Gorillas CEO said he wouldn’t fire anyone over the strikes. But then he did it anyway. What did you make of this?

Camilo: None of us actually believed him when he said that, but it increased the media attention about what was happening. But it’s easier for them to let people go and maybe ruin their image than to have a strike.

Once they fired the staff from entire warehouses. That was a strong hit to our collective, because a lot of new people were starting to join the collective. But then they all got fired, though some managed to get reinstated through court cases.

We were hoping to have some kind of rotation. Without rotation, you end up creating hierarchies and bureaucrats who don’t really represent the workers.

People got tired after that, others got another job. It was very distressing dealing with court cases as most of us are immigrants. Just the idea of having to go to court is scary. Everything is in German and it’s too much. That was the company’s strategy—to dissolve what we’re doing by intimidating us.

What can you tell me about these firings even being legal?

Camilo: A lot of firings were not legal and some of them fell in a grey area.

In the early days, they tried to fire somebody from the collective. But they gave him a termination letter without the proper signature. We already had some legal support, who then spotted that mistake and contested the firing.

This person got reinstated. This is when we created the workers’ council. Before that, we were thinking, “Maybe we should wait until we have a critical mass.” But by starting that process, we could provide protection against being sacked.

You only need three people to call for an assembly, which elects an electoral council, which in turn organizes the elections for the workers council. The three people who call for the election get immediate protection. By law, they cannot be fired.

That created a trench for us to to fight from. We didn’t have to be completely undercover because we had these three faces that could speak on behalf of the group. That was a very important moment.

When we formed the Electoral Council, it was about nine people who then also got protection. Some of those people got unlawfully fired because they had been seen on the strikes.

There’s a lot of things that Gorillas does that are not legal and they just get away with it because contesting it takes a long time. There is a court hearing where you wait for months. In that process, people get tired.

You’re always dealing with an algorithm or with an app or an email address. You don’t have somebody that you can directly talk with. You can go to HR and ask what’s going on, but there’s no human that you can talk with. This makes the whole process much more frustrating.

You said that German laws say it’s legal to strike as long as you go through established unions. And unions can, in retrospect, take the strikes under their wings. Does the Gorillas Workers Collective consider joining an established union?

Camilo: I would say no as far as I know, because of the kind of relationship that we had with the unions when I was there. The NGG union was helpful when it came to organizing the assembly where we elected the Electoral Council. Then we were transferred to Ver.di because that was the sector that we fell under. And Ver.di were always trying to deter us from striking.

Old union structures have their own internal hierarchies which were useful 100 years ago. But for a lot of people in the collective, they don’t apply to how the industry works today with temporary work.

People are just going to be in Gorillas for three, six months, a year at the most, and then leave the country. They’re not really interested in getting affiliated with a union and paying for membership.

When we were starting, and some of us asked Ver.di for support, they were not interested. But when things became a little more public, they said they supported us. But the approach they took was so patronizing.

When Ver.di came knocking on our door, we already knew how to constitute a workers council because we had taken some workshops that had been facilitated through the FAU. But they came trying to teach us how to do it.

They invited us to a meeting to talk about how we can support each other. But for them, it was a meeting to educate us on how we should do things. They were telling us how the things we were doing were wrong and that striking was wrong.

Our reaction was, “Who are you people? Fuck you, we don’t need your help if you’re going to do it like this.” It felt to me that we were spending more energy trying to deal with them than any practical support we were actually getting from them.

So, I don’t see the collective getting affiliated with any union. And it seems like Ver.di didn’t like FAU and FAU didn’t like Ver.di, and they’re fighting each other. We didn’t want to take part in this. We have a struggle. If you want to support us, come support us. But we’re not going to be part of this partisanship.

Did you feel you’re kind of part of a bigger movement? Your strike and unionizing process was followed internationally.

Camilo: For sure. I had the chance to go to Brussels, because we were invited by a French Left MEP Leila Chaibi to meet organizers in the delivery sector around the world. All of a sudden I was sitting there in the European Parliament, talking to this super high authority.

I consider myself to be a newbie over there because the organizers there were older people and really knew what they were doing. I was just listening, really. But the political space that we created served as a place of resistance.

On the one hand, you had the workers’ struggles, on the other, there’s the struggle against racism and patriarchy. The FLINTA* population within the collective was very important. The collective is a site for articulating other struggles. I see the collective as a site for articulating other struggles, which itself is also a struggle on its own.

You don’t work with Gorillas anymore. But you’re writing your master’s thesis about it. Can you tell me more about this?

Camilo: I’m using the Gorillas Workers Collective as a case study. I’m particularly interested in researching the role of care work in political organizations. How do we value the work that we do when we organize?

I mean care in a very broad way. It’s not just about who makes the food or takes care of children. It’s also how we develop skills to communicate with each other. How do we deal with emotions within our space?

It may have looked like we being quite successful at what we’re doing, but inside there was a lot of conflicts. This took away our energy from other things. The group experienced a lot of burnout and fractures.

Reproductive work, care work, checking in with each other, knowing how to solve conflicts were always put last. Productive work, like organizing a strike, was always fluid. It was seen as the most urgent thing. But in my opinion, it wasn’t.

If we can’t sit down with each other and maybe write about our convictions or the red line that unites us, we won’t be able to work together for a long time. We will not be able to make it sustainable.

I’m thinking about this idea of sustainable solidarity. It was really frustrating for me to spend 30-60 minutes together trying to write a manifesto. When we started doing this, people started dropping out. They didn’t come to the meetings and they would only come to “productive” meetings, like for the strikes or preparing interview.

I’m looking forward to what you’ll say on sustainable solidarity, care work and other struggles in your thesis.

Camilo: There’s still a long way to go, but luckily I do have a lot of auto-ethnographic experience that I can draw from. I’m also trying to do some synergy between my activism and academia.

 

Book Review – Oilcraft: The Myths of Scarcity and Security that Haunts US Energy Policy (Robert Vitalis)

What is at stake when it comes to oil? A new book investigates


26/03/2022

The premise of Vitalis’ book is that oil cannot be the basis of the US economy, least of all, of US national security. There are several minerals (over seventy) which the industrial world needs a constant and secured supply of, and which civilization simply cannot do without. But they are not treated as being as important as oil. This makes us question apparent self-evident truths in news cartels! The average observer has never heard of countries waging war to ensure reliable shipments of aluminum or copper. What is it so special, then, with oil? What is at stake with oil?

According to Vitalis, the story of oil is not the crude matter, but more about suspicous data and poor evidence. Powerful interest groups and lobbies in US corridors of power steer this data toward selling a myth. The fear of failing to ensure a constant supply of oil from the Persian Gulf is supposed to spell a trauma. The myth sits on others. Both science and reason tell us that there has never been a dwindling supply of oil, nor of any other natural resources. As technology advances, new reserves of all types of minerals are constantly discovered. The only way of freeing the US democracy, nay, the very political system and ensuring a solid role-model for the rest of the word is to shed these myths. They cripple US policy planners and ruin the US reputation in the world.

Chapter One ‘Opening’

This sets the stage for revisiting President Bush’s conquest of Iraq in 2003 and check the argument that the US acted on behalf of large oil conglomerates. If so, Vitalis rebuts, the easiest way for the US to access Iraqi oil was to simply lift its own 1990s sanctions on Iraqi exports. So oil companies would have entered the market and the problem resolved. Moreover Vitalis argues, as prices rose in the early 2000s, an abundant hydraulically-fractioned oil made the US a major producer of oil itself.

Now, the US import of oil from the Middle East is around 18 percent. Nevertheless, “Junk social science” (p. 5) keeps a scary narrative aflame. When luminaries and public intellectuals are fixated on their myth of ‘oil-as-power’, the term ‘oilcraft’ recalls witchcraft more than statecraft. Vitalis’ analogy call’s for dispelling confusion and talismanic obsession by promoting a rational understanding of decisions on energy policy. If the only evidence ‘junk’ social scientists provide is price rises, it brings us face to face  ‘oil-scarcity ideology’ (p. 6). Vitalis stresses that every statement we encounter in the archive should be taken with a grain of salt.

He proposes we consider three facts: (1) the world is rich of minerals; literally anyone has access to raw materials. Viewing oil-as-weapon is at best incorrect and at worst a ‘chimera’ (p. 14). Instead of embracing a confirmation bias, the abundance should make us question what lies beyond the ‘phenomenal’; (2) the imagined threats to oil supply—even when real—cannot be addressed militarily; (3) oil prices are dependent on other raw materials. A simple comparison of oil prices against other minerals in the long durée—as Roger Stern does—will lead to the conclusion that oil cannot be the lifeblood of the American way of life.

Raw Materialism

Chapter Two posits the idea of a single source as critically important for a national economy is reductionist at best and misleading at worst. Vitalis cites  the early twentieth century Columbia School (scholars like Edward Mead Earle and William S. Culbertson). These noted that US policy since 1918 was rooted in “bogeys”, from rapid depletion of natural resources to British monopoly of these resources (pp. 26-7). Back then, like now, there was an industry behind studies, infuriating the public and policy makers alike about such imagined threats.

Vitalis finds the idea of “‘control’ of foreign oil fields” (p. 29) became a priority for the US economy  in Americans’ unconscious during the 1990s. Culbertson argued that wars do not emerge from the need to control or ensure extensive supplies of raw materials, but from the need for markets to commercialize industrialized commodities. (p. 32) Embracing mid-nineteen century protectionism triggered bouts of scarcity syndrome.

But a generation or two later these findings from the 1920s were forgotten. The Cold War context made it more likely that the Soviets were ‘threatening’ US access to Middle East oil. Vitalis adds that even Noam Chomsky falls into confirmation bias wherein “the progressives of the 1970s were a pale imitation of their 1920s ancestors.” (p. 55). Progressives kept parroting criticism of American foreign policy without considering where that criticism might be heading.

1973: A Time to Confuse

Chapter Three rereads October 17, 1973 and the alleged OPEC oil embargo, as only a spectacle. For Vitalis under no stretch of imagination did it approximate to a threat of cutting supplies, let alone, an embargo. For in 1973 “only 7 percent of U.S. oil imports originated from the Middle East” (p. 57). Besides, Arab nationalists only expressed a half-hearted and face-saving gestures in the wake of their humiliating defeat against Isarel in June 1967— gestures meant for popular consumption at home only.

Nevertheless, the scarcity-thesis driven by media and ‘experts and intellectuals’, to gain monopoly – made it look as if scarcity is imminent and can usher in the end of the world. Vitalis discusses the five hundred page report (David S. Freeman’s ‘A Time to Choose’)  released when Americans were experiencing long lines in gas stations. The report made it super easy to conclude that the long queues resulted from the much-publicized shock spelling serious disruptions of supply, presumably orchestrated by the Arab Embargo.

In reality, OPEC “sought a fairer share of the windfall.” (p. 64) To protect local crude producers from  the unstable market, the US government had used a preferential tariff with local crude producers. The Nixon Administration, however, decided in 1971 to reverse the preferential tariff policy and open the US market to non-American producers. This new policy, not OPEC’s action, explains the interruption in supply and long queues. Far from disrupting supply, Arabs were terrified of losing their market shares.

No Deal

Chapter Four  elaborates on the motivating principle behind the myth that stipulates the invisibility of oil for the American policy maker. It is definitely the key chapter as it uncovers the motive behind portraying oil as the bloodline of the American economy. Vitalis notes that this myth could not become as intense as it is now without the ‘fantasy-embraced-as-history’. Given their nefarious stature after 9/11, the Saudis, or Al Saud, more exactly: the ruling oligarchs of Saudi Arabia – invested heavily in  painting themselves as peace-loving and reliable suppliers of oil for US economy. They went as far as inventing a presumed memorandum of understanding (a deal) between King Ibn Saud and President Franklin Roosevelt on board the destroyer U.S.S. Qunicy near the end of the World War II. The author finds no trace of this presumed deal in the archives. But it supposedly stated that the Saudis would ensure reliable shipments of crude and the US, would guarantee the protection of the king and his dynasty.

Vitalis adds: “The only problem is that no account of U.S.-Saudi relation for the next fifty years said any such thing.” (p. 87).  But “The Saudis, the PR firms, and their many friends in Washington would milk the meeting with FDR for all it was worth after 2001.” (p. 91). Vitalis counts this Saudi fabrication among the latest in the arsenal of forgeries specifying the centrality of oil.

Interest groups profit from recycling oil dollars in the US economy through purchases of US treasury bonds, consumer goods and, of course, armament bills with astronomical price tags. That is how, it is for the long-term interest of the US to distance itself from a retrogressive and degenerate monarchy. That proximity does a considerable damage to the status of the US as a superpower. The crumbling of the Saudis’ rule will be an event that will boost, not hinder, the US supremacy or at least its leadership credentials.

Breaking the Spell

Chapter Five concludes Oilcraft. Vialis starts by underlining that “popular and scholarly beliefs about oil-as-power have no basis in fact” (p. 122). But the irony of the myth is that policy makers who sincerely want to break this fixation can do little to break the immanent structure whereby oil is received as invisible. The assumptions are so powerful that any attempt to go against them end in discrediting, or ridiculing, the credible policy maker. The first step is getting the scholarship correct, never allowing unchecked opinions to pass for knowledge. Knowledge starts by first, making sure that crude producers have no choice but to sell their outputs. Before harming the US economy, cutting supplies will strangle their own economies and destabilize their hold on power.

Second, one needs to be certain that besides the fact that deploying an army to protect crude supplies cannot be tenable and efficient, the deployment itself raises tensions and causes supply interruptions. Third, the Middle East is a volatile space, and it does not behoove a superpower to be constantly dragged into the mess out there. Fourth, by the same depleted logic of scarcity, why does the US not go and chase bauxite, tungsten, tin, rubber lest they are all appropriated by other powers? Fifth, there is a fallacy by which the degenerate Left sells its credentials: which is as soon as soon as the US steps out of the Middle East, “the fossil-capital-led order” will fall all on its own; allowing an era of plenitude to automatically emerge.

Finally Vitalis notes that “Oilcraft today [has] hijack[ed] the mind of the scientifically literate” (p.128),  the average person believes oil passes as an explanation for almost all wrongs with the world. He believes that Saudi money should not be allowed to finance studies. Vitalis rightly says “the paid-to-think-tanks” (p. 131) will only bring pseudo-science, more confusion and befogged policies. Moreover the propaganda which the funding generates covers for the asphyxiation of liberties in the Middle East and the world at large. In the end, Vitalis rightly addresses the US policy maker: “why fear an Arabia without Sultans?” (p. 133)

Conclusion

Vitalis finds that well-intentioned and respectful policy makers and advisers are crippled by enduring myths. These myths have taken a dimension that is larger than life. He is certainly correct that the journey for undoing their effect start with unbiased research. But there are instances where Vitalis’ suspicion of the ideology that “oil-is-anything-but-powerful”, recalls the theory that colonies cost metropolitan centers more than the latter could squeeze value out of them.

Perhaps missing in Vitalis’ discussion is how during the time where capital expansion needed nationalism, oil was treated (and for good reasons) as the lifeblood. Vitalis indirectly calls for updating sedimented thinking, since capitalistic growth since the 1920s (exactly after WWI) is not conditioned on the old mystique view of oil-as-bloodline, given the abundance of supply. Producers simply cannot afford to withdraw crude from buyers lest they risk losing their share in a highly competitive market. Similarly, no major power can hinder access to oil because oil remains evenly available everywhere.

There have been two temporalities of capital accumulation, not one: formal and real dominations. This explains why after WWI, occupying a colony becomes financially inhibitive. At an advanced stage of primitive accumulation, anonymous capital becomes self-regulating. During the era of real domination (post 1918) there cannot be a need for a class of bourgeois pioneers to intervene. That explains why the bourgeois class has since disappeared. In its place, there emerged a capitalistic class who give the illusion that they are in charge but are in charge of absolutely nothing. They are simply managers/administrators (CEOs) appointed by shareholders to speak on behalf of the latter interest.  Hence – “raw materials are color-blind.” (p. 36) and that colonies are a burden to maintain.

Vitalis’ analysis in Chapter Four dwells on the corruption of the Saudis and their dizzying pace of change ‘from camels to Cadilliacs’ (p. 95) paid for by oil rent, may sound racist and inconsequential in the overreaching impact of oil wealth. Oil wealth decides less their conservative outlook but more significantly intensifies their adamant predisposition against an egalitarian polity all over the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region. The counter revolutions that quelled the uprisings of the Arab Spring both in 2011 and 2019 were engineered and financed principally by their medieval outlook. Vitalis notes that with recycled petrodollars the Saudi acquired F-15 jets which since March 2015 bombed civilians in Yemen. But he could have also noted that worse than F-15s is the regressive and ultra-conservative brand of the faith, whose sole agenda is the crashing all social movements which moved towards a lifestyle free from the dictatorship of oil.

Overall, there are instances where Vitalis’ debunking of myths such ‘oil-as-power’ falls into the right; and others where which falls more into the left. At times he can even be counted as a devout communist. But this is the quality of great scholarship, where he passionately elucidates his points regardless of class or ideology. Indeed, Vitalis embraces his mission to eradicate facile portrayals. Masquerading beneath so-called ‘self-evident conclusions’ lies not only tperpetuating mistaken decisions but squandering of the US taxpayers’ savings as well as the subaltern of the MENA chances for a future in dignity.

Vitalis, Robert. 2020. Oilcraft: The Myths of Scarcity and Security that Haunts US Energy Policy. Stanford University Press; pp. ‎ 240 pages; Paperback: $22.00; Hardcover: $22.47; ISBN-10 :1503632598; ISBN-13: 978-1503632592