Sunday Roundup - November 16, 2014

This is the weekly selection of news and opinion from sources outside the US mainstream corporate media.  Today we look at the US-China climate agreement, Mexico, immigration reform, Ukraine, the permanent war infrastructure, and the unheralded success of Evo Morales.

US-China Climate Agreement

Graphic from ThinkProgress website

On Tuesday night, the United States and China announced a historic agreement to reduce greenhouse emissions.  The plan...involves a series of initiatives to be undertaken in partnership between the two countries, including: expanding funding for clean energy technology research at the US-China Clean Energy Research Center; launching a large-scale pilot project in China to study carbon capture and sequestration; a push to further limit the use of hydroflourocarbons, a potent greenhouse gas found in refrigerants; a  federal framework for cities in both countries to share experiences and best practices for low-carbon economic growth and adaptation to the impacts of climate change at the municipal level; a call to boost trade in "green" goods, including energy efficiency technology and resilient infrastructure.  [Mother Jones, Nov. 11]
The announcement by the two largest carbon polluters in the world is a welcome signal ahead of the Paris 2015 climate conference.  China, the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, has agreed to cap its output by 2030 or earlier if possible...Now it has also promised to increase its use of energy from zero-emission sources to 20% by 2030...The United States has pledged to cut its emissions to 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025.  Both represent improved targets over previously announced goals.  [The Guardian, Nov. 12]
The deal was reached after nine months of intense negotiations.  The plan unveiled in Beijing by Obama and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, commits the two countries to ambitious cuts to greenhouse gas emissions after 2020, and could spur other big polluters to similar efforts.  After years of mistrust, the deal began to coalesce last spring after Obama sent a personal letter to Xi suggesting the two countries start to move in tandem to cut carbon pollution, the White House said.  The immediate inspiration for the letter arose from a visit to Beijing by John Kerry, the US secretary of state. Kerry, who had a strong environmental record when he was a senator, raised climate change to a top priority after taking over at State. [The Guardian, Nov. 12]
Related: 
"America's Solar Boom, in Charts"  According to a Deutsche Bank analyst: By 2016, solar power will be as cheap or cheaper than electricity from the conventional grid in every state except three. [Mother Jones, Nov. 7]
"How the Republican-led Congress could kill the climate change deal" [The Guardian, Nov. 12]

Mexico
On September 26 in the southwestern town of Iguala. 43 Mexican college students were detained by police after a protest against what the students considered to be discriminatory hiring and funding practices by the government.   They have not been seen since.  The former mayor of Iguala is under arrest and its police chief is on the run.  Mexico has been facing violent rallies since local authorities revealed that the 43 students were handed over by corrupt police to the Guerros Unidos gang, members of which confessed to murdering them and reducing their bodies to ashes.  On Tuesday, protesters blocked Acapulco Airport.  On Wednesday a crowd of about 500 protesters set ablaze the state congress building in the southern Mexican state of Guerrero in a violent rally over the alleged massacre of 43 college students....Their disappearance has posed the biggest challenge so far to President Enrique Pena Nieto's administration, with many questioning the government’s progress in fighting against drug violence. [Reuters, Nov. 13]
Related:
"Mexicans in ‘Forgotten State’ Hail Arrest of Fugitive Mayor" [Bloomberg, Nov. 4]

Immigration Reform
President Obama is pledging to take executive action on immigration reform before year end. Depending on the specifics, the executive actions may protect between 2 and 5 million immigrants from deportation.  A comprehensive reform bill passed the Senate in 2013 but the Republican-controlled House has refused to act.  At a news conference during a visit to Myanmar, the President said, "There has been ample opportunity for Congress to pass a bipartisan immigration bill that would strengthen our borders, improve the legal immigration system and lift millions of people out of the shadows....I said that if in fact Congress failed to act, I would use all the lawful authority I possess to try to make the system work better."  The executive actions are centered on an extension of the President's "deferred action plan" which was designed to protect young adults who were brought to the US illegally as children from being deported.  The plan is to include parents of children who are US citizens or legal residents.  The action is designed to prevent the break-up of families via deportations.  Other steps reportedly include increasing the number of high-tech workers allowed to live and work in the US, [expanding] the existing deferred action plans [by moving] the cut-off date for children arriving to 2010, and [shifting] border security resources to the US southern border. Republicans are gearing up to fight Obama's actions, and one potential outcome of the showdown is a government shutdown. [BBC News, Nov. 14]

Ukraine
The US and Europe are warning Russia on increased sanctions for Russia's part in "destabilizing" the Ukraine.  Vladimir Putin planned to leave the G20 summit early after the criticism.  Meanwhile, Reuters reported on Thursday of the counter accusations between Russia and Ukraine.  Moscow and Kiev accused each other on Thursday of violating a ceasefire and the United States warned Russia the West might punish it further for its "military escalation" of the Ukraine crisis.  Ukraine accused Russia of sending soldiers and weapons to help separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine launch a new offensive in a conflict that has killed more than 4,000 people. Russia warned Kiev that any resumption of hostilities against the separatists would be catastrophic for Ukraine.  Increasing violence, truce violations and reports of unmarked armed convoys traveling from the direction of the Russian border have aroused fears that a shaky Sept. 5 truce could collapse.  [Reuters, Nov. 13]

In an op-ed piece appearing in The Guardian, Volodymyr Ishchenko warns of the danger of ignoring the far right.  Ukrainian authorities and mainstream opinion in Ukraine continue to show unacceptable ignorance of the danger from the far right and even openly neo-Nazi forces, cooperating with them in elections and allowing them to take positions within law enforcement...It is short-sighted and formalistic to conclude that the Ukrainian far right is insignificant based on the lack of electoral success. The rhetoric of many politicians which could be called centrist or even liberal has moved significantly to the right, competing for the increasingly patriotic and even nationalist voters...Ukrainians have already paid a very high price for ignoring the far right. According to research into systematic protests, members of the far right were the most visibly identified political agents in the Maidan protests, from the very beginning of the movement to the overthrow of Yanukovych.  Moreover, they were relatively more visible in eastern and southern regions where Maidan did not have the majority support, thus pushing the local population even further away from the protest message.  Ishchenko concludes that this tolerance for the far right has already cost Ukraine lost territories, a mass destruction of industry and infrastructure, and thousands and thousands of lives. It is necessary to break with the “it might be beneficial for Putin” logic and start to think what is beneficial for all the people living in Ukraine, and whether the radical nationalist ideas can fit the Ukrainian future to which we aspire.

NATO Map (Wikimedia Commons)

John Mearsheimer has an in-depth analysis of the roots of the crisis in Ukraine in the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs.  The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West. At the same time, the EU’s expansion eastward and the West’s backing of the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine -- beginning with the Orange Revolution in 2004 -- were critical elements, too. Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president -- which he rightly labeled a “coup” -- was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West.   Mearsheimer asks us to imagine the American outrage if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico. He proposes the West rethink its Ukraine strategy:  There is a solution to the crisis in Ukraine, however -- although it would require the West to think about the country in a fundamentally new way. The United States and its allies should abandon their plan to westernize Ukraine and instead aim to make it a neutral buffer between NATO and Russia, akin to Austria’s position during the Cold War. Western leaders should acknowledge that Ukraine matters so much to Putin that they cannot support an anti-Russian regime there. This would not mean that a future Ukrainian government would have to be pro-Russian or anti-NATO. On the contrary, the goal should be a sovereign Ukraine that falls in neither the Russian nor the Western camp.

The Permanent War Infrastructure
David Vine, writing at tomdispatch.com, discusses the long-standing US military presence in the Middle East  and the consequences of that policy.  Approaching its 35th anniversary, the strategy of maintaining such a structure of garrisons, troops, planes, and ships in the Middle East has been one of the great disasters in the history of American foreign policy. The rapid disappearance of debate about our newest, possibly illegal war should remind us of just how easy this huge infrastructure of bases has made it for anyone in the Oval Office to launch a war that seems guaranteed, like its predecessors, to set off new cycles of blowback and yet more war.  Vine traces the development of our base building policy and the morphing of the Rapid Deployment Force into the U.S. Central Command from 1980 through the present day.  Originally intended to maintain access to the oil-rich region during the Cold War era, the bases have become a "catalyst for anti-Americanism and radicalization” since a suicide bombing killed 241 marines in Lebanon in 1983....The garrisoning of the Muslim Holy Land was a major recruiting tool for al-Qaeda and part of Osama Bin Laden's professed motivation for the 9/11 attacks....Part of the anti-American anger has stemmed from the support U.S. bases offer to repressive, undemocratic regimes....Of course, using bases to launch wars and other kinds of interventions does much the same, generating anger, antagonism, and anti-American attacks....Rather than providing security, the infrastructure of bases in the Greater Middle East has made it ever easier to go to war far from home. It has enabled wars of choice and an interventionist foreign policy that has resulted in repeated disasters for the region, the United States, and the world.  By one estimate, the United States has spent $10 trillion protecting Persian Gulf oil supplies over the past four decades. Vine concludes: The sad irony is that any legitimate desire to maintain the free flow of regional oil to the global economy could be sustained through other far less expensive and deadly means....In addition to the direct damage our military spending has caused, it has diverted money and attention from developing the kinds of alternative energy sources that could free the United States and the world from a dependence on Middle Eastern oil -- and from the cycle of war that our military bases have fed. [TomDispatch, Nov.13]

Bolivia's Evo Morales

Photo of Evo Morales is from greanvillepost.com

While some warn that the rise of a racist far right presents a "clear and present danger "to both Western and Eastern Europe, Sergi Halimi writing in Le Monde Diplomatique wonders why the success of Bolivia's indigenous, leftist president Evo Morales has gone unremarked by the media. In times of crisis, a head of state who gets re-elected in the first round, having already served two terms, is a rarity indeed. One such is Evo Morales, whose win, with 61% of the vote, should have received more attention than it did. All the more so since he pulled off this electoral feat in Bolivia — which had five different presidents between 2001 and 2005. His victory follows a 25% reduction in poverty, an 87% real-terms increase in the minimum wage, a lowering of the retirement age and an annual growth rate of over 5% — all since 2006.  Pointing to the security failures such as the student massacre in Mexico - the students were protesting the neoliberal education reforms proposed by the conservative regime, Sergi Halimi asks us to imagine what would have leapt to mind had the student massacre taken place in Ecuador, Cuba or Venezuela. Or indeed in Bolivia, where President Morales has just been re-elected. [Le Monde Diplomatique, November 2014]