Bulletins and News Discussion for December 11th to December 17th, 2023 - What's Yours is Mine - COTW: Canada
Image is of the Cobre Panama open-pit copper mine, located 120 kilometers west of Panama City.
Canada is a prolific mining country, hosting many of the world's top mining corporations. Some of its extraction is local - for example, Saskatchewan is the world's largest producer of potash, a critical agricultural nutrient. Much of the extraction is abroad. Naturally, this means that Canada has cut a bloody, but often ignored, path through the global periphery, extracting minerals and causing environmental degradation.
A notable recent example is that of the Cobre Panama copper mine, which is owned by First Quantum Minerals, one of the largest mining companies in Canada. The company earned $10 billion in revenue in 2022, of which the Cobre Panama mine generated $1 billion. Protests in Panama about this mine have gone on for over a decade, urging for a greater share of the profits, protection of indigenous people, and stronger environmental protections. Canada has maintained a stoney silence (pun somewhat intended) on these movements.
On October 20th, the president of Panama, Cortizo, renewed the company's mining concession for 20 years, after a halt in production since the end of 2022 due to negotiations and reform. Everybody hated this. In October, protestors took to the streets in sufficient numbers that Cortizo was forced to halt new mining approvals, and announced a public referendum on whether the contract with First Quantum should be repealed. This was immediately cut down, but the government decided to invalidate the new concession anyway in late November, calling it unconstitutional, and closing down the mine.
First Quantum Minerals has lost about half its market value since October. Various international banks have said that Panama could lose its investment-grade credit rating next year due to the income hit - the mine generated 5% of its GDP. The international arbitration process which First Quantum has initiated against Panama could last years.
The book Canada in the World: Settler Capitalism and the Colonial Imagination handles Canada's role as an imperialist, anti-indigenous, extractive state throughout its history, and is on our geopolitical reading list.
Defense Politics Asia's youtube channel and their map. Their youtube channel has substantially diminished in quality but the map is still useful.
Moon of Alabama, which tends to have interesting analysis. Avoid the comment section. Understanding War and the Saker: reactionary sources that have occasional insights on the war. Alexander Mercouris, who does daily videos on the conflict. While he is a reactionary and surrounds himself with likeminded people, his daily update videos are relatively brainworm-free and good if you don't want to follow Russian telegram channels to get news. He also co-hosts The Duran, which is more explicitly conservative, racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-communist, etc when guests are invited on, but is just about tolerable when it's just the two of them if you want a little more analysis.
On the ground: Patrick Lancaster, an independent and very good journalist reporting in the warzone on the separatists' side.
Unedited videos of Russian/Ukrainian press conferences and speeches.
Pro-Russian Telegram Channels:
Again, CW for anti-LGBT and racist, sexist, etc speech, as well as combat footage.
https://t.me/aleksandr_skif ~ DPR's former Defense Minister and Colonel in the DPR's forces. Russian language. https://t.me/Slavyangrad ~ A few different pro-Russian people gather frequent content for this channel (~100 posts per day), some socialist, but all socially reactionary. If you can only tolerate using one Russian telegram channel, I would recommend this one. https://t.me/s/levigodman ~ Does daily update posts. https://t.me/patricklancasternewstoday ~ Patrick Lancaster's telegram channel. https://t.me/gonzowarr ~ A big Russian commentator. https://t.me/rybar ~ One of, if not the, biggest Russian telegram channels focussing on the war out there. Actually quite balanced, maybe even pessimistic about Russia. Produces interesting and useful maps. https://t.me/epoddubny ~ Russian language. https://t.me/boris_rozhin ~ Russian language. https://t.me/mod_russia_en ~ Russian Ministry of Defense. Does daily, if rather bland updates on the number of Ukrainians killed, etc. The figures appear to be approximately accurate; if you want, reduce all numbers by 25% as a 'propaganda tax', if you don't believe them. Does not cover everything, for obvious reasons, and virtually never details Russian losses. https://t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses ~ Pro-Russian, documents abuses that Ukraine commits.
Congress this week approved a measure aimed at preventing any U.S. president from unilaterally withdrawing the United States from NATO without congressional approval. Passage came amid long-standing concerns that Donald Trump may try to exit the alliance if he returns to office.
The provision was included in the National Defense Authorization Act, an annual bill detailing defense policy, which was passed by the House on Thursday and is awaiting the signature of President Biden.
Under the measure, advocated by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the president would be prohibited from withdrawing from NATO without the approval of two-thirds of the Senate or separate legislation passed by Congress.
Kaine and Rubio had tried to advance similar measures since 2021. Passage of the defense policy bill this week marked the first time the House had embraced the tactic.
The Republican-led House Armed Services Committee did not respond to questions about why the chamber accepted the provision. The office of Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) declined to comment.
The bipartisan attempt to add checks and balances highlights the lengths Congress is willing to go to protect the U.S.-NATO relationship amid ongoing Russian aggression and following years of criticism of the military alliance during Trump’s presidential tenure.
President Biden has sought to reassert the leadership role of the United States in global diplomacy, helping galvanize NATO member countries in support of Ukraine following Russia’s invasion and encouraging efforts to expand the alliance to include Finland and Sweden.
During his presidency, Trump frequently lambasted the alliance, accusing its members of being “delinquents” and questioning the wisdom of NATO’s collective defense clause.
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which formed the legal basis for NATO, states that an armed attack on one member of the alliance will be viewed as an attack on all of them, and that they will defend one other.
In 2018, Trump publicly mused about why the United States might come to the aid of NATO member Montenegro, saying that sending troops from the alliance to defend an “aggressive” ally could result in World War III.
Former Trump aides, including former national security adviser John Bolton, have said they feared at times that Trump could pull the United States out of the alliance. But Trump and his allies argue that his tough approach to NATO pushed member states to boost their defense spending obligations and strengthened the alliance.
Kaine, in a statement, said that the provision in the defense policy bill affirmed “U.S. support for this crucial alliance” and sent “a strong message to authoritarians around the world that the free world remains united.”
Rubio said in a statement: “The Senate should maintain oversight on whether or not our nation withdraws from NATO. We must ensure we are protecting our national interests and protecting the security of our democratic allies.”
While the defense policy bill is set to be signed into law by Biden, it’s unclear how exactly a scenario might play out in which the president and Congress are at odds over NATO membership.
Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, pointed out that there is precedent for presidents withdrawing unilaterally from treaties without consulting Congress. A chief executive conceivably could push back on efforts to restrict that — particularly if the treaty addresses the United States’ defense posture abroad.
A “future president might challenge such an effort and invoke the president’s authorities as commander in chief under Article 2 of the Constitution,” O’Hanlon said in an email. “It would, I think, be uncharted territory if this issue were forced to a confrontation.”
A Kaine aide said that while the Constitution is clear about the process to enter a treaty — including ratification by the Senate — it is silent on withdrawal. The provision offered by Kaine and Rubio was an attempt to offer specific guidance about the process, said the aide, who was not authorized to speak publicly on the legislation and spoke on the condition of anonymity.
If a president violates the law, Congress can seek recourse in the courts, the aide said.
Nope. When the ghouls were seething and malding over Turkey throwing gravel in the gears some globe emoji types were talking about everyone but Turkey leaving NATO to start a new organisation.
They can sorta do it by just destroying NATO from within. The US doesn't have to unilaterally withdraw, it just has to create doubts about its actual commitment.
In other words, in no circumstances can the president change foreign policy. If only the congressional/senatorial bar for starting news wars was this high.
So why would the US empire want to get rid of their main tools of their imperial violence in the first place?
They wouldn't. I think what we have is, on one hand, a group of people who believe the threat of american isolationism is a good tool for pressure on NATO subjects; and on the other hand a group of people who see those tactics as simply disruptive.