The Genocide Games || US Invasions Similar to Crimea

This series on the blog started with an observation. The five permanent countries in the UN Security Council are perpetrators of genocide. What happens when the security of the world is place upon the shoulders of its 5 most genocidal countries ? We get the hypocritical posturing common to the pre-fight boxing weigh-ins. Of course the posturing is amplified to dangerous levels with many lives at stake.

I believe that what Russia is doing in Crimea is wrong especially given the history of what happened in the Ukraine. It creates a grim picture for the former countries once under Soviet control. But before I can denounce Russia’s actions I have to be honest. My own country has done the same which warrants deep meditation into the existence of sovereignty and freedom.

The nation is in a precarious predicament. Not only are most American unable to locate Crimea on a map, we lack a moral position on which to base our response to the invasion of Crimea. (Given our history of invasion). I have decided to paste from this article 3/5 US invasion mentioned into this post. As you read if you choose to, would you mind sharing your thoughts on the following questions:

  1. If the US started out as an oligarchy and continues to masquerade as one behind the guise of democracy, what keeps the government from spying on and using propaganda to sway public opinion ?
  2. If many Americans are disenfranchised from voting, who does our foreign policy benefit?





Iran in 1953: Installing the Shah

Agents from the CIA operated closely with British intelligence, seeking to install a new puppet shah in Iran. The two powers wanted access to Iran’s oil fields and were also concerned that the country might otherwise fall behind the Iron Curtain, signaling a major setback in the nascent Cold War. Two years before, the Iranian people had elected a president, and the Shah, a hereditary ruler, had fled the country. Moves to nationalize the country’s oil production threatened the supremacy of the Anglo-Persian oil company, later to become British Petroleum. Planning documents for the coup, declassified last year, state “No remedial action other than the covert action plan set forth below could be found to improve the existing state of affairs.” The documents reveal how in the months leading up to the coup British and American agents started placing articles in the American and Iranian media criticizing the new administration. They organized street protests, trained and equipped pro-Shah forces and helped convince the Iranian army to join with the revolution. The democratically elected leader was ousted, and the Shah returned to power. He would rule, with the backing of the West, until the Islamic revolution in 1979.

Chile in 1973: Richard Nixon getting his hands dirty

Documents declassified in 2003 reveal how the CIA played a key role in backing a bloody coup that left a president dead and thousands in prison. Unusually for secretive regime change campaigns, President Richard Nixon personally signed off $700,000 in funding toward the operation, as well as pouring millions through secretive channels to right-wing Chilean parties.

“It is firm and continuing policy that Salvador Allende [the leftist president of Chile] be overthrown by a coup,” a CIA analyst wrote in 1970. “It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG [U.S. government] and American hand be well hidden.”

To convince the Chilean people that submitting themselves to a military dictatorship was a necessary evil, the CIA conducted a series of false flag operations — bombings across Chile designed to look like terror attacks. The CIA was also given orders to “make the economy scream” to “prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him.”

The 1973 coup marked the beginning of 17 years of U.S.-sponsored bloodshed in Chile. The regime went on to authorize the killings or disappearances of over 3,000 Chileans.

Grenada in 1983: “Doing a Putin”

The 1983 American invasion of Grenada bears more than a passing resemblance to Putin’s strategy against Ukraine. A tropical island with a population of 90,000, Grenada had recently won independence from the last vestiges of the British Empire. A leftist Grenadian president, who President Ronald Reagan didn’t much like, subsequently seized power in a military takeover of the island’s government.

A small number of American students on the island provided Washington with a convenient excuse to invade and topple the government. Just like in Crimea, those seeking to justify the presence of U.S. Marines on Grenadian soil claimed locals supported the invasion.

The American public loved the bold move. Criticisms from the United Kingdom, Canada and the United Nations were rarely aired by the American press, even when the UN called the invasion “a flagrant breach of international law.”


Article Repost || 5 Ways The Government Keeps Native Americans In Poverty

Imagine if the government were responsible for looking after your best interests. All of your assets must be managed by bureaucrats on your behalf. A special bureau is even set up to oversee your affairs. Every important decision you make requires approval, and every approval comes with a mountain of regulations.

How well would this work? Just ask Native Americans.

The federal government is responsible for managing Indian affairs for the benefit of all Indians. But by all accounts the government has failed to live up to this responsibility. As a result, Native American reservations are among the poorest communities in the United States. Here’s how the government keeps Native Americans in poverty.

Indian lands are owned and managed by the federal government.

Screen Shot 2014-03-13 at 3.01.24 AM

Chief Justice John Marshall set Native Americans on the path to poverty in 1831 when he characterized the relationship between Indians and the government as “resembling that of a ward to his guardian.” With these words, Marshall established the federal trust doctrine, which assigns the government as the trustee of Indian affairs. That trusteeship continues today, but it has not served Indians well.

Underlying this doctrine is the notion that tribes are not capable of owning or managing their lands. The government is the legal owner of all land and assets in Indian Country and is required to manage them for the benefit of Indians.

But because Indians do not generally own their land or homes on reservations, they cannot mortgage their assets for loans like other Americans. This makes it incredibly difficult to start a business in Indian Country. Even tribes with valuable natural resources remain locked in poverty. Their resources amount to “dead capital”—unable to generate growth for tribal communities.

Nearly every aspect of economic development is controlled by federal agencies.

All development projects on Indian land must be reviewed and authorized by the government, a process that is notoriously slow and burdensome. On Indian lands, companies must go through at least four federal agencies and 49 steps to acquire a permit for energy development. Off reservation, it takes only four steps. This bureaucracy prevents tribes from capitalizing on their resources.

It’s not uncommon for years to pass before the necessary approvals are acquired to begin energy development on Indian lands—a process that takes only a few months on private lands. At any time, an agency may demand more information or shut down development. Simply completing a title search can cause delays. Indians have waited six years to receive title search reports that other Americans can get in just a few days.

The result is that many investors avoid Indian lands altogether. When development does occur, federal agencies are involved in every detail, even collecting payments on behalf of tribes. The royalties are then distributed back to Indians—that is, if the government doesn’t lose the money in the process.

Reservations have a complex legal framework that hinders economic growth.

Screen Shot 2014-03-13 at 3.02.43 AM

Thanks to the legacy of federal control, reservations have complicated legal and property systems that are detrimental to economic growth. Jurisdiction and land ownership can vary widely on reservations as a result of the government’s allotment policies of the nineteenth century. Navigating this complex system makes development and growth difficult on Indian lands.

One such difficulty is fractionated land ownership. Federal inheritance laws required many Indian lands to be passed in equal shares to multiple heirs. After several generations, these lands have become so fractionated that there are often hundreds of owners per parcel. Managing these fractionated lands is nearly impossible, and much of the land remains idle.

Energy regulations make it difficult for tribes to develop their resources.

Darrin Old Coyote, chairman of the Crow Tribe in Montana, puts it plainly: “The war on coal is a war on our families and our children.” Coal provides the greatest economic opportunity for the impoverished tribe, but regulations are making it hard for the tribe to capitalize on their natural resources. Some are even trying to prevent the tribe from exporting coal to Asia.

The federal government has repeatedly mismanaged Indian assets.

Screen Shot 2014-03-13 at 3.03.58 AM

Tribes historically had little or no control over their energy resources. Royalties were set by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but the agency consistently undervalued Indian resources. A federal commission concluded in 1977 that leases negotiated on behalf of Indians were “among the poorest agreements ever made.”

Unfortunately, it hasn’t gotten much better. A recent class action suit alleged that the government mismanaged billions of dollars in Indian assets. The case settled in 2009 for $3.4 billion—far less than what was lost by the feds.

Reservations contain valuable natural resources worth nearly $1.5 trillion, according to a recent estimate. But the vast majority of these resources remain undeveloped because the federal government gets in the way. Ron Crossguns of the Blackfeet Tribe recently put it this way: “It’s our right. We say yes or no. I don’t think the outside world should come out here and dictate to us what we should do with our properties.”

As long as tribes are denied the right to control their own resources, they will remain locked in poverty and dependence. But if tribes are given the dignity they deserve, they will have the opportunity to unleash the tremendous wealth of Indian nations.

Shawn Regan is a research fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center(PERC) and the author of the new report “Unlocking the Wealth of Indian Nations: Overcoming Obstacles to Tribal Energy Development.”