Headlines

During the 50 years since the first meeting of the group that would become today’s 77 plus China (which now comprises 133 countries plus China), the participating nations have moved past a trade group that advances collective interests toward “a new world economic order, a responsible approach to climate change, and economic relations based on preferential treatment,” within which “the peoples’ self-determination and sovereignty over their natural resources must be highlighted, Bolivian President Evo Morales said in a speech addressing the 77 Plus China meeting.” Morales said that people must create a new economic world because it was not only possible, but indispensable.

In the speech, Morales pointed out that not only is the vastly unequal distribution of humanity’s assets unfair, but it is also “generating a structural crisis that is becoming unsustainable over time.”

“We are also faced with an energy crisis that is driven by excessive consumption in developed countries, pollution from energy sources and the energy hoarding practices of the transnational corporations,” Morales said. “The climate crisis is caused by the anarchy of capitalist production… .”

Morales noted the massive inflation of greenhouse gasses to 400 ppm and the scarcity of water. “The water shortage in many parts of the planet is leading to armed conflicts and wars that further aggravate the lack of availability of this non-renewable resource.”

Morales also spoke of the impending food crisis expected to be caused by the increase in population and decrease in food-producing lands.

“As a result of all these developments” said Morales, “peoples’ social rights are endangered. The promise of equality and justice for the whole world becomes more and more remote and nature itself is threatened with extinction. We have reached a limit, and global action is urgently needed to save society, humanity and Mother Earth.”

Morales detailed efforts Bolivia has made to turn the tide from environmental catastrophe, and the Vivir Bien philosophy and policy.

“It means placing Nature at the core of life and regarding the human being as just another creature of Nature,” Morales stated. “Comprehensive development is only viable if applied worldwide, if the states, in conjunction with their respective peoples, exercise control over all of their energy resources.”

Morales advised sovereignty exercised over natural resources and strategic areas, well-being for everyone and the provision of basic services as a human right, emancipation from the existing international financial system and construction of a new financial architecture, the building of a major economic, scientific, technological and cultural partnership among the members of the group of 77 plus China, eradication of hunger among the world’s peoples, the strengthening of the sovereignty of states free from foreign interference, intervention and/or espionage, the democratic renewal of our states, and for the Southern Hemisphere to increase its presence and status in the world.

“Only we can save the source of life and society,” said Morales. “Mother Earth, our planet is under a death threat from predatory and insane capitalism. Another world is not only possible, it is indispensable, because, otherwise, no world will be possible.”

 

Full text of speech, translated by Richard Fidler 

For a Global Brotherhood Among the Peoples

Evo Morales Ayma

Fifty years ago, great leaders raised the flags of the anticolonial struggle and decided to join with their peoples in a march along the path of sovereignty and independence.

The world superpowers and transnationals were competing for control of territories and natural resources in order to continue expanding at the cost of impoverishing the peoples of the South.

In that context, on June 15, 1964, at the conclusion of an UNCTAD [United Nations Conference on Trade and Development] meeting, 77 countries from the South (we are now 133 plus China) met to enhance their trade bargaining capacities, by acting in a bloc to advance their collective interests while respecting their individual sovereign decisions.

During the past 50 years, these countries went beyond their statements and promoted resolutions at the United Nations and joint action in favor of development underpinned by South-South cooperation, a new world economic order, a responsible approach to climate change, and economic relations based on preferential treatment.

In this journey the struggle for decolonization as well as for the peoples’ self-determination and sovereignty over their natural resources must be highlighted.

Notwithstanding these efforts and struggles for equality and justice for the world’s peoples, the hierarchies and inequalities in the world have increased.

Today, 10 countries in the world control 40% of the world’s total wealth and 15 transnational corporations control 50% of global output.

Today, as 100 years ago, acting in the name of the free market and democracy, a handful of imperial powers invades countries, blocks trade, imposes prices on the rest of the world, chokes national economies, plots against progressive governments and resorts to espionage against the inhabitants of this planet.

A tiny elite of countries and transnational corporations controls, in an authoritarian fashion, the destinies of the world, its economies and its natural resources.

The economic and social inequality between regions, between countries, between social classes and between individuals has grown outrageously.

About 0.1% of the world’s population owns 20% of humanity’s assets. In 1920, a business manager in the United States made 20 times the wage of a worker, but today he is paid 331 times that wage.

This unfair concentration of wealth and predatory destruction of nature are also generating a structural crisis that is becoming unsustainable over time.

It is indeed a structural crisis. It impacts every component of capitalist development. In other words, it is a mutually reinforcing crisis affecting international finance, energy, climate, water, food, institutions and values. It is a crisis inherent to capitalist civilization.

The financial crisis was prompted by the greedy pursuit of profits from financial capital that led to profound international financial speculation, a practice that favored certain groups, transnational corporations or power centers that amassed great wealth.

The financial bubbles that generate speculative gains eventually burst, and in the process they plunged into poverty the workers who had received cheap credit, the middle-class savings-account holders who had trusted their deposits to greedy speculators. The latter overnight went bankrupt or took their capital to other countries, thus leading entire nations into bankruptcy.

We are also faced with an energy crisis that is driven by excessive consumption in developed countries, pollution from energy sources and the energy hoarding practices of the transnational corporations.

Parallel with this, we witness a global reduction in reserves and high costs of oil and gas development, while productive capacity drops due to the gradual depletion of fossil fuels and global climate change.

The climate crisis is caused by the anarchy of capitalist production, with consumption levels and unharnessed industrialization that have resulted in excessive emissions of polluting gases that in turn have led to global warming and natural disasters affecting the entire world.

For more than 15,000 years prior to the era of capitalist industrialization, greenhouse gases did not amount to more than 250 parts per million molecules in the atmosphere.

Since the 19th century, and in particular in the 20th and 21st centuries, thanks to the actions of predatory capitalism, this count has risen to 400 ppm, and global warming has become an irreversible process along with weather disasters the primary impacts of which are felt in the poorest and most vulnerable countries of the South, and in particular the island nations, as a result of the thawing of the glaciers.

In turn, global warming is generating a water supply crisis that is compounded by privatization, depletion of sources and commercialization of fresh water. As a consequence, the number of people without access to potable water is growing apace.

The water shortage in many parts of the planet is leading to armed conflicts and wars that further aggravate the lack of availability of this non-renewable resource.

The world population is growing while food production is dropping, and these trends are leading to a food crisis.

Add to these issues the reduction of food-producing lands, the imbalances between urban and rural areas, the monopoly exercised by transnational corporations over the marketing of seeds and agricultural inputs, and the speculation in food prices.

The imperial model of concentration and speculation has also caused an institutional crisis that is characterized by an unequal and unjust distribution of power in the world in particular within the UN system, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization.

As a result of all these developments, peoples’ social rights are endangered. The promise of equality and justice for the whole world becomes more and more remote and nature itself is threatened with extinction.

We have reached a limit, and global action is urgently needed to save society, humanity and Mother Earth.

Bolivia has started to take steps to address these issues. Up to 2005, Bolivia applied a neoliberal policy that resulted in concentration of wealth, social inequality and poverty, increasing marginalization, discrimination and social exclusion.

In Bolivia, the historic struggles waged by social movements, in particular the indigenous peasant movement, have allowed us to initiate a Democratic and Cultural Revolution, through the ballot box and without the use of violence. This revolution is rooting out exclusion, exploitation, hunger and hatred, and it is rebuilding the path of balance, complementarity, and consensus with its own identity, Vivir Bien.

Beginning in 2006, the Bolivian government introduced a new economic and social policy, enshrined in a new community-based socio-economic and productive model, the pillars of which are nationalization of natural resources, recovery of the economic surplus for the benefit of all Bolivians, redistribution of the wealth, and active participation of the State in the economy.

In 2006, the Bolivian government and people made their most significant political, economic and social decision: nationalization of the country’s hydrocarbons, the central axis of our revolution. The state thereby participates in and controls the ownership of our hydrocarbons and processes our natural gas.

Contrary to the neoliberal prescription that economic growth ought to be based on external market demand (“export or die”), our new model has relied on a combination of exports with a domestic market growth that is primarily driven by income-redistribution policies, successive increases in the national minimum wage, annual salary increases in excess of the inflation rate, cross subsidies and conditional cash transfers to the neediest.

As a consequence, the Bolivian GDP has increased from $9.0 billion to over $30.0 billion over the past eight years.

Our nationalized hydrocarbons, economic growth and cost austerity policy have helped the country generate budget surpluses for eight years in a row, in sharp contrast with the recurrent budget deficits experienced by Bolivia for more than 66 years.

When we took over the country’s administration, the ratio between the wealthiest and poorest Bolivians was 128 fold. This ratio has been cut down to 46 fold. Bolivia now is one of the top six countries in our region with the best income distribution.

It has been shown that the peoples have options and that we can overcome the fate imposed by colonialism and neoliberalism.

These achievements produced in such a short span are attributable to the social and political awareness of the Bolivian people.

We have recovered our nation for all of us. Ours was a nation that had been alienated by the neoliberal model, a nation that lived under the old and evil system of political parties, a nation that was ruled from abroad, as if we were a colony.

We are no longer an unviable country as we were described by the international financial institutions. We are no longer an ungovernable country as the US empire would have us believe.

Today, the Bolivian people have recovered their dignity and pride, and we believe in our strength, our destiny and ourselves.

I want to tell the entire world in the most humble terms that the only wise architects who can change their future are the peoples themselves.

Therefore, we intend to build another world, and several tasks have been designed to establish the society of Vivir Bien.

First: We must move from sustainable development to comprehensive development [desarrollo integral] so that we can live well and in harmony and balance with Mother Earth.

We need to construct a vision that is different from the western capitalist development model. We must move from the sustainable development paradigm to the Bien Vivir comprehensive development approach that seeks not only a balance among human beings, but also a balance and harmony with our Mother Earth.

No development model can be sustainable if production destroys Mother Earth as a source of life and our own existence. No economy can be long-lasting if it generates inequalities and exclusions.

No progress is just and desirable if the well-being of some is at the expense of the exploitation and impoverishment of others.

Vivir Bien Comprehensive Development means providing well-being for everyone, without exclusions. It means respect for the diversity of economies of our societies. It means respect for local knowledge. It means respect for Mother Earth and its biodiversity as a source of nurture for future generations.

Vivir Bien Comprehensive Development also means production to satisfy actual needs, and not to expand profits infinitely.

It means distributing wealth and healing the wounds caused by inequality, rather than widening injustice.

It means combining modern science with the age-old technological wisdom held by the indigenous, native and peasant peoples who interact respectfully with nature.

It means listening to the people, rather than the financial markets.

It means placing Nature at the core of life and regarding the human being as just another creature of Nature.

The Vivir Bien Comprehensive Development model of respect for Mother Earth is not an ecologist economy for poor countries alone, while the rich nations expand inequality and destroy Nature.

Comprehensive development is only viable if applied worldwide, if the states, in conjunction with their respective peoples, exercise control over all of their energy resources.

We need technologies, investments, production and credits, as well as companies and markets, but we shall not subordinate them to the dictatorship of profits and luxury. Instead, we must place them at the service of the peoples to satisfy their needs and to expand our common goods and services.

Second: Sovereignty exercised over natural resources and strategic areas.

Countries that have raw materials should and can take sovereign control over production and processing of those materials.

Nationalization of strategic companies and areas can help the state take over the management of production, exercise sovereign control over its wealth, embark on a planning process that leads to the processing of raw materials, and distribute the profit among its people.

Exercising sovereignty over natural resources and strategic areas does not mean isolation from global markets; rather, it means connecting to those markets for the benefit of our countries, and not f the benefit of a few private owners. Sovereignty over natural resources and strategic areas does not mean preventing foreign capital and technologies from participating. It means subordinating these investments and technologies to the needs of each country.

Third: Well-being for everyone and the provision of basic services as a human right

The worst tyranny faced by humankind is allowing basic services to be under the control of transnational corporations. This practice subjugates humanity to the specific interests and commercial aims of a minority who become rich and powerful at the expense of the life and security of other persons.

This is why we claim that basic services are inherent to the human condition. How can a human being live without potable water, electrical energy or communications? If human rights are to make us all equal, this equality can only be realized through universal access to basic services. Our need for water, like our need for light and communications, makes us all equal.

The resolution of social inequities requires that both international law and the national legislation of each country define basic services (such as water, power supply, communications and basic health care) as a fundamental human right of every individual.

This means that states have a legal obligation to secure the universal provision of basic services, irrespective of costs or profits.

Fourth: Emancipation from the existing international financial system and construction of a new financial architecture

We propose that we free ourselves from the international financial yoke by building a new financial system that prioritizes the requirements of the productive operations in the countries of the South, within the context of comprehensive development.

We must incorporate and enhance banks of the South that support industrial development projects, reinforce regional and domestic markets, and promote trade among our countries, but on the basis of complementarity and solidarity.

We also need to promote sovereign regulation over the global financial transactions that threaten the stability of our national economies.

We must design an international mechanism for restructuring our debts, which serve to reinforce the dependence of the peoples of the South and strangle their development possibilities.

We must replace international financial institutions such as the IMF with other entities that provide for a better and broader participation of the countries of the South in their decision-making structures that are currently in the grip of imperial powers.

We also need to define limits to gains from speculation and to excessive accumulation of wealth.

Fifth: Build a major economic, scientific, technological and cultural partnership among the members of the group of 77 plus China

After centuries under colonial rule, transfers of wealth to imperial metropolises and impoverishment of our economies, the countries of the South have begun to regain decisive importance in the performance of the world economy.

Asia, Africa and Latin America are not only home to 77% of the world’s population, but they also account for nearly 43% of the world economy. And this importance is on the rise. The peoples of the South are the future of the world.

Immediate actions must be taken to reinforce and plan this inescapable global trend.

We need to expand trade among the countries of the South. We also need to gear our productive operations to the requirements of other economies in the South on the basis of complementarity of needs and capacities.

We need to implement technology transfer programs among the countries of the South. Not every country acting on its own can achieve the technological sovereignty and leadership that are critical for a new global economy based on justice.

Science must be an asset of humanity as a whole. Science must be placed at the service of everyone’s well-being, without exclusions or hegemonies. A decent future for all the peoples around the world will require integration for liberation, rather than cooperation for domination.

To discharge these worthy tasks to the benefit of the peoples of the world, we have invited Russia and other foreign countries that are our brothers in needs and commitments to join the Group of 77.

Our Group of 77 alliance does not have an institution of its own to give effect to the approaches, statements and action plans of our countries. For this reason, Bolivia proposes that an Institute For Decolonization and South-South Co-operation be established.

This institute will be charged with provision of technical assistance to the countries of the South, as well as further implementation of the proposals made by the Group of 77 plus China.

The institute will also supply technical and capacity-building assistance for development and self-determination, and it will help conduct research projects. We propose that this institute be headquartered in Bolivia.

Sixth: Eradicate hunger among the world’s peoples

It is imperative that hunger be eradicated and that the human right to food be fully exercised and enforced.

Food production must be prioritized with the involvement of small growers and indigenous peasant communities that hold age-old knowledge in regard to this activity.

To be successful in hunger eradication, the countries of the South must lay down the conditions for democratic and equitable access to land ownership, so that monopolies over this resource are not allowed to persist in the form of latifundia. However, fragmentation into small and unproductive plots must not be encouraged either.

Food sovereignty and security must be enhanced through access to healthy foods for the benefit of the people.

The monopoly held by transnational corporations over the supply of farm inputs must be eliminated as a way to foster food security and sovereignty.

Each country must make sure that the supply of the basic food staples consumed by its people is secured by enhancing productive, cultural and environmental practices, and by promoting people-to-people exchanges on the basis of solidarity. Governments have an obligation to ensure the supply of power, the availability of road connections and access to water and organic fertilizers.

Seventh: Strengthen the sovereignty of states free from foreign interference, intervention and/or espionage

Within the framework of the United Nations, a new institutional structure must be promoted in support of a New World Order for Vivir Bien.

The institutions that emerged after World War II, including the United Nations, are in need of a thorough reform today.

International agencies that promote peace, eliminate global hegemonism and advance equality among states are required.

For this reason, the UN Security Council must be abolished. Rather than fostering peace among nations, this body has promoted wars and invasions by imperial powers in their quest for the natural resources available in the invaded countries. Instead of a Security Council, today we have an insecurity council of imperial wars.

No country, no institution and no interest can justify the invasion of one country by another. The sovereignty of states and the internal resolution of the conflicts that exist in any country are the foundation of peace and of the United Nations.

I stand here to denounce the unjust economic blockade imposed on Cuba and the aggressive and illegal policies pursued by the US government against Venezuela, including a legislative initiative offered at the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee designed to apply sanctions to that country to the detriment of its sovereignty and political independence, a clear breach of the principles and purposes of the UN Charter.

These forms of persecution and internationally driven coups are the traits of modern colonialism, the colonial practices of our era.

These are our times, the times of the South. We must be able to overcome and heal the wounds caused by fratricidal wars stirred by foreign capitalist interests. We must strengthen our integration schemes in support of our peaceful coexistence, our development and our faith in shared values, such as justice.

Only by standing together will we be able to give decent lives to our peoples.

Eighth: Democratic renewal of our states

The era of empires, colonial hierarchies and financial oligarchies is coming to an end. Everywhere we look, we see peoples around the world calling for their right to play their leading role in history.

The 21st century must be the century of the peoples, the workers, the farmers, the indigenous communities, the youth and the women. In other words, it must be the century of the oppressed.

The realization of the peoples’ leading role requires that democracy be renewed and strengthened. We must supplement electoral democracy with participatory and community-based democracy.

We must move away from limited parliamentary and party-based governance and into the social governance of democracy.

This means that the decision-making process in any state must take into consideration its parliamentary deliberations, but also the deliberations by the social movements that incorporate the life-giving energy of our peoples.

The renovation of democracy in this century also requires that political action represents a full and permanent service to life. This service constitutes an ethical, humane and moral commitment to our peoples, to the humblest masses.

For this purpose, we must reinstate the codes of our ancestors: no robar, no mentir, no ser flujo y no ser adulón [do not steal, do not lie, do not be weak and do not flatter].

Democracy also means distribution of wealth and expansion of the common goods shared by society.

Democracy means subordination of rulers to the decisions of the ruled.

Democracy is not a personal benefit vested in the rulers, nor is it abuse of power. Democracy means serving the people with love and self-sacrifice. Democracy means dedication of time, knowledge, effort and even life itself in the pursuit of the well-being of the peoples and humanity.

Ninth: A new world rising from the south for the whole of humanity

The time has come for the nations of the South.

In the past, we were colonized and enslaved. Our stolen labour built empires in the North.

Today, with every step we take for our liberation, the empires grow decadent and begin to crumble.

However, our liberation is not only the emancipation of the peoples of the South. Our liberation is also for the whole of humanity. We are not fighting to dominate anyone. We are fighting to ensure that no one becomes dominated.

Only we can save the source of life and society: Mother Earth. Our planet is under a death threat from the greed of predatory and insane capitalism.

Today, another world is not only possible, it is indispensable.

Today, another world is indispensable because, otherwise, no world will be possible.

And that other world of equality, complementarity and organic coexistence with Mother Earth can only emerge from the thousands of languages, colours and cultures existing in brotherhood and sisterhood among the Peoples of the South.

(Santa Cruz, 14 June 2014)

By Sid Douglas

Since the founding of al Qaeda in 1988 by Osama bin Laden and two other foreign nationals in Pakistan, the terrorist organization has been successful in creating new branches and offshoots. A new study from RAND Institute says that in 1988 when al Qaeda was founded, there were three jihadist groups. In 2001 there were 22. Today there are 49.

The RAND report, “A Persistent Threat The Evolution of al Qa’ida and Other Salafi Jihadists,” was written by Seth Jones, the associate director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at RAND for the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The report aimed to gauge the state of al Qa’ida and other Salafi-Jihadist groups, and based its finding on thousands of unclassified and declassified documents.

The report found that the US faces a serious and growing challenge overseas, although al Qaeda still kills many more Muslims than non-Muslims, as the number of Salafi-Jihadists (characterized by attempting to emulate the earliest Muslims [salaf – “ancestors”]) groups has steadily increased, particularly in North Africa and the Levant. The number of Salafi-Jihadists has also risen steadily, and jumped markedly in 2010. The number of fighters doubled between 2010 and 2013, according to both high and low estimates.

The number of differentiated–and sometimes separated–groups has surprised many in the West, who conceive of al Qaeda as a single group tied almost exclusively to terrorist actions. This is a misunderstanding, according to foremost experts in the field.

Tom Joscelyn, senior editor at the Long War Journal whose expertise is terrorism, commented on the Western misunderstanding.

Read more: Fascinating Look at ISIS by Analyst Before the Takeover, Reveals Predictions and Warnings

“I think there’s an intellectual confusion about what Al Qaeda is and how it operates,” Joscelynn recently said in an interview. “We still define–here in the West–we still define al Qaeda as a terrorist organization. We think big spectacular terrorist attacks are what they’re all about. They do do that. They are a terrorist organization. But they’re much more than that: they’re political revolutionaries who use terrorism as a tactic. And when you properly understand them in those terms, you understand they have designs on Libya, they have designs on Syria, they have designs on Yemen, Somalia, and other countries. They want to take control. They want power for themselves. That’s a very different dynamic than someone who’s just interested in flying planes into buildings.”

Al Qaeda members today have careers going back decades, building up their cadres of supporters–trained fighters–establishing training camps, and pushing their agendas forward.

The RAND study details examples of how Salafi-Jihadists have moved up and on from origins in al Qaeda, and become successful in many regions of the world.

One such example is the Egyptian Muhammad Jamal, who trained in al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in the late 1980s before returning to his home country to become a top military commander for Islamic Jihad in Egypt. Jamal was released from prison in 2011, and took advantage of the permissive climate following the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak, to strengthen his position among a network of militants he had met before and during his prison time. With support from his relations within al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Arabian Peninsula, Jamal and his group have been committing attacks against Egyptian, US and Western targets.

In countries such as Mali, Nigeria, Libya and Syria Salafi-Jihadists have similarly moved up the ranks and consolidated power and influence, and have also used customary political tactics to increase their authority. For example, a jihadist group that receives sanctuary in Libya, Ansar al-Sharia, has used a portrayal as a local movement to gain popular support. The groups has described their fighters as “our brave youth [who] continue the struggle,” provided security at a local hospital, publicized its charity work and used political slogans such as “Your Sons at Your Service.”

Other groups have pursued a priority of attacking Western interests–sometimes splitting from al Qaeda to do so, and sometimes joining with al Qaeda to do so. Mokhtar Belmokhtar’s al-Murabitun, which operates in North Africa and Africa, split from al Qaeda in 2012 to pursue such attacks. In Tunisia, an Ansar al-Sharia partnered with al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb for a similar cause.

In a conference earlier this year, Joscelyn stated a conclusion about al Qaeda. “Al Qaeda set out in 1988 to spark a political revolution to inspire jihadism around the globe. They’ve succeeded. We’ve still not come up with a real strategy for containing or combatting that across the board.”

By Day Blakely Donaldson

RAND

CTC

The breakaway faction of al Qaeda ISIS, which disobeyed al Qaeda orders–and flouted it–while another branch of al Qaeda in the area, Ahrar a-Sham, was towing the al Qaeda line of building popular support in Syria and waging a

more effective insurgency–captured large sections of Iraq in the first half of June with a grossly underestimated force. In this article, a fascinating retrospective take on ISIS from February of this year gives us a look on how al Qaeda and terrorist experts viewed ISIS before the attacks–as “a test case” of what would actually happen when a significant al Qaeda affiliate group broke loose from the core.

Counter-terrorism scholar and analyst Daveed Gartenstein-Ross commented on the then-recent rebellion of ISIS in February of this year.

“You’ve certainly had infighting before. Algeria and that civil war is a good example of where you had significant splits in terms of the approach to that conflict. But in terms of this specific event, the degree to which it has happened, I would say is not precedented. It presents a very interesting situation.

“I think this presents the possibility of either fragmentation or else a strong cautionary tale to other affiliates. With respect to fragmentation, the reason why ISIS was expelled from al Qaeda is because they were basically openly flouting the central commands orders. There was infighting that was occuring within Syria and Zawahari had ordered ISIS to take part in mediation with other Jihadist groups including Jabat al Nusura. And ISIS was making a lot of noise about complying, but in fact they weren’t doing it. And so the order that came down on Sunday expelling ISIS was a rather shocking one in the world of Jihadism, which has sent immediate shock waves through that world.

“So if ISIS thrives, despite the fact that it was expelled from al Qaeda, this could, number one, make other organizations, other affiliates, say, ‘Well, what is the cost to me if I disobey senior leadership?’ Number two, they could attract some funding from traditional al Qaeda donors. Number three, you can already see on Jihadist message boards some kind of tensions that have been caused, where some members of these message boards and some Jihadists on Twitter and elsewhere are falling in with ISIS as opposed to al Qaeda.

“On the other hand, what you may have happening is ISIS being the one that fragments rather than al Qaeda. And you can already see some signs of this. For example, Abdullah al Massini, a prominent Saudi cleric who is pro-Jihadist, has called on ISIS fighters to defect. you have reports of some defections from ISIS. You may see serious fragmentation within it with splinter-groups that consider themselves loyal to al Qaeda’s core, as opposed to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who is the leader of ISIS.

“So there are very interesting things that are going to emerge from this,” Gartenstein-Ross continued, referring to mechanisms of command and control. “I think actually this is a very fascinating test case where we’ll actually start to see those mechanisms of control… but you can already see multiple clerics coming down and condemning ISIS. You might see some of their funding dry up. I don’t think you’ll see this immediately, but it actually really is a test-case because because at this point it has sent… an absolute shockwave through Jihadism and one that is going to change the dynamics in one direction or another.”

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross recently published a new article on ISIS, “Welcome to the era of ISIS – and pop-up terror,” in which he wrote, “We’ve seen it all before, but it remains shocking — and the latest advance by the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) is arguably the most disturbing development in Iraq’s already horrifying recent history.” Gartenstein-Ross asked in the article, “How long can the group sustain these gains?”

“An examination of what might follow the jihadist groups’ inevitable setbacks shows a disturbing trend,” wrote Gartenstein-Ross. “ISIS is far from the only Islamic extremist movement to control territory and implement a strict version of sharia. Looking at groups that have done so, a clear pattern emerges in which the extremist group gains ground, announces the imposition of sharia, and governs territory. This alarms nearby states, and often those that are further away as well.

“So the extremist group’s enemies strike. They topple it from power rather quickly. Although non-state militants are formidable, they have no real response to their enemies’ air-power advantage, and haven’t been able to hold territory against the advance of professional militaries. The extremist group does its best to melt away rather than face a decisive battlefield defeat. It regroups with the intention of coming back stronger than before.

“The disturbing thing is the frequency with which militant groups are able to succeed in mounting this comeback.” Gartenstein-Ross listed several examples, including the Afghan-Soviet war and the Taliban which came to control 90 percent of Afghanistan. “After 13 years of costly war in Afghanistan, it’s now widely believed that the Taleban will remain one of the country’s most important players, and it is poised to retake territory in various regions.

“Today this pattern–of a militant group’s seizure of territory, followed by a state-led counteroffensive, and militants’ efforts to regroup–is repeating itself in several places.” Gartenstein-Ross referenced Southern Somalia, Nairobi, Kenya, Mali, Yemen, Egypt’s Sinai and the Caucasus region.

Gartenstein-Ross concluded that “though ISIS might succeed in holding a handful of cities for an extended period, it is likely to experience a reversal of some sort,” but, “If recent history is any guide, ISIS’s retreat will not mean the group’s death, and we may well see another cycle of retreat-regroup-new offensive.”

Gartenstein-Ross advised Western countries and their regional partners to work together to prevent extremist groups such as ISIS from establishing long-lasting control. “But they also need to recognise this growing boom-and-bust pattern of instability, and work to address it. Not claiming victory too soon might be a start.”

Day Blakely Donaldson

Spectator

Foundation for Defense of Democracies

First Nations Canadians who have banded together to oppose the recently approved the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline that would connect Alberta with the British Columbia coast–albeit with 209 conditions–have rejected the government’s decision to proceed with the project. First Nations groups have stated that they “will take whatever measures are necessary to prevent that from happening.”

“Our coastline is not for sale to big oil, no matter how much money is on the table. There are thousands of British Colombians and Canadians who feel the same way, and who will stand with us to stop this dangerous project,” stated one of the opposing First Nations groups, the Heiltsuk First Nation.

First Nations groups, such as the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, First Nations Summit and B.C. Assembly of First Nations, have stated that they “unequivocally reject” the decision to approve the pipeline, and have vowed to fight the pipeline with legal and direct action.

National Program Director for Sierra Club Canada John Bennet said, “I’ve been doing this for 30 years now, and I’ve never see such strength and opposition to a project.”

Under the Canadian constitution, the government of Canada legally must consult First Nations and accommodate First Nations treaties in decisions that could impact First Nations lands and resources. First nations groups say that the government failed to consult tribal bands before approving the pipeline.

Read more: Northern Gateway Pipeline Illegal if Without Consultation with First Nations

“Our position is that before a decision can be made, there has to be a complete report in accordance with the law — and the report was flawed, so the government cannot legally make the decision,” said a staff lawyer for EcoJustice, Barry Robinson. “If the courts find we are correct, then the decision made yesterday would have to be reversed.”

“The government has moved their legal responsibility to consult with First Nations to Enbridge, and that’s a wrong move on their part,” said Tl’azt’en Nation Grand Chief Edward John.

Enbridge’s Norther Gateway pipeline is a 730-mile (1175 km) that would carry tar sands oil from Alberta to Kitimat, a town on the British Columbia coast, where the oil would be loaded onto tankers for transport.

Enbridge spokesman Ivan Giesbrecht emailed a statement out that read that 60 percent of the First Nations population along the route of the pipeline had agreed to the project, but the challenges of the First Nations opposition are considered to be significant.

“We are the wall that Enbridge and Harper cannot pass,” said Chief Terry Teegee of the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, and Grand Chief Stewart Philip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs warned, “We will take whatever measures are necessary to prevent that from happening.”

By Day Blakely Donaldson

First Nations Governance

Rejecting the recent approval of Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline, which would transport tar sands oil from Alberta to the British Columbia coast, Canada’s First Nations groups have asserted that it is illegal for the government to approve any such project without consulting First Nations.

“Our position is that before a decision can be made, there has to be a complete report in accordance with the law — and the report was flawed, so the government cannot legally make the decision,” said a staff lawyer for EcoJustice, Barry Robinson. “If the courts find we are correct, then the decision made… would have to be reversed.”

First Nations groups have asserted that under the Constitution of Canada, the government legally must consult First Nations and accommodate First Nations treaties in decisions that could impact First Nations lands and resources.

Read more: “Our Coastline is Not for Sale to Big Oil.” Canadian First Nations Groups Vow to Be “the Wall” Against Northern Gateway Pipeline, Threaten Action

Two sections of Canada’s constitution deal specifically with native rights.

A provision in the Constitution of Canada–Section 35–although debated, has been found by courts to protect to First Nations treaty rights regarding fishing, logging, hunting and right to First Nations land.

The text reads,

35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

(2) In this Act, “Aboriginal Peoples of Canada” includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.

(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) “treaty rights” includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

A part of the Constitution of Canada–the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the civil rights and liberties of every citizen in Canada–also provides for native rights, in Part II. Section 25 of the Charter insures that the Charter must be enforced in a way that does not diminish First Nations rights, and reads,

The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

(b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

There is a difference between Section 35 of the Constitution and Section 25 of the Charter. Section 25 does not necassarily constitutionalize aboriginal rights, although it may protect some rights. Section 35 does constitutionalize some native rights.

Both Sections 25 and 35 were not originally written into the Constitution of Canada, but were reactions to strong protests by First Nations groups who protested the lack of guarantees for Aboriginal rights when the first draft of the constitution was being negotiated after the first version of the Charter was drafted in 1980. Prior to the inclusion of Sections 25 and 35, the Constitution only had the language of Section 26, which provides a guide for interpreting how the Charter should affect Canadian society. Section 26 reads,

The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

Section 26 requires that the Charter cannot be interpreted to deny that non-Charter rights exist–rights not within the Charter are nevertheless real as they would be if the Charter had never been written. The original 1980 draft of what would become Section 26 read provided that the Charter should not be construed as denying the existence of “any rights or freedoms that pertain to the native peoples of Canada.”

First Nations rights have been upheld in Canadian courts through Section 35 dating back to 1990, at which time a ruling handed down found that,

The constitutional recognition afforded by the provision [section 35], therefore, gives a measure of control over government conduct and a strong check on legislative power. While it does not promise immunity from government regulation in a society that, in the twentieth century is increasingly more complex, interdependent and sophisticated and where exhaustible resources need protection and management, it does hold the Crown to a substantive promise. The government is required to bear the burden of justifying any legislation which has some negative effect on any aboriginal right protected under section 35(1) (R. v. Sparrow [1990]).

Succeeding trials established that in fishing, logging, hunting and right to First Nations land, “the government must demonstrate that it has given the aboriginal fishery priority in a manner consistent with this Court’s [earlier decisions]” (R. v. Gladstone [1996]).

By Day Blakely Donaldson

First Nations Governance