therealnews--2020-02-07--Fighting for Housing Rights in Brazil’s Largest City

Sao Paulo .
Brazil ’ s financial capital .
Population over 12 million .
The largest city in the Americas and one of the most expensive real estate markets in Brazil .
It ’ s also home to one of the biggest housing occupation movements in the world .
45,000 families in greater Sao Paulo live in housing occupations .
This is 9 de Julho , one of the most organized building occupations in the city .
It ’ s run by the Homeless Movement of the Center , one of Sao Paulo ’ s most active housing movements .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they occupied this vacant former social security building 3 years ago .
“ It ’ s good for you to see this… everything that we ’ ve done to transform this completely deteriorated and abandoned building , without any social good .
We ’ ve transformed it into our home.
” Today , more than 120 families live in the 14-story building , which includes communal kitchens , a children ’ s library , meeting rooms , soccer courts , a thrift store and a wood-working shop .
Residents pay no rent .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 50 per family .
They hold weekly assemblies and run the building collectively .
Claudete helps to coordinate the 10th floor , where she lives in her 2-bedroom home with two kids and one grandchild .
“ We occupy buildings that have no social good .
A building that has been abandoned for 10 , 15 , or 20 years .
And we pay for that building to be standing .
It ’ s our taxes that pay the bills for these buildings , which are filled with debt .
And we come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it into our home.
” The occupations are a means of survival for many low-income Brazilians .
Their organizing is based on the social right to housing , which is written into the 1988 Brazilian Constitution .
It ’ s been the foundation for housing organizing in Brazil for more than 30 years .
Victories have been won .
But not without a fight .
“ The idea of housing as a social right has always been in conflict with the idea of housing as a commodity .
A product accessible through buying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to those who have the means to pay or acquire loans .
This tension has always existed .
But in recent years , it ’ s gotten worse.
” Occupation residents have been evicted and their leaders jailed .
Last year , more than a dozen leaders of Sao Paulo housing movements , including the Homeless Movement of the Center , were accused of extortion and other charges , which the movements say are completely false .
Four leaders were imprisoned and held for more than 100 days .
Preta Ferreira was one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ artist and culture activist , who presented the free Lula news bulletin .
She lived for many years in a previous occupation at 9 de Julho .
While she was jailed here , last year , she was interviewed by the grassroots network TVT .
“ They are criminalizing the movements .
Because we are making noise .
We are annoying them .
But if the government did its job , you wouldn ’ t need a movement or an occupation .
If every citizen has his or her rights guaranteed , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For organizers , last year ’ s imprisonments are part of a larger crackdown on grassroots and housing movements in the city .
“ We are facing a very real war , a very real attack against housing movement rights in the center of Sao Paulo .
And in Brazil , since the 2016 coup , things have gotten worse with an increasing agenda of hate against marginalized and vulnerable populations , black communities , LGBT , and women.
” Meanwhile , Sao Paulo ’ s right-wing governor Joao Doria slashed more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budget this year .
Instead , he ’ s pushing for-profit public-private initiatives which he says will do the job of tackling the low-income housing deficit .
Housing movements don ’ t buy it .
Groups , like Benedito ’ s Union of Housing Movements , have marched in protest , demanding real affordable housing .
According to researchers , Sao Paulo , alone , needs 400,000 new low-income homes , and 800,000 current low-income homes need improvements .
“ They don ’ t want us here .
They don ’ t want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sao Paulo .
And even more paying a low cost .
That ’ s not interesting for the government .
What ’ s interesting is real estate speculation , where they sell buildings for absurd prices and the real estate companies pass them on to higher classes for even higher costs .
Costs , which the poor will never be able to pay .
So what the movement has done is amazing .
It ’ s what the government should be doing , because it ’ s working out .
It should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in the center of Sao Paulo .
”

Despite cuts to the state housing budget and the criminalization of housing movements in Sao Paulo, thousands of poor Brazilians remain in occupied buildings across the city, demanding their social right to housing.
Story Transcript
Sao Paulo. Brazil’s financial capital. Population over 12 million. The largest city in the Americas
and one of the most expensive real estate markets in Brazil.
It’s also home to one of the biggest housing occupation movements in the world. 45,000 families in greater Sao Paulo live in housing occupations.
This is 9 de Julho, one of the most organized building occupations in the city. It’s run by the Homeless Movement of the Center, one of Sao Paulo’s most active housing movements.
Claudete Lindoso has been living here since they occupied this vacant former social security building 3 years ago.
Claudete Lindoso, Resident, 9 de Julho
“It’s good for you to see this… everything that we’ve done to transform this completely deteriorated and abandoned building, without any social good. We’ve transformed it into our home.”
Today, more than 120 families live in the 14-story building, which includes communal kitchens, a children’s library, meeting rooms, soccer courts, a thrift store and a wood-working shop. Residents pay no rent. Only a monthly maintenance fee of $50 per family. They hold weekly assemblies and run the building collectively.
Claudete helps to coordinate the 10th floor, where she lives in her 2-bedroom home with two kids and one grandchild.
Claudete Lindoso, Resident, 9 de Julho
“We occupy buildings that have no social good. A building that has been abandoned for 10, 15, or 20 years. And we pay for that building to be standing. It’s our taxes that pay the bills for these buildings, which are filled with debt. And we come into a deteriorated building and we transform it into our home.”
The occupations are a means of survival for many low-income Brazilians. Their organizing is based on the social right to housing, which is written into the 1988 Brazilian Constitution. It’s been the foundation for housing organizing in Brazil for more than 30 years. Victories have been won. But not without a fight.
Anderson Kazuo Nakano, Federal University of Sao Paulo
“The idea of housing as a social right has always been in conflict with the idea of housing as a commodity. A product accessible through buying and selling deeds. But accessible only to those who have the means to pay or acquire loans. This tension has always existed. But in recent years, it’s gotten worse.”
Occupation residents have been evicted and their leaders jailed. Last year, more than a dozen leaders of Sao Paulo housing movements, including the Homeless Movement of the Center, were accused of extortion and other charges, which the movements say are completely false. Four leaders were imprisoned and held for more than 100 days. Preta Ferreira was one of them. She is a well-known artist and culture activist, who presented the free Lula news bulletin. She lived for many years in a previous occupation at 9 de Julho.
While she was jailed here, last year, she was interviewed by the grassroots network TVT.
Lorena Ferreira, Preta’s sister
“They are criminalizing the movements. Because we are making noise. We are annoying them. But if the government did its job, you wouldn’t need a movement or an occupation. If every citizen has his or her rights guaranteed, you wouldn’t need a movement.”
For organizers, last year’s imprisonments are part of a larger crackdown on grassroots and housing movements in the city.
Benedito Roberto Barbosa is a long-time housing activist and Sao Paulo human rights lawyer.
Benedito Roberto Barbosa, Union of Housing Movements
“We are facing a very real war, a very real attack against housing movement rights in the center of Sao Paulo. And in Brazil, since the 2016 coup, things have gotten worse with an increasing agenda of hate against marginalized and vulnerable populations, black communities, LGBT, and women.”
Meanwhile, Sao Paulo’s right-wing governor Joao Doria slashed more than half of the state’s housing budget this year. Instead, he’s pushing for-profit public-private initiatives which he says will do the job of tackling the low-income housing deficit.
Housing movements don’t buy it. Groups, like Benedito’s Union of Housing Movements, have marched in protest, demanding real affordable housing.
According to researchers, Sao Paulo, alone, needs 400,000 new low-income homes, and 800,000 current low-income homes need improvements.
Claudete Lindoso, Resident, 9 de Julho
“They don’t want us here. They don’t want poor people living in the center of Sao Paulo. And even more paying a low cost. That’s not interesting for the government. What’s interesting is real estate speculation, where they sell buildings for absurd prices and the real estate companies pass them on to higher classes for even higher costs. Costs, which the poor will never be able to pay. So what the movement has done is amazing. It’s what the government should be doing, because it’s working out. It should be putting the poor, the lower classes, in the center of Sao Paulo.”
Michael Fox, The Real News, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-07--Exxon to Congress: Lift Cyprus Arms Embargo, There’s Gas Nearby

This interview is about a collaborative investigation between The Intercept and The Real News Network .
It highlights a prior investigation published in December by The Real News into subsidies granted to European Union countries to promote gas projects .
Also see TRNN ’ s prior coverage of the climate impacts of offshore drilling in the Mediterranean Sea and the response of activists in the EU and Israel .
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Greg Wilpert : It ’ s The Real News Network , and I ’ m Greg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Congress passed and President Trump signed one of the main budget bills for 2020 .
Included in that bill was a legislative provision that got practically no media attention , but which will be of tremendous benefit for the oil company , Exxon Mobile .
The spending bill provides a range of financial assistance for the development of natural gas extraction off the coast of Israel and Cyprus .
This includes support for the construction of pipelines and liquified natural gas terminals Also , Congress repealed the prohibition of weapon sales to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since 1987 .
It also provided greater US military assistance to Greece and Cyprus , and instructed the US to maintain its predator drone fleet in the region .
So who all exactly might benefit from this practically unknown budget bill provision to support gas extraction in the Mediterranean ?
A joint investigation between The Real News Network and the Intercept explored just this issue .
The result of this investigation is being published by both outlets , together with this interview with the investigations two main authors , Steve Horn and Lee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me now .
Steve Horn is a climate reporter and producer for The Real News Network , and Lee Fang is an investigative journalist with The Intercept , where he focuses on how organized interest groups and money influence public policy .
Thanks for joining us today , Lee and Steve .
Steve Horn : Good to be here .
Thanks for having me .
Lee Fang : Yeah , thanks for having us .
Greg Wilpert : So let ’ s start with what this is all about .
I mean , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is so interested in supporting the development of offshore natural gas off the coast of Israel and Cyprus ?
That is , who benefits and who lobbied for this provision ?
Lee Fang : Well , look , over the last 10 years , there have been a series of natural gas discoveries off the coast of Israel and Cyprus .
This , of course , provides a lucrative opportunity for gas development companies .
And of course , it also provides a new realignment in the geopolitics of the region .
Israel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new coalition , a political agreement to develop these resources and to build a pipeline not only to exploit these resources for their own domestic benefit , but to also become natural gas exporters to Europe , where there ’ s a huge demand for natural gas .
So in terms of influencing Congress , you have two very powerful coalitions of players ; the three governments : Greece , Cyprus and Israel , which have considerable sway in Congress ; as well as the mostly American energy forums involved in this development @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which discovered one of the largest gas mines just over the last year off the coast of Cyprus .
So this is a powerful mix , in terms of influencing Congress .
This bill that you just discussed and that we were reporting on , this provision of omnibus never received committee hearing , never received an up or down vote , but it was tucked into this last-minute , must pass legislation , and signed into law with very little public discourse , very little debate .
But it goes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ muscle of those involved ; both in terms of the governments and the energy companies .
Steve Horn : Yeah , and I ’ ll add that I think that the companies themselves , they also got audiological interest groups on board , as we mentioned in the article ; so groups like the Christians United for Israel or the American Jewish Committee and also a pro-Greek group , plus foreign governments that were lobby for it that we found in the disclosures .
So they had both the companies … I guess @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they had the countries , and they had the ideological interest groups online with this bill , so it was definitely a force to be reckoned with in Washington .
Greg Wilpert : Hm .
Now , Steve , you previously did a story on another bill that was tucked into the budget , the European Energy Security and Diversification Act .
How are these two bills related to one another ?
Steve Horn : Yeah .
Well , I actually found out about this , the newest bill that Lee and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular piece of legislation , which is also tucked into the must pass budget .
And basically what that bill did , is it gave a billion dollars in subsidies to the European Commission for projects on its priority list .
There are dozens of projects on that list that are natural gas projects .
Included among that list is the East Med pipeline , which takes the exact pipeline that Lee was talking about , that will go through Greece and Cyprus , into the European Union countries .
So they definitely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And when I was talking to sources for that particular piece , I was told about this other piece of legislation .
So it ’ s not a coincidence that they passed in the same budget .
Greg Wilpert : And what does that other one do , exactly ?
I mean , it ’ s supposed to provide natural gas to Europe ?
Can you say a little bit more about that ?
Steve Horn : Yeah , so the East Med pipeline , which is on the projects list that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything that ’ s on that projects list .
I think the most important pipeline and one of the most important projects on the whole list is the East Med pipeline .
So that will go through Cyprus and Greece and culminate in Italy , actually , which I think goes back to who ’ s doing the drilling in this region .
It ’ s not only Exxon and Noble , it ’ s also Eni , which is an Italian company , and then [ Total 00:05:56 ] is another company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s really become a powerful one is the one between Exxon and Qatar Petroleum .
They have lots of joint ventures around the world , including in the United States , but also in the Mediterranean region .
So it ’ s definitely an alliance that ’ s formed between several countries .
Greg Wilpert : Hm .
Now , normally we hear that Congress is considered to be both sharply divided and generally gets little done .
Now , in that context , Lee , what does it say about this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Mediterranean ; that it was bipartisan ?
And how often do these types of provisions get inserted into budget bills , anyway ?
Lee Fang : Well , look , big picture , if you ’ re watching cable news or the mainstream political coverage , it does seem like Congress is completely broken ; that democrats and republicans are yelling at each other , they can ’ t get anything done .
But in the middle of the night , in a lot of these appropriation bills and other must pass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes place .
And actually , if you look over the last decade , whether it ’ s the Obama Administration or the Trump Administration , we see the natural gas lobby , the energy lobby pushing through the administrative level .
The State Department under both administrations has gone around the world promoting natural gas projects .
We ’ ve seen legislation expediting the approval of liquefied natural gas terminals in the US to export fracked natural gas from the US to the global market .
That ’ s something that Steve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great reporting on .
And in this latest bill in December , with very little debate , we see a number of special interest provisions tucked into this .
We reported on this pipeline deal , this militarization effort in Cyprus , which was , I think , a caveat that was just used to boost political support and reassure the government of Cyprus that they can go forward with this project because they ’ re under increasing pressure from Russia and Turkey .
But that ’ s not the only provision .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ tucked in .
Billions of dollars in Affordable Care Act taxes , taxes on the health insurance companies were also repealed in the same bill .
So this was a special goodie package .
As they say in Congress , a Christmas tree , because it comes around a holiday season .
It ’ s right when all the legislators want to go home , so they let the lobbyists and the special interest tuck these bills that never received any serious scrutiny , any serious debate in to this must pass legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t pass , the government shuts down and it becomes a crisis .
So they shoehorn these bills into these appropriation bills , and that ’ s how the real legislating really takes place in Washington .
Greg Wilpert : Now , Senator Robert Menendez , democratic co-author of this legislation , he actually openly mused that it marks a new frontier in US relations with Turkey .
Here ’ s how he described it on the Senate floor .
Robert Menendez : I traveled to Greece and Cyprus in the spring and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not not an anti-Turkey bill , and that we all wanted Turkey to be a constructive and democratic partner in the region .
At the time , this vision seemed a long ways off .
But now , given Erdoğan ’ s recent choice , it has become virtually impossible .
Greg Wilpert : Now , Steve , what recent choice of Turkey ’ s President Erdoğan is Menendez referring to , here ?
And how does this tie into the lifting of the arms embargo against Cyprus and the instructions for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the area ?
Steve Horn : Well , he ’ s referring to the sale of S-400 anti-missile defense units from Russia to Turkey , which happened in the middle of the year last year .
And that ’ s really when this bill started to move forward , although it wasn ’ t really covered that much by the media .
But you can look in press releases and you can see different maneuverings that were happening , that this is when the momentum really shifted on this provision .
And so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What does this mean , for why is there this shift in the policy ?
Why , in the bill , is it mentioned about the drones ?
It ’ s the fact that I think they realized that by pushing this policy , that it ’ s going to increase military tension .
And it already has .
In the weeks after this legislation passed , Turkey had a military presence in the region saying , “ Do not move forward with this plan.
” And even in the years before this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being done in the region , both Turkey and the United States had military presences in the region .
So when Exxon started drilling on an exploratory basis , the US military , coincidentally , we ’ ll say , was also in the region at the same time , though they denied that it had anything to do with Exxon doing the drilling .
And the same thing ; Turkey reacted when the Italian company , Eni , was drilling .
They actually blockaded Eni from doing that exploratory drilling .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I think that these clauses in the bill go to show that they know that there will be increasing military tension in the future in the region because of this law .
Greg Wilpert : Now , Lee and Steve , both of you , one of the things that your investigation does is explain the official lobbying that took place to push this legislation through Congress .
But other unofficial avenues of influence also exist for Exxon , particularly in Cyprus .
Isn ’ t that right ?
And what are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Let ’ s start with you , Lee .
Lee Fang : Well , I think this is a good question for Steve , but I just do want to note that for Exxon Mobile , and really many other massive corporations of that scale , these are companies that don ’ t just have in-house lobbyists that are working the halls of Capitol Hill ; they have a massive advocacy program .
They ’ re influencing legislators and regulators in the European Union and in countries all over the world simultaneously .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they provide a lot of money to think tanks and other organizations with academic credibility to pus their bills that benefit their bottom line .
But I ’ d let Steve talk a little bit more about the specific EU lobbying and Cyprus lobbying , since he reported more on that aspect .
Steve Horn : Yeah , well … Yeah , I think that Lee sort of led me in a good direction , there .
So I think the think tank side of this is so crucial .
So really , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started because of a report that was done by the Hudson Institute , which may be coincidentally , may be coincidentally not , received funding from Exxon the year after that report came out , calling for the lifting of the embargo and for increased drilling in the region .
So that ’ s the think tank side of this .
And I think as Jeremy Scahill has said before about think tanks , first they think , then come the tanks .
So this is a good example of that .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s really important that the US Chamber of Commerce has a global presence around the world through AmCham chapters .
And there ’ s an AmCham Cyprus within that particular node for the Chamber of Commerce .
On the Board of Directors sits one of the executives of Exxon Mobile Cyprus .
And then on top of that , that AmCham Cyprus receives funding from the US State Department through the Embassy in Cyprus .
So it really comes full circle , that Exxon has sort of captive the US State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its bidding in Cyprus through that Chamber of Commerce and through other avenues of influence .
Greg Wilpert : And before we conclude , I think there ’ s one issue that we haven ’ t really touched on , yet .
We talked earlier about who ’ s benefiting from this .
And clearly , there ’ s a number of different companies that are clearly benefiting ; Israel , Cyprus of course , Italy , the European Union , the United States , oil companies , et cetera .
But who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I mean , what ’ s the issue , in terms of who might be losing out by the fact that this deal came through , was made in secret ?
Lee Fang : Well , the clear obvious loser here is Turkey , and to a greater extent , Russia .
There ’ s kind of a great game being played , of pipelines being built to supply natural gas from our gas fields in Russia to the European Union ; some by way of Turkey .
And that ’ s where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s increasing tension as various regional powers compete for that market .
But the other big loser in this debate is climate change ; is human civilization .
Because as all of these countries , whether it ’ s Russia or Israel or the United States rapidly increasing the development of fossil fuels … Natural gas has been defended as a bridge fuel , and it indeed does have a lower carbon emissions footprint , but drilling operations related to natural gas release methane , which is another greenhouse gas .
And as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy companies searching for the next big gas find , drilling and allowing these methane leaks all are contributing to climate change .
Steve Horn : Yeah and the other major loser of this was the Turkish lobby , which I ’ ll mention real briefly ; is the fact that they , through the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus , which isn ’ t government-recognized , really , by the rest of the world .
But through that particular unit , they were lobbying the United States government against this bill through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Paul Manafort and Roger Stone called the Prime Policy Group .
So I think that that ’ s definitely a significant loss for the Turkish lobby in general ; not just … And then all the other things Lee mentioned .
Greg Wilpert : The [ inaudible 00:15:58 ] also connects with a story that we reported on earlier , having to do with Libya and Turkey ’ s involvement in Libya in order to access its natural gas resources .
But we ’ re going to leave it there for now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier story .
So I was speaking to Steve Horn , climate reporter and producer with The Real News Network ; and Lee Fang , investigative journalist with Intercept .
Thanks again , Steve and Lee , for having joined us today .
Lee Fang : Thanks for having us .
Steve Horn : Yeah , thanks for having us .
Greg Wilpert : And thank you for joining The Real News Network .

TRNN’s Steve Horn and The Intercept’s Lee Fang say a bill to lift the arms embargo on Cyprus and promote offshore gas in the region received lobbying support from ExxonMobil, and the pro-Israel and pro-Greece lobbies.
Story Transcript
This interview is about a collaborative investigation between The Intercept and The Real News Network.
It highlights a prior investigation published in December by The Real News into subsidies granted to European Union countries to promote gas projects.
Also see TRNN’s prior coverage of the climate impacts of offshore drilling in the Mediterranean Sea and the response of activists in the EU and Israel.
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Greg Wilpert: It’s The Real News Network, and I’m Greg Wilpert in Baltimore. Shortly before Christmas, Congress passed and President Trump signed one of the main budget bills for 2020. Included in that bill was a legislative provision that got practically no media attention, but which will be of tremendous benefit for the oil company, Exxon Mobile. The spending bill provides a range of financial assistance for the development of natural gas extraction off the coast of Israel and Cyprus. This includes support for the construction of pipelines and liquified natural gas terminals
Also, Congress repealed the prohibition of weapon sales to Cyprus, which have been in place since 1987. It also provided greater US military assistance to Greece and Cyprus, and instructed the US to maintain its predator drone fleet in the region.
So who all exactly might benefit from this practically unknown budget bill provision to support gas extraction in the Mediterranean? A joint investigation between The Real News Network and the Intercept explored just this issue. The result of this investigation is being published by both outlets, together with this interview with the investigations two main authors, Steve Horn and Lee Fang. They’re both joining me now. Steve Horn is a climate reporter and producer for The Real News Network, and Lee Fang is an investigative journalist with The Intercept, where he focuses on how organized interest groups and money influence public policy. Thanks for joining us today, Lee and Steve.
Steve Horn: Good to be here. Thanks for having me.
Lee Fang: Yeah, thanks for having us.
Greg Wilpert: So let’s start with what this is all about. I mean, Lee, why do you think Congress is so interested in supporting the development of offshore natural gas off the coast of Israel and Cyprus? That is, who benefits and who lobbied for this provision?
Lee Fang: Well, look, over the last 10 years, there have been a series of natural gas discoveries off the coast of Israel and Cyprus. This, of course, provides a lucrative opportunity for gas development companies. And of course, it also provides a new realignment in the geopolitics of the region. Israel, Cyprus and Greece have formed a new coalition, a political agreement to develop these resources and to build a pipeline not only to exploit these resources for their own domestic benefit, but to also become natural gas exporters to Europe, where there’s a huge demand for natural gas. So in terms of influencing Congress, you have two very powerful coalitions of players; the three governments: Greece, Cyprus and Israel, which have considerable sway in Congress; as well as the mostly American energy forums involved in this development: Noble Energy and primarily Exxon Mobile, which discovered one of the largest gas mines just over the last year off the coast of Cyprus.
So this is a powerful mix, in terms of influencing Congress. This bill that you just discussed and that we were reporting on, this provision of omnibus never received committee hearing, never received an up or down vote, but it was tucked into this last-minute, must pass legislation, and signed into law with very little public discourse, very little debate. But it goes to show the political influence, the political muscle of those involved; both in terms of the governments and the energy companies.
Steve Horn: Yeah, and I’ll add that I think that the companies themselves, they also got audiological interest groups on board, as we mentioned in the article; so groups like the Christians United for Israel or the American Jewish Committee and also a pro-Greek group, plus foreign governments that were lobby for it that we found in the disclosures. So they had both the companies … I guess the triumvirate; they had the companies, they had the countries, and they had the ideological interest groups online with this bill, so it was definitely a force to be reckoned with in Washington.
Greg Wilpert: Hm. Now, Steve, you previously did a story on another bill that was tucked into the budget, the European Energy Security and Diversification Act. How are these two bills related to one another?
Steve Horn: Yeah. Well, I actually found out about this, the newest bill that Lee and I wrote about from writing about this particular piece of legislation, which is also tucked into the must pass budget. And basically what that bill did, is it gave a billion dollars in subsidies to the European Commission for projects on its priority list. There are dozens of projects on that list that are natural gas projects. Included among that list is the East Med pipeline, which takes the exact pipeline that Lee was talking about, that will go through Greece and Cyprus, into the European Union countries. So they definitely have to be seen in tandem. And when I was talking to sources for that particular piece, I was told about this other piece of legislation. So it’s not a coincidence that they passed in the same budget.
Greg Wilpert: And what does that other one do, exactly? I mean, it’s supposed to provide natural gas to Europe? Can you say a little bit more about that?
Steve Horn: Yeah, so the East Med pipeline, which is on the projects list that’s … So the billion dollars is anything that’s on that projects list. I think the most important pipeline and one of the most important projects on the whole list is the East Med pipeline. So that will go through Cyprus and Greece and culminate in Italy, actually, which I think goes back to who’s doing the drilling in this region. It’s not only Exxon and Noble, it’s also Eni, which is an Italian company, and then [Total 00:05:56] is another company. And then another interesting alliance that’s really become a powerful one is the one between Exxon and Qatar Petroleum. They have lots of joint ventures around the world, including in the United States, but also in the Mediterranean region. So it’s definitely an alliance that’s formed between several countries.
Greg Wilpert: Hm. Now, normally we hear that Congress is considered to be both sharply divided and generally gets little done. Now, in that context, Lee, what does it say about this provision to support natural gas development in the Mediterranean; that it was bipartisan? And how often do these types of provisions get inserted into budget bills, anyway?
Lee Fang: Well, look, big picture, if you’re watching cable news or the mainstream political coverage, it does seem like Congress is completely broken; that democrats and republicans are yelling at each other, they can’t get anything done. But in the middle of the night, in a lot of these appropriation bills and other must pass legislation, is when the real legislating takes place. And actually, if you look over the last decade, whether it’s the Obama Administration or the Trump Administration, we see the natural gas lobby, the energy lobby pushing through the administrative level. The State Department under both administrations has gone around the world promoting natural gas projects. We’ve seen legislation expediting the approval of liquefied natural gas terminals in the US to export fracked natural gas from the US to the global market. That’s something that Steve’s also done a lot of great reporting on.
And in this latest bill in December, with very little debate, we see a number of special interest provisions tucked into this. We reported on this pipeline deal, this militarization effort in Cyprus, which was, I think, a caveat that was just used to boost political support and reassure the government of Cyprus that they can go forward with this project because they’re under increasing pressure from Russia and Turkey. But that’s not the only provision. There are many other provisions that were tucked in. Billions of dollars in Affordable Care Act taxes, taxes on the health insurance companies were also repealed in the same bill. So this was a special goodie package. As they say in Congress, a Christmas tree, because it comes around a holiday season. It’s right when all the legislators want to go home, so they let the lobbyists and the special interest tuck these bills that never received any serious scrutiny, any serious debate in to this must pass legislation, that if the legislation doesn’t pass, the government shuts down and it becomes a crisis.
So they shoehorn these bills into these appropriation bills, and that’s how the real legislating really takes place in Washington.
Greg Wilpert: Now, Senator Robert Menendez, democratic co-author of this legislation, he actually openly mused that it marks a new frontier in US relations with Turkey. Here’s how he described it on the Senate floor.
Robert Menendez: I traveled to Greece and Cyprus in the spring and told leaders in both places that this was not not an anti-Turkey bill, and that we all wanted Turkey to be a constructive and democratic partner in the region. At the time, this vision seemed a long ways off. But now, given Erdoğan’s recent choice, it has become virtually impossible.
Greg Wilpert: Now, Steve, what recent choice of Turkey’s President Erdoğan is Menendez referring to, here? And how does this tie into the lifting of the arms embargo against Cyprus and the instructions for the predator drone fleet to remain in the area?
Steve Horn: Well, he’s referring to the sale of S-400 anti-missile defense units from Russia to Turkey, which happened in the middle of the year last year. And that’s really when this bill started to move forward, although it wasn’t really covered that much by the media. But you can look in press releases and you can see different maneuverings that were happening, that this is when the momentum really shifted on this provision. And so I think that sort of the … What does this mean, for why is there this shift in the policy? Why, in the bill, is it mentioned about the drones? It’s the fact that I think they realized that by pushing this policy, that it’s going to increase military tension. And it already has. In the weeks after this legislation passed, Turkey had a military presence in the region saying, “Do not move forward with this plan.” And even in the years before this legislation passed, when exploratory drilling was being done in the region, both Turkey and the United States had military presences in the region. So when Exxon started drilling on an exploratory basis, the US military, coincidentally, we’ll say, was also in the region at the same time, though they denied that it had anything to do with Exxon doing the drilling. And the same thing; Turkey reacted when the Italian company, Eni, was drilling. They actually blockaded Eni from doing that exploratory drilling.
So there’s already been military tension. I think that these clauses in the bill go to show that they know that there will be increasing military tension in the future in the region because of this law.
Greg Wilpert: Now, Lee and Steve, both of you, one of the things that your investigation does is explain the official lobbying that took place to push this legislation through Congress. But other unofficial avenues of influence also exist for Exxon, particularly in Cyprus. Isn’t that right? And what are they? How do they work? Let’s start with you, Lee.
Lee Fang: Well, I think this is a good question for Steve, but I just do want to note that for Exxon Mobile, and really many other massive corporations of that scale, these are companies that don’t just have in-house lobbyists that are working the halls of Capitol Hill; they have a massive advocacy program. They’re influencing legislators and regulators in the European Union and in countries all over the world simultaneously. They have third party advocacy groups, they provide a lot of money to think tanks and other organizations with academic credibility to pus their bills that benefit their bottom line.
But I’d let Steve talk a little bit more about the specific EU lobbying and Cyprus lobbying, since he reported more on that aspect.
Steve Horn: Yeah, well … Yeah, I think that Lee sort of led me in a good direction, there. So I think the think tank side of this is so crucial. So really, the narrative on lifting the arms embargo started because of a report that was done by the Hudson Institute, which may be coincidentally, may be coincidentally not, received funding from Exxon the year after that report came out, calling for the lifting of the embargo and for increased drilling in the region. So that’s the think tank side of this. And I think as Jeremy Scahill has said before about think tanks, first they think, then come the tanks. So this is a good example of that.
And then I’ll also note that it’s really important that the US Chamber of Commerce has a global presence around the world through AmCham chapters. And there’s an AmCham Cyprus within that particular node for the Chamber of Commerce. On the Board of Directors sits one of the executives of Exxon Mobile Cyprus. And then on top of that, that AmCham Cyprus receives funding from the US State Department through the Embassy in Cyprus. So it really comes full circle, that Exxon has sort of captive the US State Department and the US State Department doing its bidding in Cyprus through that Chamber of Commerce and through other avenues of influence.
Greg Wilpert: And before we conclude, I think there’s one issue that we haven’t really touched on, yet. We talked earlier about who’s benefiting from this. And clearly, there’s a number of different companies that are clearly benefiting; Israel, Cyprus of course, Italy, the European Union, the United States, oil companies, et cetera. But who is losing from all of this? I mean, what’s the issue, in terms of who might be losing out by the fact that this deal came through, was made in secret?
Lee Fang: Well, the clear obvious loser here is Turkey, and to a greater extent, Russia. There’s kind of a great game being played, of pipelines being built to supply natural gas from our gas fields in Russia to the European Union; some by way of Turkey. And that’s where the militarization comes in because there’s increasing tension as various regional powers compete for that market.
But the other big loser in this debate is climate change; is human civilization. Because as all of these countries, whether it’s Russia or Israel or the United States rapidly increasing the development of fossil fuels … Natural gas has been defended as a bridge fuel, and it indeed does have a lower carbon emissions footprint, but drilling operations related to natural gas release methane, which is another greenhouse gas. And as we see the entire world, major energy companies searching for the next big gas find, drilling and allowing these methane leaks all are contributing to climate change.
Steve Horn: Yeah and the other major loser of this was the Turkish lobby, which I’ll mention real briefly; is the fact that they, through the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which isn’t government-recognized, really, by the rest of the world. But through that particular unit, they were lobbying the United States government against this bill through a firm that’s affiliated formerly with Paul Manafort and Roger Stone called the Prime Policy Group. So I think that that’s definitely a significant loss for the Turkish lobby in general; not just … And then all the other things Lee mentioned.
Greg Wilpert: The [inaudible 00:15:58] also connects with a story that we reported on earlier, having to do with Libya and Turkey’s involvement in Libya in order to access its natural gas resources. But we’re going to leave it there for now and just refer our viewers to that earlier story.
So I was speaking to Steve Horn, climate reporter and producer with The Real News Network; and Lee Fang, investigative journalist with Intercept. Thanks again, Steve and Lee, for having joined us today.
Lee Fang: Thanks for having us.
Steve Horn: Yeah, thanks for having us.
Greg Wilpert: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.
Studio: Will Arenas, Cameron Granadino
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Cameron Granadino, Steve Horn, Andrew Corkery
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-10--Michael Moore: It’s Disqualifying to be Funded by Billionaires

All donations in the US and Canada are tax deductible .
To make a secure donation by credit or debit @ @ @ @ @ location , or select PayPal .

Jaisal is currently the Democracy Initiative Manager at the Solutions Journalism Network and is a former TRNN host, producer, and reporter. He mainly grew up in the Baltimore area and studied modern history at the University of Maryland, College Park. Before joining TRNN, he contributed print, radio, and TV reports to Free Speech Radio News, Democracy Now! and The Indypendent. Jaisal's mother has taught in the Baltimore City Public School system for the past 25 years. Follow him on Twitter @jaisalnoor.


therealnews--2020-02-10--Sex Workers Are Organizing, and Voters Are With Them

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Kim Brown : Welcome to The Real News .
I ’ m Kim Brown .
The so-called illegal vices of the 20th century have been falling by the wayside over the last 10 years or so .
Half of America and all of Canada can legally purchase marijuana .
Casinos and gambling are being welcomed by a notable number of state governments .
But what about sex for money , also known as prostitution , but better referred to as sex work ?
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tank Data for Progress , it found that 51 % of all voters support decriminalizing sex work altogether , which marks a definite shift in attitudes on this issue .
And today we ’ re joined by Melissa Gira Grant .
She ’ s a journalist who wrote a piece titled The New Majority Behind Sex Work Decriminalization , which appears in The New Republic .
It definitely represents a shifting of attitudes on this issue .
Melissa , thank you so much for speaking with us .
Melissa Grant : Hi , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So your article outlines the many complexities about this issue , from local law enforcement to federal policies in which some 2020 presidential candidates are involved , to the immense grassroots organizing supporting sex workers .
But let ’ s start with the basics .
How is sex work currently criminalized and what does Decrim look like ?
Melissa Grant : Well , as you noted at the top , sex work is mostly regarded under the law as a kind of vice , a kind of illicit activity , and where people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sex work under the law as employment , as work .
So right now selling sex , buying sex , running a business where sex is sold and having third parties involved in that , which sometimes are called pimps , but other times are people who might be answering the phone for you or providing security for you .
There ’ s a range of relationships that people have to help them do sex work .
No one is really on their own 100 % , nor should they be .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sex work much more dangerous for people .
And the change that people want to see is the ability for sex workers to work safely .
Kim Brown : So sex work has long been legal in the Netherlands and has been decriminalized recently in New Zealand .
So how has that been working out ?
Melissa Grant : Well , New Zealand decriminalized sex work in 2005 , and I think one of the most interesting things about the way that they did it is that sex workers were involved in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies that would follow .
And they were also part of the evaluation , the how did it go apart .
And some of the highlights reported by sex workers themselves are that they feel more able to reject customers , they feel more able to resist abusive management practices .
They ’ re more able to report acts of violence against them .
And the one thing about New Zealand , it ’ s important to note , is their system of decriminalization didn ’ t extend to migrants .
So if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zealand , you are still criminalized .
That is not the system people want to see in the United States .
They want to see everyone able to legally do sex work who is of age and of consent .
Kim Brown : Right .
And the local efforts advocating for sex workers rights has been an outgrowth of activist work around a number of other movements , including Black Lives Matter , Immigrants ’ Rights , and supporting the New Deal .
So how do all of these issues intersect ?
Melissa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a groundswell of progressive energy in the country right now , whether that ’ s the Green New Deal or Medicare for All .
I think the biggest impact on sex workers rights was around today 2014 with the rise of the movement for black lives and just a shift in the way that mainstream media covered violence by police .
It ’ s a huge problem that sex workers face as well .
And to have those connections out there for people to make , the idea that police could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that enabled sex workers to enter into that conversation .
And there are also sex workers of color who have been organizing for years around these issues .
Some of the most visible and famous members of the LGBTQ movement , Sylvia Rivera , Marsha P. Johnson , were both women of color , trans women and had also sold sex for money to survive .
So this is nothing new , but it is bringing all of these pieces together for the first time in a way that I think the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that if we are in favor of progressive healthcare , if we are in favor of holding police accountable , that sex worker decriminalization is part of that .
Kim Brown : So who opposes sex work being decriminalized ?
Who wants to keep sex workers and the work that they do illegal ?
Melissa Grant : The police .
If sex work is a crime then that gives the police power and control over the lives of sex workers and anti-prostitution laws are used in many cities , including here in New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop-and-frisk , mostly focusing on trans women of color and cis women of color .
So police would like to keep that tool in their toolbox so that they can further police communities of color and poor communities in the ways that we know they have for decades .
And that doesn ’ t keep us any safer , but it gives the police more to do .
There ’ s also been a longstanding debate in some liberal circles , particularly among liberal feminists , that if sex work were legal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the practice of sex work .
And those voices are still present and I would say until recently those voices also had a little more influence over public policy , but we see that changing .
Kim Brown : So let ’ s discuss that , actually , the actions at the federal level around this .
I was someone who was not super familiar with the legislation around sex work , but I did see a lot of conversation on social media around the new law that was passed in April 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And some of the comments that I read , they feared that if passed or when these bills were put into law that they would do more harm than good for sex workers .
So can you describe what the SESTA and FOSTA laws are or they are the same law ?
Explain that to me if you could .
Melissa Grant : Sure .
So SESTA is the Senate version , FOSTA ’ s the House version .
Both acronyms refer to going after online providers , websites , social media platforms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harbor or enable trafficking .
The actual impact of the law , which you were seeing on social media , is that it doesn ’ t differentiate between people who are engaged in sex work consensually and people who are trafficked and are in situations of violence and abuse .
So what this means is as soon as this law passed , in fact , as soon as it passed the Senate , before Trump even signed it into law , websites that sex workers had used to place advertisements or to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at work , including keeping lists of dangerous clients .
Those websites started to vanish from the internet complete .
We ’ re also seeing a lot more policing on social media sites like Facebook and Instagram .
Labeling content that sex workers create that has nothing to do with actually doing sex work , but that is seen as potentially in violation of this law .
The individuals posting the content wouldn ’ t be responsible , but the platforms where it is hosted would be , and so what Congress did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to kick sex workers off their platforms and or face legal consequences .
Kim Brown : So talk to us .
I want you to elaborate about that some because it seems , or at least what I ’ m able to glean , is that there was a vacuum that was created when pages or sites like Backpage went away off the internet .
How has that impacted , I guess the safety and the ability for sex workers to ply their trade in the most safe way possible ?
Melissa Grant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ websites means losing control over their work .
So now you have to go work for a particular boss or in a particular venue to bring you customers , or you have to go out onto the street or in public to find customers .
It ’ s a different ballgame in the sex industry , and it has been this way for the past 20 years or so .
To have control over how you advertise , to have control over which customers you see , to get a chance to vet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ share that information with other sex workers to see if they ’ ve been flagged as dangerous .
That became so much harder , if not impossible .
And particularly for sex workers who were already in economic distress , who already were marginally housed , just losing one day ’ s worth of work could be enough to render you homeless .
And I spoke to sex workers who were in that situation when Backpage went down .
The thing to note about Backpage is that this entire law was sold to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was needed to take Backpage down when in fact Backpage went down before the law was signed .
And the law was not used against Backpage , which I think just leads to the perception that what this law was actually about was getting sex workers off the internet by creating this sort of environment where websites were going to proactively police them .
The law still hasn ’ t been used .
There are no prosecutions under the law .
Really what it was meant to do , I think , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this perception that sex trafficking was rife on the internet and so it was okay to take away people ’ s free speech access in order to attack it .
Kim Brown : What this kind of sounds like to me , Melissa , is that sex work is not able to be corporatized in the same way that legal marijuana and legalized gambling has been .
Is that why it ’ s a mess in terms of the laws surrounding so-called protections around these workers ?
Melissa Grant : This has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
Particularly if you look at the history in the years right after emancipation when you have more black women trying to find their own way to survive and work that they can do in the face and discrimination and sex work is there for you .
Sex work is something that actually gives people more power and control and economic choice in their life .
So yes , that is something that you can imagine why governments would want to restrict that or make that harder for people or take it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you want to think about it like a corporatized model of sex work , look at strip clubs .
Something that happened also over the last few decades is that we have more and more corporate consolidation of strip clubs .
There are fewer and fewer companies that own more and more clubs .
In some cities the same owner might actually own five or six clubs , but they ’ re all branded differently .
So that ’ s really harmed dancer ’ s ability to have control over their work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these very top down corporate policies .
They lose control of work as well .
That is something that like legal marijuana , I think people would not like to see a model of that roll out across the sex industry because we know that it takes power away from workers .
Kim Brown : So Melissa , is this a presidential election issue ?
And if it isn ’ t , why should it be ?
Melissa Grant : I don ’ t know how it became a presidential election issue .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ other presidential election that I ’ ve lived through .
But I think because of this larger swing to the left , because sex workers have become more visible after SESTA/FOSTA and all the protests against that , it created a space where for the first time sex workers could make demands of candidates to actually step up and support them .
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders , who like almost everyone in the Senate voted for SESTA/FOSTA , have since endorsed a bill to study these harmful effects .
That might be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another direction , and both of their campaigns have said they are open or interested in exploring the possibility of decriminalization .
They have not come out and said they support decriminalization fully .
Kamala Harris likewise has made comments that were about sex work decriminalization , but also still kind of vague .
But it ’ s very clear that even at this level of policy there ’ s a lot of education to do on just basic terminology with what do we mean by decriminalization ?
What do we mean by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brown : I suggest if you haven ’ t already checked out the piece you need to do so .
It ’ s very comprehensive and well sourced .
The piece is titled The New Majority Behind Sex Work Decriminalization .
It ’ s in The New Republic and it ’ s written by journalist , Melissa Gira Grant .
She ’ s been joining us today from New York City .
Melissa , thank you so much for speaking with us .
Kim Brown : And thank you for watching The Real @ @ @

Grassroots organizing is giving the movement to decriminalize sex work unexpected traction this election cycle. Focus on specific policies instead of data helped show the real level of support for what’s been called a nationally divisive issue.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Kim Brown: Welcome to The Real News. I’m Kim Brown. The so-called illegal vices of the 20th century have been falling by the wayside over the last 10 years or so. Half of America and all of Canada can legally purchase marijuana. Casinos and gambling are being welcomed by a notable number of state governments. But what about sex for money, also known as prostitution, but better referred to as sex work?
According to a recent poll conducted by the think tank Data for Progress, it found that 51% of all voters support decriminalizing sex work altogether, which marks a definite shift in attitudes on this issue. And today we’re joined by Melissa Gira Grant. She’s a journalist who wrote a piece titled The New Majority Behind Sex Work Decriminalization, which appears in The New Republic. It definitely represents a shifting of attitudes on this issue.
Melissa, thank you so much for speaking with us.
Melissa Grant: Hi, thanks so much.
Kim Brown: So your article outlines the many complexities about this issue, from local law enforcement to federal policies in which some 2020 presidential candidates are involved, to the immense grassroots organizing supporting sex workers. But let’s start with the basics. How is sex work currently criminalized and what does Decrim look like?
Melissa Grant: Well, as you noted at the top, sex work is mostly regarded under the law as a kind of vice, a kind of illicit activity, and where people want to move things to is treating sex work under the law as employment, as work. So right now selling sex, buying sex, running a business where sex is sold and having third parties involved in that, which sometimes are called pimps, but other times are people who might be answering the phone for you or providing security for you. There’s a range of relationships that people have to help them do sex work. No one is really on their own 100%, nor should they be. So when that is illegal, it makes sex work much more dangerous for people. And the change that people want to see is the ability for sex workers to work safely.
Kim Brown: So sex work has long been legal in the Netherlands and has been decriminalized recently in New Zealand. So how has that been working out?
Melissa Grant: Well, New Zealand decriminalized sex work in 2005, and I think one of the most interesting things about the way that they did it is that sex workers were involved in the process of crafting the new laws and policies that would follow. And they were also part of the evaluation, the how did it go apart. And some of the highlights reported by sex workers themselves are that they feel more able to reject customers, they feel more able to resist abusive management practices. They’re more able to report acts of violence against them. And the one thing about New Zealand, it’s important to note, is their system of decriminalization didn’t extend to migrants. So if you are an immigrant worker in New Zealand, you are still criminalized. That is not the system people want to see in the United States. They want to see everyone able to legally do sex work who is of age and of consent.
Kim Brown: Right. And the local efforts advocating for sex workers rights has been an outgrowth of activist work around a number of other movements, including Black Lives Matter, Immigrants’ Rights, and supporting the New Deal. So how do all of these issues intersect?
Melissa Grant: I think there’s just a groundswell of progressive energy in the country right now, whether that’s the Green New Deal or Medicare for All. I think the biggest impact on sex workers rights was around today 2014 with the rise of the movement for black lives and just a shift in the way that mainstream media covered violence by police. It’s a huge problem that sex workers face as well. And to have those connections out there for people to make, the idea that police could be a source of violence or harm, that enabled sex workers to enter into that conversation. And there are also sex workers of color who have been organizing for years around these issues. Some of the most visible and famous members of the LGBTQ movement, Sylvia Rivera, Marsha P. Johnson, were both women of color, trans women and had also sold sex for money to survive.
So this is nothing new, but it is bringing all of these pieces together for the first time in a way that I think the public is connecting the dots and can see that if we are in favor of progressive healthcare, if we are in favor of holding police accountable, that sex worker decriminalization is part of that.
Kim Brown: So who opposes sex work being decriminalized? Who wants to keep sex workers and the work that they do illegal?
Melissa Grant: The police. If sex work is a crime then that gives the police power and control over the lives of sex workers and anti-prostitution laws are used in many cities, including here in New York as sort of a form of stop-and-frisk, mostly focusing on trans women of color and cis women of color. So police would like to keep that tool in their toolbox so that they can further police communities of color and poor communities in the ways that we know they have for decades. And that doesn’t keep us any safer, but it gives the police more to do.
There’s also been a longstanding debate in some liberal circles, particularly among liberal feminists, that if sex work were legal, that it would somehow condone or endorse the practice of sex work. And those voices are still present and I would say until recently those voices also had a little more influence over public policy, but we see that changing.
Kim Brown: So let’s discuss that, actually, the actions at the federal level around this. I was someone who was not super familiar with the legislation around sex work, but I did see a lot of conversation on social media around the new law that was passed in April 2018 with the acronyms SESTA and FOSTA. And some of the comments that I read, they feared that if passed or when these bills were put into law that they would do more harm than good for sex workers. So can you describe what the SESTA and FOSTA laws are or they are the same law? Explain that to me if you could.
Melissa Grant: Sure. So SESTA is the Senate version, FOSTA’s the House version. Both acronyms refer to going after online providers, websites, social media platforms, et cetera, who they believe Harbor or enable trafficking. The actual impact of the law, which you were seeing on social media, is that it doesn’t differentiate between people who are engaged in sex work consensually and people who are trafficked and are in situations of violence and abuse. So what this means is as soon as this law passed, in fact, as soon as it passed the Senate, before Trump even signed it into law, websites that sex workers had used to place advertisements or to have community conversations about how to stay safe at work, including keeping lists of dangerous clients. Those websites started to vanish from the internet complete.
We’re also seeing a lot more policing on social media sites like Facebook and Instagram. Labeling content that sex workers create that has nothing to do with actually doing sex work, but that is seen as potentially in violation of this law. The individuals posting the content wouldn’t be responsible, but the platforms where it is hosted would be, and so what Congress did is essentially give Facebook and Twitter license to kick sex workers off their platforms and or face legal consequences.
Kim Brown: So talk to us. I want you to elaborate about that some because it seems, or at least what I’m able to glean, is that there was a vacuum that was created when pages or sites like Backpage went away off the internet. How has that impacted, I guess the safety and the ability for sex workers to ply their trade in the most safe way possible?
Melissa Grant: For sex workers to work without websites means losing control over their work. So now you have to go work for a particular boss or in a particular venue to bring you customers, or you have to go out onto the street or in public to find customers. It’s a different ballgame in the sex industry, and it has been this way for the past 20 years or so. To have control over how you advertise, to have control over which customers you see, to get a chance to vet them over email or phone, to share that information with other sex workers to see if they’ve been flagged as dangerous. That became so much harder, if not impossible. And particularly for sex workers who were already in economic distress, who already were marginally housed, just losing one day’s worth of work could be enough to render you homeless. And I spoke to sex workers who were in that situation when Backpage went down.
The thing to note about Backpage is that this entire law was sold to the public on the premise that it was needed to take Backpage down when in fact Backpage went down before the law was signed. And the law was not used against Backpage, which I think just leads to the perception that what this law was actually about was getting sex workers off the internet by creating this sort of environment where websites were going to proactively police them. The law still hasn’t been used. There are no prosecutions under the law. Really what it was meant to do, I think, was to scare these websites and to create this perception that sex trafficking was rife on the internet and so it was okay to take away people’s free speech access in order to attack it.
Kim Brown: What this kind of sounds like to me, Melissa, is that sex work is not able to be corporatized in the same way that legal marijuana and legalized gambling has been. Is that why it’s a mess in terms of the laws surrounding so-called protections around these workers?
Melissa Grant: This has been true in the United States for 100 years. Particularly if you look at the history in the years right after emancipation when you have more black women trying to find their own way to survive and work that they can do in the face and discrimination and sex work is there for you. Sex work is something that actually gives people more power and control and economic choice in their life. So yes, that is something that you can imagine why governments would want to restrict that or make that harder for people or take it away entirely.
But I would say if you want to think about it like a corporatized model of sex work, look at strip clubs. Something that happened also over the last few decades is that we have more and more corporate consolidation of strip clubs. There are fewer and fewer companies that own more and more clubs. In some cities the same owner might actually own five or six clubs, but they’re all branded differently. So that’s really harmed dancer’s ability to have control over their work where now they’re subject to these very top down corporate policies. They lose control of work as well. That is something that like legal marijuana, I think people would not like to see a model of that roll out across the sex industry because we know that it takes power away from workers.
Kim Brown: So Melissa, is this a presidential election issue? And if it isn’t, why should it be?
Melissa Grant: I don’t know how it became a presidential election issue. It certainly never had been in any other presidential election that I’ve lived through. But I think because of this larger swing to the left, because sex workers have become more visible after SESTA/FOSTA and all the protests against that, it created a space where for the first time sex workers could make demands of candidates to actually step up and support them.
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who like almost everyone in the Senate voted for SESTA/FOSTA, have since endorsed a bill to study these harmful effects. That might be a sign that they are moving in another direction, and both of their campaigns have said they are open or interested in exploring the possibility of decriminalization. They have not come out and said they support decriminalization fully. Kamala Harris likewise has made comments that were about sex work decriminalization, but also still kind of vague. But it’s very clear that even at this level of policy there’s a lot of education to do on just basic terminology with what do we mean by decriminalization? What do we mean by legalization? Who actually benefits?
Kim Brown: I suggest if you haven’t already checked out the piece you need to do so. It’s very comprehensive and well sourced. The piece is titled The New Majority Behind Sex Work Decriminalization. It’s in The New Republic and it’s written by journalist, Melissa Gira Grant. She’s been joining us today from New York City. Melissa, thank you so much for speaking with us.
Melissa Grant: Thanks again.
Kim Brown: And thank you for watching The Real News Network.
Studio: Dwayne Gladden, Adam Coley
Production: Genevieve Montinar
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-10--US Sanctions Venezuela Again to Prove Socialism Doesn’t Work

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Greg Wolpert : Welcome to the Real News Network .
I ’ m Greg Wolpert in Arlington , Virginia .
The Trump administration is promising more and yet harsher sanctions on Venezuela once again .
The sanctions announcement came in two forms this week .
First , from an unnamed government officials speaking to reporters who said that the new sanctions would be crippling and impactful measures , and that Trump instructed all parts of the US government to use all of the tools at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maduro and his cronies .
Then on Thursday , the Trump administration ’ s special representative for Venezuela , Elliott Abrams , announced that quote , “ Russians may soon find that their continued support of Maduro will no longer be cost-free.
” All of this comes on the heels of a very warm bipartisan reception that Venezuela ’ s opposition leader and self-declared parallel president Juan Guaidó received during Trump ’ s State of the Union address on Tuesday .
Donald Trump : here this evening .
It ’ s a very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hopes , dreams , and aspirations of all Venezuelans .
Joining us in the gallery is the true and legitimate president of Venezuela , Juan Guaidó .
Mr. President , please take this message back to your [ inaudible 00:01:16 ] .
Socialism destroys nations , but always remember freedom unifies the soul .
Greg Wolpert : Joining me to analyze all of this is Guillaume Long .
He is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Economic and Policy Research , CEPR .
Prior to joining CEPR , he held several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including minister of foreign affairs .
Thanks for joining us again and Guillaume .
Greg Wolpert : So let me start with the reception that Guaidó received in Congress on Tuesday where Trump clearly linked to Venezuela ’ s economic crisis to socialism .
Now , this was part of his larger dig against socialism as a concept , but also against some members of Congress , particularly presidential candidate Bernie Sanders , who calls himself a democratic socialist .
Then house speaker Nancy Pelosi also gave Guaidó a warm reception on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of her and Guaidó .
Nancy Pelosi : Good afternoon , everyone .
It was a great honor to welcome to the Capitol , who we consider to be the president of Venezuela .
We were all thrilled that he was at the State of the Union address the other day and received such an overwhelming bipartisan welcome to the Capitol .
We believe that the plight of the people of Venezuela is a challenge to the conscience of the world and we will all stay with you , Mr. President , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what do you make of this bipartisan support for Guaidó , who Trump and others called the legitimate president of Venezuela , but who does not actually control anything in Venezuela ?
Why do you think Pelosi and Trump , despite their animosity towards each other , which was on display at the State of the Union speech , why do they find so much agreement on this issue ?
Guillaume Long : Well , I think this has to do with a broader trend in US politics , and a general consensus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There hasn ’ t been a fundamental break in foreign policy , I would say in the world , but certainly towards Latin America , between different administrations in the United States .
What some people call liberal internationalism , what I maybe would call liberal imperialism , very much applies to many Democrats , particularly right wing Democrats to call them that .
So I ’ m not really surprised .
I mean , if you think of Venezuela in particular , it was President Obama who first started raising the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declaring it , Venezuela , a threat to us national security in 2015 and eventually that got the ball rolling for sanctions in August 2017 , and then again in January 2018 , and so it ’ s gone , it ’ s grown and it ’ s gone in crescendo , but it actually started during the Obama administration .
So I ’ m not particularly surprised there .
As you said , I think Venezuela plays a role in domestic politics .
It has done in Latin America for years now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right to try and attack the left because Venezuela has been struggling economically now for several years .
Particularly so since the sanctions have been heightened , and therefore you know it ’ s a useful tool to attack the left .
It ’ s been done in Latin America , it ’ s been done in Europe .
The left in Europe has been systematically attacked .
Oh , look at socialism and its failures in Venezuela .
This is what you want to do , and so on and so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s clearly going to be done during this presidential campaign in the United States .
Greg Wolpert : Well , that ’ s what I wanted to turn to next is actually the role of the sanctions .
That is as I mentioned , Trump has announced a new round of sanctions .
It ’ s a kind of an open question as to what else can be sanctioned considering that there ’ s basically an economic blockade going on against Venezuela at the moment , and the sanctions as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crippling blow against Venezuelan economy .
But they ’ ve actually not worked .
I mean , that is in terms of their stated goal of getting rid of Maduro and forcing him to resign .
So I guess the question is also , you mentioned this already .
Some of the issues that perhaps there ’ s other reasons for the sanctions also considering that US companies seem to have received some exemptions .
I was wondering if you could say more about that as to what the different reasons could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re having on the Venezuelan economy .
Guillaume Long : So I agree that essentially I think the exercise this week is essentially rhetorical .
I agree with you .
I don ’ t see how they can significantly increase the aggressiveness of these sanctions .
The current sanctions on Venezuela are extremely aggressive .
They are crippling the economy .
Actually CEPR , the organization I work for , published a paper on the effect of the sanctions that were implemented after August 2017 and how those in 2017 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Venezuela .
Now since January 2019 , we have an extra layer of sanctions , and we haven ’ t yet got a clear idea about the exact number of victims .
We have a general idea of its effect on health care , on social provisions , on the immigration crisis , which has affected the region as a whole .
Venezuelans leaving their country to look for jobs and for some stability elsewhere .
So on and so forth .
So these sanctions have been , as often US sanctions are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very socially harmful .
Completely illegal , of course .
It ’ s important to remember that they contravene international law .
These are not UN sanctions .
They ’ re unilateral corrosive economic measures , and I can ’ t see that whatever the rumor is about intensifying them , how that would change the situation .
Certainly sanctions have failed so far to achieve regime change , and I don ’ t think they ’ re going to succeed in changing the regime henceforth .
So I think the main reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We ’ ve seen the attack on socialism , bringing Venezuela always back into the national debate .
I actually think it is going to play a big role for President Trump ’ s reelection bid and his system of alliances in Florida with people like Marco Rubio , with the Cuban immigrant community , with the Venezuelan immigrant community .
Whether that is a good electoral calculation or not is a different issue because I think the Venezuelan issue does not work throughout the Latino community in the United States .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of his pattern of alliances within the Republican party and particularly with people such as Marco Rubio and so on .
Greg Wolpert : Yeah .
I think also , of course , the Democrats are probably playing a part in that effort to win over the Latino vote , and therefore you see Nancy Pelosi supporting the policy , aside from the issue that you mentioned earlier about the bipartisan nature of foreign policy .
But I want to move also to the issue of how people in Latin America are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many right wing and conservative governments right now in Latin America are actually supporting US foreign policy towards Venezuela .
But that ’ s not necessarily the same as kind of the general sense among the the intellectuals and among the people who are aware of what ’ s happening in terms of US policy towards Venezuela .
How do you think it ’ s being received more generally ?
That is , with Latin American history of suspicion towards US foreign policy and particularly the rejection of the Monroe doctrine , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to intervene anywhere in Latin America .
How do you see this policy being received , let ’ s say , behind the scenes in Latin America ?
Guillaume Long : So specifically with some of the right wing governments in Latin America and many of them recognize the Guaidó government and are kind of aligned with United States on the policy towards Venezuela .
But over the last few months we ’ ve seen a number of right wing governments getting colder feet , I would say , with regards to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beginning , the group of Lima was very aggressive , and they were hoping to have a swift , well , to be successful , quickly , to have regime change in Venezuela quickly .
This didn ’ t happen .
We ’ re seeing little by little a number of countries within the Lima group as sort of being a little bit more cautious because at the end of the day if you recognize Guaidó and you don ’ t have any type of diplomatic relations with the Maduro government , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t negotiate a number of things , including with regards to immigration .
Immigration of Venezuelans , we were talking about .
There ’ s just been a high profile case of a Colombian criminal who ’ s a former congresswoman who ’ s sought refuge in Venezuela , and the president of Colombia , Duque , wrote a letter to Guaidó to hand her over .
I mean , it ’ s incredibly ironic or verging on surreal given that Guaidó doesn ’ t control the sovereignty , the institutions , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there ’ s there ’ s no institutional hold on behalf of this Guaidó sort of shadow government that ’ s recognized by some and obviously Guaidó is incapable of handing over this person wanted by Colombia .
So we ’ re in a surreal world where the recognition of Guaidó on behalf of a number of Latin American countries and not of Maduro is creating problems for these Latin American governments , which is why you ’ re seeing the new right wing elected government of Uruguay saying , “ Hey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go down that road because it ’ s not helpful.
” Also a few governments sort of center left or on the progressive side of things having been elected in the last year or so .
So Mexico first and now Argentina moving away from the Lima group , its policies , and from recognizing Guaidó .
Given that within Venezuela Guaidó is not getting any more support , even the Venezuelan opposition has sort of taken its distance from Guaidó , that has an impact on the rest of Latin America .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wing governments .
But generally speaking ?
Yeah .
I think all these policies that we ’ re seeing on behalf of the United States under the Trump administration , they ’ re very aggressive policies , they ’ re very right wing policies .
They ’ re supporting a regime change in Venezuela , and we ’ ve just seen it now .
They supported effective regime change in Bolivia , this alliance with the far right , including with a Bolsonaro government in Brazil and so on and so forth .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is treating Latin America as its backyard is going to have , sooner or later , a boomerang effect .
It ’ s exactly what pulls the pink tide in the first place , this kind of victorious hegemony of the United States in the ’ 90s imposing neoliberalism and a very sort of imperial approach to to that region caused a leftist backlash .
A pro sovereignty , backlash if you , if you like .
I think eventually where democracy is given a chance and there ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but where democracy is given a chance , you ’ re going to see progressive governments of different forms .
They ’ re not all as radical as each other .
Some will be more modern or whatever , but progressive governments come back to power , and that will have consequences on the US ’ s interest in the region , on the US ’ s relationship .
I think it ’ s a grave mistake on behalf of the United States to apply this really hawkish imperial return of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sorts of pro Washington regimes .
I think is going to have a backlash and probably sooner rather than later .
Greg Wolpert : I think that ’ s a really good point , but we ’ re going to have to leave it there .
I was speaking Guillaume Long , senior policy analyst at the Center for Economic and Policy Research , CEPR .
Thanks again , Guillaume , for having joined us today .
Guillaume Long : Thank you very much .
Greg Wolpert : Thank you for joining the @ @ @ @

Shortly after Venezuelan opposition leader and self-declared president Juan Guaidó got a standing ovation at Trump’s State of the Union address, United States officials promised more sanctions on Venezuela. Why?
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Greg Wolpert: Welcome to the Real News Network. I’m Greg Wolpert in Arlington, Virginia. The Trump administration is promising more and yet harsher sanctions on Venezuela once again. The sanctions announcement came in two forms this week. First, from an unnamed government officials speaking to reporters who said that the new sanctions would be crippling and impactful measures, and that Trump instructed all parts of the US government to use all of the tools at their disposal to further create stress upon Maduro and his cronies. Then on Thursday, the Trump administration’s special representative for Venezuela, Elliott Abrams, announced that quote, “Russians may soon find that their continued support of Maduro will no longer be cost-free.” All of this comes on the heels of a very warm bipartisan reception that Venezuela’s opposition leader and self-declared parallel president Juan Guaidó received during Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday.
Donald Trump: here this evening. It’s a very brave man who carries with him the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of all Venezuelans. Joining us in the gallery is the true and legitimate president of Venezuela, Juan Guaidó. Mr. President, please take this message back to your [inaudible 00:01:16]. Socialism destroys nations, but always remember freedom unifies the soul.
Greg Wolpert: Joining me to analyze all of this is Guillaume Long. He is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, CEPR. Prior to joining CEPR, he held several cabinet positions in the government of Ecuador, including minister of foreign affairs. Thanks for joining us again and Guillaume.
Guillaume Long: Thank you.
Greg Wolpert: So let me start with the reception that Guaidó received in Congress on Tuesday where Trump clearly linked to Venezuela’s economic crisis to socialism. Now, this was part of his larger dig against socialism as a concept, but also against some members of Congress, particularly presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a democratic socialist. Then house speaker Nancy Pelosi also gave Guaidó a warm reception on Wednesday. We have a clip here of her and Guaidó.
Nancy Pelosi: Good afternoon, everyone. It was a great honor to welcome to the Capitol, who we consider to be the president of Venezuela. We were all thrilled that he was at the State of the Union address the other day and received such an overwhelming bipartisan welcome to the Capitol. We believe that the plight of the people of Venezuela is a challenge to the conscience of the world and we will all stay with you, Mr. President, in that fight.
Greg Wolpert: So what do you make of this bipartisan support for Guaidó, who Trump and others called the legitimate president of Venezuela, but who does not actually control anything in Venezuela? Why do you think Pelosi and Trump, despite their animosity towards each other, which was on display at the State of the Union speech, why do they find so much agreement on this issue?
Guillaume Long: Well, I think this has to do with a broader trend in US politics, and a general consensus between Democrats and Republicans on foreign policy. There hasn’t been a fundamental break in foreign policy, I would say in the world, but certainly towards Latin America, between different administrations in the United States. What some people call liberal internationalism, what I maybe would call liberal imperialism, very much applies to many Democrats, particularly right wing Democrats to call them that. So I’m not really surprised. I mean, if you think of Venezuela in particular, it was President Obama who first started raising the stakes and trying to isolate Venezuela or declaring it, Venezuela, a threat to us national security in 2015 and eventually that got the ball rolling for sanctions in August 2017, and then again in January 2018, and so it’s gone, it’s grown and it’s gone in crescendo, but it actually started during the Obama administration. So I’m not particularly surprised there.
As you said, I think Venezuela plays a role in domestic politics. It has done in Latin America for years now. It’s been brandished by the right to try and attack the left because Venezuela has been struggling economically now for several years. Particularly so since the sanctions have been heightened, and therefore you know it’s a useful tool to attack the left. It’s been done in Latin America, it’s been done in Europe. The left in Europe has been systematically attacked. Oh, look at socialism and its failures in Venezuela. This is what you want to do, and so on and so forth, is a common recurrent discourse. It’s clearly going to be done during this presidential campaign in the United States.
Greg Wolpert: Well, that’s what I wanted to turn to next is actually the role of the sanctions. That is as I mentioned, Trump has announced a new round of sanctions. It’s a kind of an open question as to what else can be sanctioned considering that there’s basically an economic blockade going on against Venezuela at the moment, and the sanctions as we’ve mentioned have dealt a crippling blow against Venezuelan economy. But they’ve actually not worked. I mean, that is in terms of their stated goal of getting rid of Maduro and forcing him to resign. So I guess the question is also, you mentioned this already. Some of the issues that perhaps there’s other reasons for the sanctions also considering that US companies seem to have received some exemptions. I was wondering if you could say more about that as to what the different reasons could be for the sanctions and the effect that they’re having on the Venezuelan economy.
Guillaume Long: So I agree that essentially I think the exercise this week is essentially rhetorical. I agree with you. I don’t see how they can significantly increase the aggressiveness of these sanctions. The current sanctions on Venezuela are extremely aggressive. They are crippling the economy. Actually CEPR, the organization I work for, published a paper on the effect of the sanctions that were implemented after August 2017 and how those in 2017 and 2018 had probably caused 40,000 deaths in Venezuela. Now since January 2019, we have an extra layer of sanctions, and we haven’t yet got a clear idea about the exact number of victims. We have a general idea of its effect on health care, on social provisions, on the immigration crisis, which has affected the region as a whole. Venezuelans leaving their country to look for jobs and for some stability elsewhere. So on and so forth.
So these sanctions have been, as often US sanctions are, very cruel, very hurtful, very socially harmful. Completely illegal, of course. It’s important to remember that they contravene international law. These are not UN sanctions. They’re unilateral corrosive economic measures, and I can’t see that whatever the rumor is about intensifying them, how that would change the situation. Certainly sanctions have failed so far to achieve regime change, and I don’t think they’re going to succeed in changing the regime henceforth.
So I think the main reason is for domestic politics or US politics. We’ve seen the attack on socialism, bringing Venezuela always back into the national debate. I actually think it is going to play a big role for President Trump’s reelection bid and his system of alliances in Florida with people like Marco Rubio, with the Cuban immigrant community, with the Venezuelan immigrant community. Whether that is a good electoral calculation or not is a different issue because I think the Venezuelan issue does not work throughout the Latino community in the United States. But I think it’s clearly part of his pattern of alliances within the Republican party and particularly with people such as Marco Rubio and so on.
Greg Wolpert: Yeah. I think also, of course, the Democrats are probably playing a part in that effort to win over the Latino vote, and therefore you see Nancy Pelosi supporting the policy, aside from the issue that you mentioned earlier about the bipartisan nature of foreign policy. But I want to move also to the issue of how people in Latin America are reacting to this. That is, many right wing and conservative governments right now in Latin America are actually supporting US foreign policy towards Venezuela. But that’s not necessarily the same as kind of the general sense among the the intellectuals and among the people who are aware of what’s happening in terms of US policy towards Venezuela. How do you think it’s being received more generally? That is, with Latin American history of suspicion towards US foreign policy and particularly the rejection of the Monroe doctrine, which claims that the U S has the right to intervene anywhere in Latin America. How do you see this policy being received, let’s say, behind the scenes in Latin America?
Guillaume Long: So specifically with some of the right wing governments in Latin America and many of them recognize the Guaidó government and are kind of aligned with United States on the policy towards Venezuela. But over the last few months we’ve seen a number of right wing governments getting colder feet, I would say, with regards to them being more cautious. At the beginning, the group of Lima was very aggressive, and they were hoping to have a swift, well, to be successful, quickly, to have regime change in Venezuela quickly. This didn’t happen. We’re seeing little by little a number of countries within the Lima group as sort of being a little bit more cautious because at the end of the day if you recognize Guaidó and you don’t have any type of diplomatic relations with the Maduro government, this is also problematic. You can’t negotiate a number of things, including with regards to immigration. Immigration of Venezuelans, we were talking about.
There’s just been a high profile case of a Colombian criminal who’s a former congresswoman who’s sought refuge in Venezuela, and the president of Colombia, Duque, wrote a letter to Guaidó to hand her over. I mean, it’s incredibly ironic or verging on surreal given that Guaidó doesn’t control the sovereignty, the institutions, the judiciary, the penitentiary. I mean, there’s there’s no institutional hold on behalf of this Guaidó sort of shadow government that’s recognized by some and obviously Guaidó is incapable of handing over this person wanted by Colombia. So we’re in a surreal world where the recognition of Guaidó on behalf of a number of Latin American countries and not of Maduro is creating problems for these Latin American governments, which is why you’re seeing the new right wing elected government of Uruguay saying, “Hey, we’re not going to go down that road because it’s not helpful.”
Also a few governments sort of center left or on the progressive side of things having been elected in the last year or so. So Mexico first and now Argentina moving away from the Lima group, its policies, and from recognizing Guaidó. Given that within Venezuela Guaidó is not getting any more support, even the Venezuelan opposition has sort of taken its distance from Guaidó, that has an impact on the rest of Latin America.
Now that’s on the right wing governments. But generally speaking? Yeah. I think all these policies that we’re seeing on behalf of the United States under the Trump administration, they’re very aggressive policies, they’re very right wing policies. They’re supporting a regime change in Venezuela, and we’ve just seen it now. They supported effective regime change in Bolivia, this alliance with the far right, including with a Bolsonaro government in Brazil and so on and so forth. This return to what you call monoism, which is treating Latin America as its backyard is going to have, sooner or later, a boomerang effect. It’s exactly what pulls the pink tide in the first place, this kind of victorious hegemony of the United States in the ’90s imposing neoliberalism and a very sort of imperial approach to to that region caused a leftist backlash. A pro sovereignty, backlash if you, if you like.
I think eventually where democracy is given a chance and there’s a democratic deficit right now in Latin America, but where democracy is given a chance, you’re going to see progressive governments of different forms. They’re not all as radical as each other. Some will be more modern or whatever, but progressive governments come back to power, and that will have consequences on the US’s interest in the region, on the US’s relationship. I think it’s a grave mistake on behalf of the United States to apply this really hawkish imperial return of the fist in the region, imposing all sorts of pro Washington regimes. I think is going to have a backlash and probably sooner rather than later.
Greg Wolpert: I think that’s a really good point, but we’re going to have to leave it there. I was speaking Guillaume Long, senior policy analyst at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, CEPR. Thanks again, Guillaume, for having joined us today.
Guillaume Long: Thank you very much.
Greg Wolpert: Thank you for joining the Real News Network.
Studio: Adam Coley, Bababtunde Ogunfolaju
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Bababtunde Ogunfolaju
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.