therealnews--2020-04-22--Canada Resumes Selling Arms To Saudi Warmongers

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 Canadian decision to stop shipping arms to Saudi Arabia after the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi lasted for less than two years .
In a recent announcement , Canadian ministers for foreign affairs and for the economy said that Canada will sell light armored vehicles , LAVs , or armored personnel carriers , APCs , to Saudi Arabia .
The two ministers said the deal is just too important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bringing in a total of 14 billion Canadian dollars .
Is this worth the lives of the victims of Saudi security forces which will use these weapons in the war in Yemen and in repression within Saudi Arabia itself ?
Well , joining us today we have Yves Engler .
Yves is a Canadian commentator , also an author .
His most recent book is The Ugly Canadian : Stephen Harper ’ s Foreign Policy , and previously he published The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy , and Canada in Haiti : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eve joins us today from Montreal .
Yves , thank you so much for being here .
Yves Engler : Thank you guys for having me .
Kim Brown : So , Yves , when Justin Trudeau announced in 2018 that Canada is looking for a way out of the deal to deliver arms to Saudi Arabia , in your opinion , was that a genuine attempt to keep his hands clean from the atrocities committed by Saudi police and the military forces ?
Yves Engler : Nope .
No , it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very good at putting forward high minded , moralistic statements while continuing pro-war , pro-corporate policies , and they have made a big thing about their commitment to a feminist foreign policy .
And , clearly , arming Saudi Arabia should be viewed as going against any sort of sensible idea of a feminist foreign policy .
And Justin Trudeau wants to present himself as trying to get out of this arms deal , but in fact , it was their government that , in the first place in 2016 , agreed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arms export deal in Canadian history .
And the Trudeau government , even though there ’ s been a diplomatic dispute with Saudi Arabia going back a year and a half now , has tried to do everything it can to restart relations with Saudi Arabia .
Even during this period when there ’ s been a freeze in new export permits of weapons to Saudi Arabia , Canadian weapons have been delivered to Saudi Arabia during all that time .
In fact , 2018 , 2019 , those were record years in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both in terms of armored vehicles , but also in terms of rifles .
Keep finding examples of Canadian made rifles appearing in Yemen , being used to fuel the war in Yemen .
We have examples of Canadian light armored vehicles , a previous light armored vehicle deal than the big one we ’ re talking about to recent announcement , being used by the Saudis to repress the Shia population in the east of the country .
So Justin Trudeau is quite clearly trying to have it both ways , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political actor , but while continuing this huge arms deal with Saudi Arabia for a mix of corporate reasons , and because Saudi Arabia is viewed as a geopolitical ally in the region .
Kim Brown : It seems like a negotiating ploy citing human rights concerns in order to get better price on the APCs .
What do you think about that ?
Yves Engler : I think that ’ s possible .
I think it ’ s more likely that it ’ s just public relations .
They ’ ve tried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is between a private corporation , General Dynamics and their factory in London , Ontario , that is producing the light armored vehicles , but this is , in fact , a deal between the Canadian Commercial Corporation , which is the Crown Corporation , which is run by the Canadian government and Saudi Arabia .
So it ’ s a government to government agreement .
There ’ s actually some indication that Saudi Arabia has been behind on its payments for the deal , but I think that what this is at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canadian government of Justin Trudeau has continued the previous government ’ s policies of aligning with the monarchies in the region .
So it ’ s not just Saudi Arabia , but also aligning with the monarchy in UAE , in Kuwait .
Canada has troops in Kuwait , and has been selling lots of weaponry to UAE and obviously to Saudi Arabia .
So the Trudeau government is aligned with those countries , but additionally , the Trudeau government is very much into selling weapons .
And every year , at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Abu Dhabi , the IDEX conference , there is dozens of Canadian government officials from trade commissioner service to Department of National Defense to foreign affairs that are helping , in 2019 , 50 Canadian arms companies that were trying to sell their weapons in the region .
And so the Canadian government is very much behind pushing more and more arms sales to these countries that have a willingness to purchase weapons , and this is the Trudeau government continuing this policy of geopolitical alignment in the region , and supporting Canadian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s been less than two years since the murder of Jamal Khashoggi .
I ’ m curious about your thoughts regarding the timing of this decision from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Finance to go back on what they had previously stated about not selling arms to Saudi Arabia .
This has been less than two years .
What do you think about the timing and why they have reneged on their earlier decision so soon ?
Yves Engler : Well , I think the timing was partly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the long weekend .
Obviously , amidst the pandemic , so they hoped to have less media attention devoted to the ending of the suspension of arms export permits to Saudi Arabia .
So that was part of the timing .
I think there ’ s another element .
Global Affairs Canada did a review .
The government announced they would do this review on the arms exports to Saudi Arabia , and that review that was leaked back in November , the government was claiming that there was no link between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human rights violations .
They put it “ no credible link.
” So since that review was done , the government was basically waiting for a moment to make this announcement public , that they were going to go back on this freeze of arms export permits .
In that review , it stated that there was already 48 arms exports permits sitting on the foreign affairs minister ’ s table to be signed whenever they ended the suspension of arms export permits to Saudi Arabia .
So it was clearly they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this decision , and I think , again , this is the Canadian government .
Officially , there is a fight at the diplomatic level between Riyadh and Ottawa , but if you look more closely , the Canadian government has been consistently trying to overcome that diplomatic spat .
Has been trying quietly to reach out to the Saudi officials , trying to get back to business as usual .
Some relations between Canadian military and Saudi military .
So they ’ ve been trying quite hard to overcome this diplomatic spat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one other step in this process .
The other thing that the announcement , I think , was tied to was the Canadian government the next day announced that it was supporting the UN Secretary General ’ s call for a suspension of conflicts around the world .
But now this is another example of the Trudeau government ’ s two-faced policy .
So on one hand , we ’ re going to fuel the Saudis in their conflict in Yemen , but on the next day , we ’ re going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all conflicts around the world in the context of the global pandemic , and so I think that the government was also trying to lessen the criticism of the arms export deal by trying to do this other high minded commitment .
And they announced that the next day .
So I think , again , the timing of this in large part is public relations from the government ’ s perspective .
Kim Brown : Do you think the Canadian government is using the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to cut corners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulations in regards to arms sales ?
And as a result of the pandemic , obviously , people can ’ t gather to protest in public at least about these latest moves from the Canadian government .
So are they expecting no protests , any protests , or any pushback from the public ?
Yves Engler : I think they ’ re definitely hoping there ’ s going to be no pushback , and , in fact , it ’ s obviously not realistic to be doing in-person protests .
I know at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been involved in disrupting some of the government ministers ’ press conferences , partly on this issue of the arms sales to Saudi Arabia .
Obviously , when there is no public press conferences , it ’ s more difficult to ask tough questions or to disrupt those press conferences .
But they ’ re definitely using the media focus on the pandemic .
There ’ s also some element of trying to make a claim that because of the economic downturn that ’ s happened because of the pandemic , that therefore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we already have , and this is going to lead to a lot of jobs and money and whatnot .
So I think there ’ s something there , but additionally , it should be pointed out that the government , amidst the pandemic , they maintained the arms industry as an essential service .
So the criteria , alongside food for people to eat , continuing to make arms is viewed as an essential service .
So I think the pandemic is not stopping at least their commitment to the arms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what can you tell us about the role of these Canadian armored vehicles in the hands of the Saudi military ?
Because a lot people look at these vehicles as a defensive measure for soldiers to protect them against stones being thrown at them , or from gunshots .
If that ’ s the case , then what is the problem , or is there an issue with Canada selling these vehicles to Saudi Arabia ?
Yves Engler : Canada ’ s been selling light armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia in significant quantities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when Saudi troops went into Bahrain , there were Canadian light armored vehicles that were used in that deployment of Saudi troops , and that , of course , was a deployment that was designed to repress the pro-democracy movement in Bahrain amidst the Arab Spring .
Additionally , a few years later east of Saudi Arabia , when they destroyed towns in regular repression of the Shia population , there was other examples of Canadian light armored vehicles that were being used in that process .
So these are vehicles that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They are equipped with machine guns .
They ’ re essentially tanks , .
And maybe in the context of what one would consider a just war , these could be useful vehicles or entities , but in the context of a regime in Saudi Arabia that , of course , is incredibly repressive domestically and one that is involved in violence most obviously in Yemen , but also has contributed to conflicts in Syria , in repressing the democracy movement in Sudan … This is a very belligerent government regime in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arming the Saudis in this context is … One , it ’ s giving an okay .
It ’ s saying we ’ re okay with your policy of aggressiveness in Yemen .
Two , it ’ s literally giving them the tools to advance those policies .
And I should state also that the Canadian government has been very quiet in terms of its criticism of the Saudi war in Yemen .
The Canadian government has been willing to criticize a little bit of Saudi policy domestically in terms of repression , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy domestically , but it ’ s been very unwilling to criticize its policies in Yemen or its policies in Libya or Sudan , and its anti-democratic policies elsewhere in the region .
So these arms are just giving more strength to a regime that ’ s really , I think , out of control .
Kim Brown : Well , after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi , Canada pretty much stood alone in its criticism of Saudi Arabia , at least from voices from the west .
The US , Russia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arms .
They didn ’ t condemn Saudi Arabia vehemently after this horrific murder took place , but now the government is making a u-turn in resuming the deal .
Journalists are saying that they ’ re legitimizing the Saudi regime , and now the floodgates will open with arms shipments from other countries .
So does this mean that it is better to turn a blind eye and just to keep the arms flowing , or instead making a stand for human rights , even if it is for a short time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reaction to Jamal Khashoggi ’ s murder , there was a diplomatic spat between … There was a tweet put out by the Canadian foreign ministry and taken out by the Canadian embassy in Riyadh that led to Saudi Arabia taking all kinds of very harsh measures .
This was a couple months before the murder of Jamal Khashoggi .
And so there was this conflict and a freezing of diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Canada that was instigated by the Saudis because of this , in my opinion , very minimal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Khashoggi ’ s killing , the Trudeau government was a little bit hesitant initially in its criticism of the killing , and then eventually it did , as the global condemnation increased , there was a bit more criticism , and then there was this suspension of arms exports .
I think what ’ s necessary here from the Canadian government ’ s perspective is a certain degree of coherence .
Now , they should never have agreed to this light armored vehicle sale .
They should never have given the export permit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a previous government , but the Trudeau government had the ability to say no .
The foreign minister was the one who signed the export permit , so the Canadian government should have , in my opinion , said “ no ” to that deal for a number of reasons , most obviously because , at this point , Saudis were already involved in this violent war in Yemen , not to mention that it ’ s a repressive domestically , not to mention its policy during the Arab Spring of repressing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They should ’ ve said no .
Now , once they agreed to this $ 14 billion light armored vehicle sale , they were in a position where there was going to be some costs to Canada for getting out of the agreement .
It ’ s not exactly clear how big those costs are .
The government ’ s been always a little bit unclear on what the contract said on that front , but I think then the Canadian government should ’ ve basically taken those costs of breaking the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some point , you do have to say to yourself what are we willing to support ?
If we ’ re willing to provide weapons , rifles , what are essentially tanks to the Saudis right now , at what point will we say no , that human rights violations are too extreme , that the government is too repressive for us to say no to ?
So in this context of if Saudi Arabia doesn ’ t hit the threshold of being to belligerent and too repressive to stop selling weapons to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threshold ?
So , basically , it goes back to , I think , maybe a more general question of are we willing to lose some money to stand up for what ’ s right ?
But , in fact , the Canadian government , it ’ s very far from that , and the kingdom has been happy to arm the Saudis and other governments that are involved in violent conflicts , and basically maybe make some minimal criticisms , put out some tweets or some statements that say they defend women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t agree with banning women from being able to drive in Saudi Arabia , or provide safe haven for a young Saudi woman who escapes a terrible situation , and then continue with the thrust of the policy .
That ’ s been what the Trudeau government has done , and I think that , from the get-go , they should ’ ve stood up for human rights and said “ no ” to this $ 14 billion armored vehicle sale that is only strengthening the Saudi ’ s violent capacities .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaking today with Yves Engler .
Yves is a Canadian commentator and author .
You need to check out his latest book .
It ’ s called House of Mirrors : Justin Trudeau ’ s Foreign Policy .
Yves has been joining us today from Montreal .
Thank you .
Yves Engler : Thanks for having me .
Kim Brown : And thank you for watching The Real News Network .

Now in the midst of a crisis, Canada will lift its embargo and sell armored vehicles to the Saudi military, which is engaged in brutal repression inside the country and the ongoing war in Yemen.
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 Canadian decision to stop shipping arms to Saudi Arabia after the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi lasted for less than two years. In a recent announcement, Canadian ministers for foreign affairs and for the economy said that Canada will sell light armored vehicles, LAVs, or armored personnel carriers, APCs, to Saudi Arabia. The two ministers said the deal is just too important for creating jobs in Canada, and bringing in a total of 14 billion Canadian dollars.
Is this worth the lives of the victims of Saudi security forces which will use these weapons in the war in Yemen and in repression within Saudi Arabia itself? Well, joining us today we have Yves Engler. Yves is a Canadian commentator, also an author. His most recent book is The Ugly Canadian: Stephen Harper’s Foreign Policy, and previously he published The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy, and Canada in Haiti: Waging War on a Poor Majority. Eve joins us today from Montreal. Yves, thank you so much for being here.
Yves Engler: Thank you guys for having me.
Kim Brown: So, Yves, when Justin Trudeau announced in 2018 that Canada is looking for a way out of the deal to deliver arms to Saudi Arabia, in your opinion, was that a genuine attempt to keep his hands clean from the atrocities committed by Saudi police and the military forces?
Yves Engler: Nope. No, it was a public relations. Justin Trudeau is very good at putting forward high minded, moralistic statements while continuing pro-war, pro-corporate policies, and they have made a big thing about their commitment to a feminist foreign policy. And, clearly, arming Saudi Arabia should be viewed as going against any sort of sensible idea of a feminist foreign policy. And Justin Trudeau wants to present himself as trying to get out of this arms deal, but in fact, it was their government that, in the first place in 2016, agreed to these export permits to sell the biggest arms export deal in Canadian history. And the Trudeau government, even though there’s been a diplomatic dispute with Saudi Arabia going back a year and a half now, has tried to do everything it can to restart relations with Saudi Arabia.
Even during this period when there’s been a freeze in new export permits of weapons to Saudi Arabia, Canadian weapons have been delivered to Saudi Arabia during all that time. In fact, 2018, 2019, those were record years in Canadian weapons deliveries to Saudi Arabia, both in terms of armored vehicles, but also in terms of rifles. Keep finding examples of Canadian made rifles appearing in Yemen, being used to fuel the war in Yemen. We have examples of Canadian light armored vehicles, a previous light armored vehicle deal than the big one we’re talking about to recent announcement, being used by the Saudis to repress the Shia population in the east of the country.
So Justin Trudeau is quite clearly trying to have it both ways, to try to frame himself as this principled political actor, but while continuing this huge arms deal with Saudi Arabia for a mix of corporate reasons, and because Saudi Arabia is viewed as a geopolitical ally in the region.
Kim Brown: It seems like a negotiating ploy citing human rights concerns in order to get better price on the APCs. What do you think about that?
Yves Engler: I think that’s possible. I think it’s more likely that it’s just public relations. They’ve tried to frame it as an agreement that is between a private corporation, General Dynamics and their factory in London, Ontario, that is producing the light armored vehicles, but this is, in fact, a deal between the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which is the Crown Corporation, which is run by the Canadian government and Saudi Arabia. So it’s a government to government agreement.
There’s actually some indication that Saudi Arabia has been behind on its payments for the deal, but I think that what this is at a big picture level is that the Canadian government of Justin Trudeau has continued the previous government’s policies of aligning with the monarchies in the region. So it’s not just Saudi Arabia, but also aligning with the monarchy in UAE, in Kuwait. Canada has troops in Kuwait, and has been selling lots of weaponry to UAE and obviously to Saudi Arabia. So the Trudeau government is aligned with those countries, but additionally, the Trudeau government is very much into selling weapons. And every year, at the big arms bazaar, arms conference in Abu Dhabi, the IDEX conference, there is dozens of Canadian government officials from trade commissioner service to Department of National Defense to foreign affairs that are helping, in 2019, 50 Canadian arms companies that were trying to sell their weapons in the region.
And so the Canadian government is very much behind pushing more and more arms sales to these countries that have a willingness to purchase weapons, and this is the Trudeau government continuing this policy of geopolitical alignment in the region, and supporting Canadian arms firms.
Kim Brown: It’s been less than two years since the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. I’m curious about your thoughts regarding the timing of this decision from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Finance to go back on what they had previously stated about not selling arms to Saudi Arabia. This has been less than two years. What do you think about the timing and why they have reneged on their earlier decision so soon?
Yves Engler: Well, I think the timing was partly … They announced it on Thursday just before the long weekend. Obviously, amidst the pandemic, so they hoped to have less media attention devoted to the ending of the suspension of arms export permits to Saudi Arabia. So that was part of the timing.
I think there’s another element. Global Affairs Canada did a review. The government announced they would do this review on the arms exports to Saudi Arabia, and that review that was leaked back in November, the government was claiming that there was no link between Canadian weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and human rights violations. They put it “no credible link.” So since that review was done, the government was basically waiting for a moment to make this announcement public, that they were going to go back on this freeze of arms export permits.
In that review, it stated that there was already 48 arms exports permits sitting on the foreign affairs minister’s table to be signed whenever they ended the suspension of arms export permits to Saudi Arabia. So it was clearly they were waiting for the opportune moment to make this decision, and I think, again, this is the Canadian government. Officially, there is a fight at the diplomatic level between Riyadh and Ottawa, but if you look more closely, the Canadian government has been consistently trying to overcome that diplomatic spat. Has been trying quietly to reach out to the Saudi officials, trying to get back to business as usual. Some relations between Canadian military and Saudi military. So they’ve been trying quite hard to overcome this diplomatic spat, and I think this is just one other step in this process.
The other thing that the announcement, I think, was tied to was the Canadian government the next day announced that it was supporting the UN Secretary General’s call for a suspension of conflicts around the world. But now this is another example of the Trudeau government’s two-faced policy. So on one hand, we’re going to fuel the Saudis in their conflict in Yemen, but on the next day, we’re going to announce that we support a suspension of all conflicts around the world in the context of the global pandemic, and so I think that the government was also trying to lessen the criticism of the arms export deal by trying to do this other high minded commitment. And they announced that the next day.
So I think, again, the timing of this in large part is public relations from the government’s perspective.
Kim Brown: Do you think the Canadian government is using the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to cut corners around implementing Canada’s human rights regulations in regards to arms sales? And as a result of the pandemic, obviously, people can’t gather to protest in public at least about these latest moves from the Canadian government. So are they expecting no protests, any protests, or any pushback from the public?
Yves Engler: I think they’re definitely hoping there’s going to be no pushback, and, in fact, it’s obviously not realistic to be doing in-person protests. I know at a personal level, I’ve been involved in disrupting some of the government ministers’ press conferences, partly on this issue of the arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Obviously, when there is no public press conferences, it’s more difficult to ask tough questions or to disrupt those press conferences. But they’re definitely using the media focus on the pandemic.
There’s also some element of trying to make a claim that because of the economic downturn that’s happened because of the pandemic, that therefore we need to commit to these deals that we already have, and this is going to lead to a lot of jobs and money and whatnot. So I think there’s something there, but additionally, it should be pointed out that the government, amidst the pandemic, they maintained the arms industry as an essential service. So the criteria, alongside food for people to eat, continuing to make arms is viewed as an essential service. So I think the pandemic is not stopping at least their commitment to the arms export industry.
Kim Brown: So what can you tell us about the role of these Canadian armored vehicles in the hands of the Saudi military? Because a lot people look at these vehicles as a defensive measure for soldiers to protect them against stones being thrown at them, or from gunshots. If that’s the case, then what is the problem, or is there an issue with Canada selling these vehicles to Saudi Arabia?
Yves Engler: Canada’s been selling light armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia in significant quantities since the early 1990s. In 2011, when Saudi troops went into Bahrain, there were Canadian light armored vehicles that were used in that deployment of Saudi troops, and that, of course, was a deployment that was designed to repress the pro-democracy movement in Bahrain amidst the Arab Spring.
Additionally, a few years later east of Saudi Arabia, when they destroyed towns in regular repression of the Shia population, there was other examples of Canadian light armored vehicles that were being used in that process. So these are vehicles that are 28 tons, I believe. They are equipped with machine guns. They’re essentially tanks,. And maybe in the context of what one would consider a just war, these could be useful vehicles or entities, but in the context of a regime in Saudi Arabia that, of course, is incredibly repressive domestically and one that is involved in violence most obviously in Yemen, but also has contributed to conflicts in Syria, in repressing the democracy movement in Sudan … This is a very belligerent government regime in the region, and so I think that arming the Saudis in this context is … One, it’s giving an okay. It’s saying we’re okay with your policy of aggressiveness in Yemen. Two, it’s literally giving them the tools to advance those policies.
And I should state also that the Canadian government has been very quiet in terms of its criticism of the Saudi war in Yemen. The Canadian government has been willing to criticize a little bit of Saudi policy domestically in terms of repression, in terms of its anti-feminist, anti-woman policy domestically, but it’s been very unwilling to criticize its policies in Yemen or its policies in Libya or Sudan, and its anti-democratic policies elsewhere in the region. So these arms are just giving more strength to a regime that’s really, I think, out of control.
Kim Brown: Well, after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, Canada pretty much stood alone in its criticism of Saudi Arabia, at least from voices from the west. The US, Russia, Germany all wanted to continue to sell arms. They didn’t condemn Saudi Arabia vehemently after this horrific murder took place, but now the government is making a u-turn in resuming the deal. Journalists are saying that they’re legitimizing the Saudi regime, and now the floodgates will open with arms shipments from other countries. So does this mean that it is better to turn a blind eye and just to keep the arms flowing, or instead making a stand for human rights, even if it is for a short time?
Yves Engler: The Canadian government reaction to Jamal Khashoggi’s murder, there was a diplomatic spat between … There was a tweet put out by the Canadian foreign ministry and taken out by the Canadian embassy in Riyadh that led to Saudi Arabia taking all kinds of very harsh measures. This was a couple months before the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. And so there was this conflict and a freezing of diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Canada that was instigated by the Saudis because of this, in my opinion, very minimal criticism by the Canadian government.
After Khashoggi’s killing, the Trudeau government was a little bit hesitant initially in its criticism of the killing, and then eventually it did, as the global condemnation increased, there was a bit more criticism, and then there was this suspension of arms exports.
I think what’s necessary here from the Canadian government’s perspective is a certain degree of coherence. Now, they should never have agreed to this light armored vehicle sale. They should never have given the export permit. It was an agreement that began with a previous government, but the Trudeau government had the ability to say no. The foreign minister was the one who signed the export permit, so the Canadian government should have, in my opinion, said “no” to that deal for a number of reasons, most obviously because, at this point, Saudis were already involved in this violent war in Yemen, not to mention that it’s a repressive domestically, not to mention its policy during the Arab Spring of repressing the pro-democracy movements elsewhere in the region. They should’ve said no.
Now, once they agreed to this $14 billion light armored vehicle sale, they were in a position where there was going to be some costs to Canada for getting out of the agreement. It’s not exactly clear how big those costs are. The government’s been always a little bit unclear on what the contract said on that front, but I think then the Canadian government should’ve basically taken those costs of breaking the light armored vehicle sale because, at some point, you do have to say to yourself what are we willing to support? If we’re willing to provide weapons, rifles, what are essentially tanks to the Saudis right now, at what point will we say no, that human rights violations are too extreme, that the government is too repressive for us to say no to? So in this context of if Saudi Arabia doesn’t hit the threshold of being to belligerent and too repressive to stop selling weapons to, then what country will reach that threshold?
So, basically, it goes back to, I think, maybe a more general question of are we willing to lose some money to stand up for what’s right? But, in fact, the Canadian government, it’s very far from that, and the kingdom has been happy to arm the Saudis and other governments that are involved in violent conflicts, and basically maybe make some minimal criticisms, put out some tweets or some statements that say they defend women’s rights, or they don’t agree with banning women from being able to drive in Saudi Arabia, or provide safe haven for a young Saudi woman who escapes a terrible situation, and then continue with the thrust of the policy. That’s been what the Trudeau government has done, and I think that, from the get-go, they should’ve stood up for human rights and said “no” to this $14 billion armored vehicle sale that is only strengthening the Saudi’s violent capacities.
Kim Brown: We’ve been speaking today with Yves Engler. Yves is a Canadian commentator and author. You need to check out his latest book. It’s called House of Mirrors: Justin Trudeau’s Foreign Policy. Yves has been joining us today from Montreal. Thank you.
Yves Engler: Thanks for having me.
Kim Brown: And thank you for watching The Real News Network.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-04-22--Amazon Workers Hold Nationwide Strikes As COVID-19 Sweeps Warehouses

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Jaisal Noor : Welcome to The Real News , I ’ m Jaisal Noor .
Hundreds of Amazon workers are calling out sick today , Tuesday , April 21st , as protests escalate against hazardous working conditions at the retail giant during the Coronavirus pandemic .
Amazon has fired multiple workers who have warned the company was failing to abide by its own social distancing guidelines .
Dozens have contracted COVID-19 in over 130 Amazon warehouses across the country according to United for Respect , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actions .
Tuesday ’ s strike comes amidst reports Whole Foods , which is owned by Amazon , has been secretly using heat maps to track employees , and determine what stores could be at risk of unionizing .
That ’ s according to Business Insider .
Amazon is owned by Jeff Bezos , the world ’ s richest man , whose wealth has increased by $ 24 billion during this crisis .
Well , coming back onto The Real News to discuss all of this and more is Chris Smalls .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working at the company for five years .
Amazon says they didn ’ t fire Chris Smalls for organizing a protest at a Staten Island warehouse , but because he wasn ’ t social distancing , which many workers have disputed .
Leaked documents also revealed execs at the company planned a smear campaign against Smalls .
Thanks so much for joining us again , Chris .
Chris Smalls : Thank you for having me .
Jaisal Noor : So I wanted to get the latest from this nationwide sick-out against unsafe working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coronavirus at Amazon , something that you and many others had been warning about and Amazon ended up firing you over your concerns .
Give us the latest .
Chris Smalls : Yeah .
Well , just to point out , like you said , would any of the safety precautions that they ’ re taking now , would it had happened had I not done what I ’ ve done ?
That ’ s a question that everybody should be asking this company as well .
It took for me to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employees is a shame in itself .
On the latest mobilizations , right now , currently we have a strike going on today , a call out nationwide , as you pointed out .
Also we have a one that ’ s going to be held on April 24 .
So we ’ re continuing to protest and we ’ re continuing doing to take action .
This is what we have to do to get our voices heard .
Then we ’ re going to continue to do that .
Jaisal Noor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the demands are right now ?
We know countries like France have banned the ordering of non-essential goods at Amazon , over safety concerns , and that was a court order .
Do you think that would be a good move in the US ?
Chris Smalls : Absolutely .
I already know from speaking to the employees that are still employed , there are still nonessential items still being sold , still being purchased , and they ’ re risking their lives for items that shouldn ’ t be sold right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into consideration .
There ’ s still multiple buildings out there across the nation that haven ’ t been receiving the PPE .
I speak to employees and the West coast that still haven ’ t received gloves or masks .
There ’ s a lot of things that it ’ s not really the reality of the situation .
I know Amazon has been putting out a lot of PR videos .
They had Jeff Bezos himself walking around the building .
That ’ s not really what ’ s going on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have implemented certain things , employees are still terrified , and still scared to go to work .
Jaisal Noor : So it ’ s also emerged just yesterday that whole foods , which is of course owned by Amazon , has been tracking workers using heat maps to see what stores are at risk of unionizing .
Do you think unions could help address the conditions that many workers are facing now ?
And many of these workers are in industries that have not unionized .
Chris Smalls : Yeah , absolutely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organization , the employee coalition across the nation would definitely be a plus , compared to what we got going now .
Obviously the CEO and the company failed us , and failed the employees .
So something needs to be implemented that ’ s going to be pro employees and pro front liners .
I definitely agree that some organization , whatever union , some type of workforce coalition can be controlled by the employees to meet all their demands , and I ’ m all for it , and I support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So I know as frontline workers , Amazon workers have been also asking for hazard pay .
I think the company right now is giving something like $ 2 an hour as hazard pay… So talk about what the workers are demanding , because we know Jeff Bezos who was already worth more than a hundred billion dollars , his wealth has increased by at least $ 24 billion during this crisis , which is more money than you could ever spend .
So to talk about what the workers are demanding .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the money that they offer now , the $ 2 increase , the double time , the $ 1000 sign on bonuses , the things that are implemented within the buildings , they have like incentives for $ 200 if you , I guess recommend certain employees .
It ’ s all blood money .
It ’ s not really hazard pay to me .
You got to think about the veterans that have been there two , three , four years and had to work their way up to these salaries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to people that they ’ re hiring .
That ’ s just disrespectful , to me .
It ’ s not really hazard pay , it ’ s just blood money .
It ’ s to meet their demands , it ’ s not really to meet the demands of the customer .
It ’ s definitely not meeting demands of the employees .
What we mean by hazard pay is that we shouldn ’ t be working during this crisis , during this pandemic .
We need to be staying home with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whenever there ’ s a virus , or somebody that tested positive in the buildings that we work at , they should be shut down , sanitized , and that hazard pay should be for employees that ’ s willing to elect that .
And have a choice to stay home with their families .
We shouldn ’ t be forced to go to work , or a test positive to get a quarantine pay , or stay home and be unpaid .
It ’ s not an option .
It doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not a solution .
So hazard pay is something that is definitely a demand , I believe by all employees .
Jaisal Noor : And finally there ’ s a growing movement to quote reopen America .
And these calls have been backed by Trump who tweeted like liberate places like Michigan , and Virginia , and we know they ’ re funded , at least in part , by right-wing billionaires who are concerned the most about their bottom line , and the money they might be losing during this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s also important to talk about who is most at risk when the country is open , and who benefits ?
Because what some people are saying is that , these protests to reopen America are really about getting low wage workers , people of color back to work , and to possibly be exposed to COVID-19 , when the actual protesters , aren ’ t necessarily the ones that are going to be putting their lives on the line .
Chris Smalls : Yeah .
I mean… we ’ re in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to realize people are dying out here .
Minorities are definitely taking up a large percentage of what ’ s going on in this pandemic .
There ’ s no rush to go back to work .
There really isn ’ t .
We got to wake up and realize what ’ s really going on .
You wouldn ’ t know if you ’ re not really a front-liner or first responder .
You ’ ve got to listen to us at this time .
This is the time to listen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out telling you guys , “ Hey , we ’ re not protected .
We haven ’ t been protected .
And if we are protected now , it ’ s a little bit late in the game .
It ’ s widespread.
” As you can see , America itself is already the leading toll , as far as the COVID-19 , so we ’ re not ready to open up the economy .
I know when these billionaires are losing money and losing revenue , and that ’ s the real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be piling in .
They want the money to keep rolling in the way it used to be .
We ’ re not ready for that .
We got to think about humanity right now , and saving human lives .
And think about our future generation , and I don ’ t think rushing to reopen the economy is the right thing to do .
And that ’ s one reason why I ’ m going to continue to protest .
And what I mean by protest , these are physical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to continue to mobilizing so that they understand where we ’ re coming from .
We ’ re not going to work for them during this pandemic until we feel that we ’ re safe and protected .
Jaisal Noor : And Chris Smalls , we know that you ’ ve been doing a lot of organizing .
Where can people go to keep up with the latest on your work as well ?
Chris Smalls : Absolutely .
You can follow me on Twitter .
Follow me on Instagram , shut_downamazon on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out to me , and I ’ ll gladly respond to you .
You could follow everything I ’ m doing right now .
What I ’ m doing is a supporting those who are walking out today , and calling out today , as well as on April 24 , and then look or what I ’ m doing on May 1st , which will be an international walk out .
Jaisal Noor : So you ’ re talking about an international general strike on May day ?
Jaisal Noor : All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so much for joining us .
Chris was one of the workers fired by Amazon for essentially trying to raise awareness about the risks that Coronavirus has on , especially Amazon workers , frontline workers .
And now workers have contracted COVIS-19 in over 130 Amazon warehouses , which is more than half of the total across the country .
Chris Smalls , thank you so much for joining us .
Chris Smalls : Thank you for having me , anytime .
Jaisal Noor : And thank you for joining us at the @ @ @ @

Fired Amazon employee Chris Smalls says workers will protest until they feel protected, while Amazon-owned Whole Foods is ranking stores where employees are most likely to unionize.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Jaisal Noor: Welcome to The Real News, I’m Jaisal Noor. Hundreds of Amazon workers are calling out sick today, Tuesday, April 21st, as protests escalate against hazardous working conditions at the retail giant during the Coronavirus pandemic. Amazon has fired multiple workers who have warned the company was failing to abide by its own social distancing guidelines. Dozens have contracted COVID-19 in over 130 Amazon warehouses across the country according to United for Respect, one of the groups back in the actions. Tuesday’s strike comes amidst reports Whole Foods, which is owned by Amazon, has been secretly using heat maps to track employees, and determine what stores could be at risk of unionizing. That’s according to Business Insider. Amazon is owned by Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest man, whose wealth has increased by $24 billion during this crisis.
Well, coming back onto The Real News to discuss all of this and more is Chris Smalls. He was fired by Amazon in March after working at the company for five years. Amazon says they didn’t fire Chris Smalls for organizing a protest at a Staten Island warehouse, but because he wasn’t social distancing, which many workers have disputed. Leaked documents also revealed execs at the company planned a smear campaign against Smalls. Thanks so much for joining us again, Chris.
Chris Smalls: Thank you for having me.
Jaisal Noor: So I wanted to get the latest from this nationwide sick-out against unsafe working conditions, and the spreading of the Coronavirus at Amazon, something that you and many others had been warning about and Amazon ended up firing you over your concerns. Give us the latest.
Chris Smalls: Yeah. Well, just to point out, like you said, would any of the safety precautions that they’re taking now, would it had happened had I not done what I’ve done? That’s a question that everybody should be asking this company as well. It took for me to be terminated for them to start protecting the employees is a shame in itself.
On the latest mobilizations, right now, currently we have a strike going on today, a call out nationwide, as you pointed out. Also we have a one that’s going to be held on April 24. So we’re continuing to protest and we’re continuing doing to take action. This is what we have to do to get our voices heard. Then we’re going to continue to do that.
Jaisal Noor: And can you talk about what the demands are right now? We know countries like France have banned the ordering of non-essential goods at Amazon, over safety concerns, and that was a court order. Do you think that would be a good move in the US?
Chris Smalls: Absolutely. I already know from speaking to the employees that are still employed, there are still nonessential items still being sold, still being purchased, and they’re risking their lives for items that shouldn’t be sold right now, and that definitely should be taken into consideration. There’s still multiple buildings out there across the nation that haven’t been receiving the PPE. I speak to employees and the West coast that still haven’t received gloves or masks. There’s a lot of things that it’s not really the reality of the situation. I know Amazon has been putting out a lot of PR videos. They had Jeff Bezos himself walking around the building. That’s not really what’s going on in these buildings. Even though they have implemented certain things, employees are still terrified, and still scared to go to work.
Jaisal Noor: So it’s also emerged just yesterday that whole foods, which is of course owned by Amazon, has been tracking workers using heat maps to see what stores are at risk of unionizing. Do you think unions could help address the conditions that many workers are facing now? And many of these workers are in industries that have not unionized.
Chris Smalls: Yeah, absolutely. You know, some type of organization, the employee coalition across the nation would definitely be a plus, compared to what we got going now. Obviously the CEO and the company failed us, and failed the employees. So something needs to be implemented that’s going to be pro employees and pro front liners. I definitely agree that some organization, whatever union, some type of workforce coalition can be controlled by the employees to meet all their demands, and I’m all for it, and I support it 100%.
Jaisal Noor: So I know as frontline workers, Amazon workers have been also asking for hazard pay. I think the company right now is giving something like $2 an hour as hazard pay… So talk about what the workers are demanding, because we know Jeff Bezos who was already worth more than a hundred billion dollars, his wealth has increased by at least $24 billion during this crisis, which is more money than you could ever spend. So to talk about what the workers are demanding.
Chris Smalls: Yeah. You know, the money that they offer now, the $2 increase, the double time, the $1000 sign on bonuses, the things that are implemented within the buildings, they have like incentives for $200 if you, I guess recommend certain employees. It’s all blood money. It’s not really hazard pay to me. You got to think about the veterans that have been there two, three, four years and had to work their way up to these salaries. They decided to just give it to people that they’re hiring. That’s just disrespectful, to me. It’s not really hazard pay, it’s just blood money. It’s to meet their demands, it’s not really to meet the demands of the customer.
It’s definitely not meeting demands of the employees. What we mean by hazard pay is that we shouldn’t be working during this crisis, during this pandemic. We need to be staying home with our families, safe and quarantined. Whenever there’s a virus, or somebody that tested positive in the buildings that we work at, they should be shut down, sanitized, and that hazard pay should be for employees that’s willing to elect that. And have a choice to stay home with their families. We shouldn’t be forced to go to work, or a test positive to get a quarantine pay, or stay home and be unpaid. It’s not an option. It doesn’t help us out financially. That’s not a solution. So hazard pay is something that is definitely a demand, I believe by all employees.
Jaisal Noor: And finally there’s a growing movement to quote reopen America. And these calls have been backed by Trump who tweeted like liberate places like Michigan, and Virginia, and we know they’re funded, at least in part, by right-wing billionaires who are concerned the most about their bottom line, and the money they might be losing during this crisis. Do you think it’s also important to talk about who is most at risk when the country is open, and who benefits? Because what some people are saying is that, these protests to reopen America are really about getting low wage workers, people of color back to work, and to possibly be exposed to COVID-19, when the actual protesters, aren’t necessarily the ones that are going to be putting their lives on the line.
Chris Smalls: Yeah. I mean… we’re in a tough position, but everybody has got to realize people are dying out here. Minorities are definitely taking up a large percentage of what’s going on in this pandemic. There’s no rush to go back to work. There really isn’t. We got to wake up and realize what’s really going on. You wouldn’t know if you’re not really a front-liner or first responder. You’ve got to listen to us at this time. This is the time to listen to us, because we’re crying out telling you guys, “Hey, we’re not protected. We haven’t been protected. And if we are protected now, it’s a little bit late in the game. It’s widespread.” As you can see, America itself is already the leading toll, as far as the COVID-19, so we’re not ready to open up the economy. I know when these billionaires are losing money and losing revenue, and that’s the real bottom line. They want their money to be piling in.
They want the money to keep rolling in the way it used to be. We’re not ready for that. We got to think about humanity right now, and saving human lives. And think about our future generation, and I don’t think rushing to reopen the economy is the right thing to do. And that’s one reason why I’m going to continue to protest. And what I mean by protest, these are physical walk outs. Something that we need to continue to mobilizing so that they understand where we’re coming from. We’re not going to work for them during this pandemic until we feel that we’re safe and protected.
Jaisal Noor: And Chris Smalls, we know that you’ve been doing a lot of organizing. Where can people go to keep up with the latest on your work as well?
Chris Smalls: Absolutely. You can follow me on Twitter. Follow me on Instagram, shut_downamazon on Twitter. Chris.Smalls_ on Instagram. Reach out to me, and I’ll gladly respond to you. You could follow everything I’m doing right now. What I’m doing is a supporting those who are walking out today, and calling out today, as well as on April 24, and then look or what I’m doing on May 1st, which will be an international walk out.
Jaisal Noor: So you’re talking about an international general strike on May day?
Chris Smalls: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Jaisal Noor: All right, Chris Smalls, thank you so much for joining us. Chris was one of the workers fired by Amazon for essentially trying to raise awareness about the risks that Coronavirus has on, especially Amazon workers, frontline workers. And now workers have contracted COVIS-19 in over 130 Amazon warehouses, which is more than half of the total across the country. Chris Smalls, thank you so much for joining us.
Chris Smalls: Thank you for having me, anytime.
Jaisal Noor: And thank you for joining us at the Real News Network.
Studio: Taylor Hebden
Production: Taylor Hebden, Andrew Corkery
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-04-22--The Second COVID-19 Bailout Still Won’t Be Enough

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Marc Steiner : Welcome to The Real News .
I ’ m Marc Steiner .
Good to have you all with us once again .
Now , as Congress and the Trump administration debate the contents of this $ 450 billion bailout bill for taxpayers and small businesses , the most critical measures we need to survive seem to be left off the table .
The bill does not fund state and local governments , freeze rents , guarantee paychecks or salaries , hazard pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done ?
How could this be done ?
Why isn ’ t it being done ?
That will be part of our conversation today , along with how this ties into potential corruption , with Trump battling the idea of an inspector general to oversee the trillions that are being spent .
Well , we ’ ll see what all that means when we talk with Bill Black , who has been a former financial regulator and is now Associate Professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missouri , Kansas City @ @ @ @ @ @ @ author of The Best Way To Rob a Bank Is To Own One .
Bill , welcome back .
Good to have you with us .
Bill Black : Thank you .
Good to be here .
Marc Steiner : There ’ s a lot of complexity to this for people when they read it , and I think that part of it is we live in this country where quote-unquote states ’ rights is supposed to be the bellwether for who we are as a people .
And for years , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shouldn ’ t end the enslavement of Africans and many other things .
But talk about this in terms of this bailout now .
Clearly , the Republicans and many people in Congress do not want to bail out state and local governments , and other people have been saying if they don ’ t do this , we ’ re in danger of having a real economic turndown .
So talk a bit about what your analysis is here .
Bill Black : Sure .
This isn ’ t really an issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about state fiscal capacity versus federal fiscal capacity .
States and local governments do not have sovereign currencies .
They can ’ t run long-term deficits .
They are constrained the way households are constrained .
They usually have statutory limits as well and sometimes constitutional limits about raising debt .
And when there is an enormous , great recession , the states and localities are absolutely pounded into laying off workers at the times when we most want to be spending in the public sector , which is why it makes enormous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does have a sovereign currency , to provide large amounts of money to states .
Now , that makes sense in any recession , but on top of that , we have a president of the United States who has decided it ’ s going to be the states ’ responsibility to respond to one of the biggest health crises we ’ ve had in our lives , the coronavirus epidemic , saying , “ It ’ s not me .
I take no responsibility for it .
I ’ m not going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m going to compete against you in trying to get protective equipment , the testing and such.
” It ’ s just insane in these circumstances .
Obviously , it ’ s the equivalent of an unfunded mandate , where the federal government says , “ You , the states , will do this , but we ain ’ t going to provide no money.
” And that ’ s always wrong , but at a time of a massive recession that is going to bankrupt the states , that is utterly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t , because this is all about politics , which is to say the most radical Republicans want leverage over the states to say , “ I don ’ t care whether it ’ s safe or not , you ’ re going to reopen this economy and try to make it possible for Trump to be reelected in November .
And the only way we ’ re going to be able to keep this pressure on your most precious parts is if we don ’ t give you money.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the states are being extorted by Mitch McConnell and of course the president of the United States .
Marc Steiner : So you have a situation where we ’ re broadcasting here , Maryland , where Governor Larry Hogan , who is a Republican , had to negotiate with the South Korean government and businesses separately just to get the equipment he needs and swabs for the hospitals and medical care here in Maryland .
That ’ s an example of how this is playing out .
And then Jordan Weissmann , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Slate , his quote was , “ We ’ re going to face a repeat of ’ 09- ’ 13 where state-level austerity contributes to a lingering depression if we don ’ t fund state and local governments.
” So how real is that ?
Bill Black : That ’ s absolutely real .
They ’ ll going to have to lay off hundreds of thousands of people at the worst possible time , adding to the recession .
It is absolutely insane .
But on top of this , when we put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the states and say , now we ’ re going to greatly increase your responsibilities because we ’ re going to try to do a cold opening to the economy , where you have to do all the testing , you have to do all the contact tracing and such , that requires tons more people at a time when you ’ re going to be firing or laying off hundreds of thousands of people at the state and local levels .
Now , that ’ s insane for all of us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ourselves against what Kentucky does or Tennessee does or something .
Kentucky actually has a rational governor at the moment , but you know , not a number of these other states .
As you say , it ’ s not entirely along partisan lines .
Ohio has a perfectly reasonable governor on these things as well .
But there are a whole group of governors who aren ’ t going to take responsibility , are going to say , “ I ’ ve got no money to do it .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wants me to do that.
” And more to the point , again , people move across state lines .
So it can ’ t work this way , and the only point at which the Democrats have leverage is now .
They can ’ t go , “ Oh , well we ’ ll just trust the Republicans to come back and provide for the State of New York.
” Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell have been giving the biggest F you to New York and New York City for months , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is all going to change and kumbaya is nuts .
I take you back to Romney , the now supposed sainted Romney , the only Republican who stand out , who , when he was behind closed doors with his richest owners , said , “ My job is to not worry about the 47 % of the nation that didn ’ t pay income taxes.
” So that ’ s the most responsible Republican at the national level saying this .
The Democrats have to use their leverage now .
Similarly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because you know , the Democrats were shocked , shocked that when they passed the prior bailout bills , Trump immediately decided to gut the inspector general defenses .
Marc Steiner : I was about to ask you about that , right .
Bill Black : What is the most predictable thing in the world ?
That Donald Trump will want to use this massive slush fund the Democrats have given him of hundreds of billions of dollars to benefit himself financially , which he can do indirectly .
The Democrats put some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easy to evade .
You just use a cutout party .
And you desperately need the most intensive inspector general investigations .
And of course , Trump immediately gutted those as well , because the Democrats thought that Trump would actually play it straight , which is , boy , would you love to play poker against these people .
Marc Steiner : So what we face , the outcome of this could actually be pretty dangerous for the economy and for the people of this country if this game continues to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what ’ s happening in other countries , we always like to look at the Nordic countries , what are they… And when you have an advanced capitalist country looking at how they are doing things , that makes some sense with their social Democratic base .
I mean , they are guaranteeing income for people , guaranteeing salaries .
They are freezing rent .
Even for businesses they ’ re freezing rent .
They ’ re doing things to ensure that everybody is taken care of , because like people have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensure that everybody has the medical care they need when they lose it because they ’ ve been laid off .
We ’ re on the precipice of a disaster , and it ’ s like we ’ re dancing around the edges .
Bill Black : And even folks like Paul Krugman are making your point .
We no longer have to drag that responsible Democratic middle that always refused to actually spend money when it was needed .
They get it .
Even they get it now .
The Paul Krugmans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s a vastly better way to do this .
Don ’ t let the income ever end to the workers .
If you don ’ t ever have that happen , then you don ’ t have to worry about Trump scamming the money , because the money gets directly to the workers .
It gets there quickly .
You get more stimulus .
You have people not suffering .
You don ’ t see 10,000 people in a line for food , 10,000 people waiting in lines for food in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is all preventable .
We know how to prevent it .
It ’ s being done in other countries .
The Paul Krugmans of the world agree with us that we need to do it differently .
It ’ s perfectly available to the Democrats .
They don ’ t insist upon it .
They give massive amounts of money that they know that Trump is going to use to benefit himself , benefit his cronies and political supporters , and harm anybody he views as a foe .
He is open about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this , that he expects people to beg him for money , to give public thanks on bended knee for the money .
And you ’ re right , we see better ways to do it , mostly in the Nordic States , but Germany , which is super conservative and such .
But we also see equally horrible ways to do it , like in Hungary .
We see the rise of outright fascism , and Trump makes it absolutely clear with his “ I have absolute powers ” and stuff , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do .
He wants absolute power of the money .
He wants us to give him hundreds and hundreds of billions , trillions of dollars in his view would be best , so that he can dole it out , make himself wealthy , bail out his failing business empire , but mostly to try to get reelected .
And what does he use , what has become the quintessential aspect of the small business bailout ?
Ruth ’ s Chris Steaks , which serves $ 70 stakes to people , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing .
This is the true face of the bailout , so the Democrats , again , there ’ s a saying , if you sit down in any poker game and you can ’ t figure out within two minutes who the fool in the game is , it ’ s you .
Marc Steiner : Well , okay .
That ’ s an interesting point to conclude on .
Your years in government fiscal oversight , the other work you did in government , teaching , what does that analysis tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are lacking in the ability to get things done and to push a line that really benefits the American people , and B , what do you do about that ?
Bill Black : Well , first you educate them , so you take away the excuse , oh , we didn ’ t know there was another way to do it that was vastly better .
All right , so we ’ ve taken away that excuse .
You ’ ll notice that it ’ s barely , even though we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Krugman , who has often been a problem for progressives , saying , “ You people are nuts , ” that gets picked up almost nowhere .
Instead , what we ’ re getting in the Washington Post , New York Times already is a whole series of columns saying the debt , the debt , the debt , at the federal level .
Now , state and local debt is a big problem .
Federal debt in these circumstances is part of the solution , it is not the problem .
Exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t coming from conservative Republicans .
They ’ re not the ones running these columns .
It is the responsible right wing aspect , the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party that is doing this pushback and preventing us .
And then it ’ s things like MSNBC that do cheerleading about how Nancy Pelosi has supposedly turned these bills into models .
No , they ’ re awful bills .
As you say , compared to the Nordic countries , they are a D minus .
Now admittedly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was terrible .
They made it less terrible .
It ’ s just D minus terrible still .
We shouldn ’ t be searching for D minus , not even a passing grade with grade inflation , folks .
We know how to do better , so it ’ s time for Democrats to insist that our leaders aim high .
Marc Steiner : And instead of saying we have inspector generals .
Bill Black : And inspector generals as well .
But again , never giving Trump the money and having the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need it , the workers that need it , is vastly better .
As long as you give him money , then it ’ s always a catch-up game of trying to reduce the corruption , but he ’ s still going to corrupt .
So wherever possible it should be absolutely paramount to give the money directly to the workers , and that can be done .
The motif of the Democratic Party from Nancy Pelosi , every speech ought to be the war against corruption .
Marc Steiner : Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ m sorry .
Finish what you were saying .
Bill Black : That is what needs to go on , and right now we ’ re not fighting it .
We got one corrupt party who is laughing all the way to the bank .
That ’ s Trump , if you need a hint .
Marc Steiner : Well , as usual , you have outlined and enlightened what we need to know , so we need to continue to struggle to make it better .
Bill , thanks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work .
Look forward to our next conversation .
Marc Steiner : And I ’ m Marc Steiner here for The Real News Network .
Let us know what you think about this .
Where do you want us to take these conversations ?
And please stay safe , stay home , stay healthy .
Take care .

Trump demands that states take the lead on COVID-19 response but won’t give federal support for local governments or workers, and is still fighting oversight for the trillions already spent on stimulus.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Marc Steiner: Welcome to The Real News. I’m Marc Steiner. Good to have you all with us once again. Now, as Congress and the Trump administration debate the contents of this $450 billion bailout bill for taxpayers and small businesses, the most critical measures we need to survive seem to be left off the table. The bill does not fund state and local governments, freeze rents, guarantee paychecks or salaries, hazard pay for front-line workers. Could this be done? How could this be done? Why isn’t it being done?
That will be part of our conversation today, along with how this ties into potential corruption, with Trump battling the idea of an inspector general to oversee the trillions that are being spent. Well, we’ll see what all that means when we talk with Bill Black, who has been a former financial regulator and is now Associate Professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City and a frequent Real News contributor and author of The Best Way To Rob a Bank Is To Own One. Bill, welcome back. Good to have you with us.
Bill Black: Thank you. Good to be here.
Marc Steiner: There’s a lot of complexity to this for people when they read it, and I think that part of it is we live in this country where quote-unquote states’ rights is supposed to be the bellwether for who we are as a people. And for years, it was a good argument for why we shouldn’t end the enslavement of Africans and many other things. But talk about this in terms of this bailout now. Clearly, the Republicans and many people in Congress do not want to bail out state and local governments, and other people have been saying if they don’t do this, we’re in danger of having a real economic turndown. So talk a bit about what your analysis is here.
Bill Black: Sure. This isn’t really an issue of state right, it’s about state fiscal capacity versus federal fiscal capacity. States and local governments do not have sovereign currencies. They can’t run long-term deficits. They are constrained the way households are constrained. They usually have statutory limits as well and sometimes constitutional limits about raising debt. And when there is an enormous, great recession, the states and localities are absolutely pounded into laying off workers at the times when we most want to be spending in the public sector, which is why it makes enormous sense for the federal government, which does have a sovereign currency, to provide large amounts of money to states.
Now, that makes sense in any recession, but on top of that, we have a president of the United States who has decided it’s going to be the states’ responsibility to respond to one of the biggest health crises we’ve had in our lives, the coronavirus epidemic, saying, “It’s not me. I take no responsibility for it. I’m not going to provide the funding. And I’m going to compete against you in trying to get protective equipment, the testing and such.” It’s just insane in these circumstances. Obviously, it’s the equivalent of an unfunded mandate, where the federal government says, “You, the states, will do this, but we ain’t going to provide no money.” And that’s always wrong, but at a time of a massive recession that is going to bankrupt the states, that is utterly insane.
Except that of course it isn’t, because this is all about politics, which is to say the most radical Republicans want leverage over the states to say, “I don’t care whether it’s safe or not, you’re going to reopen this economy and try to make it possible for Trump to be reelected in November. And the only way we’re going to be able to keep this pressure on your most precious parts is if we don’t give you money.” And therefore, as a deliberate policy, the states are being extorted by Mitch McConnell and of course the president of the United States.
Marc Steiner: So you have a situation where we’re broadcasting here, Maryland, where Governor Larry Hogan, who is a Republican, had to negotiate with the South Korean government and businesses separately just to get the equipment he needs and swabs for the hospitals and medical care here in Maryland. That’s an example of how this is playing out. And then Jordan Weissmann, who covers economics and public policy for Slate, his quote was, “We’re going to face a repeat of ’09-’13 where state-level austerity contributes to a lingering depression if we don’t fund state and local governments.” So how real is that?
Bill Black: That’s absolutely real. They’ll going to have to lay off hundreds of thousands of people at the worst possible time, adding to the recession. It is absolutely insane. But on top of this, when we put almost the entire response to the epidemic on the states and say, now we’re going to greatly increase your responsibilities because we’re going to try to do a cold opening to the economy, where you have to do all the testing, you have to do all the contact tracing and such, that requires tons more people at a time when you’re going to be firing or laying off hundreds of thousands of people at the state and local levels.
Now, that’s insane for all of us, and we can’t protect ourselves against what Kentucky does or Tennessee does or something. Kentucky actually has a rational governor at the moment, but you know, not a number of these other states. As you say, it’s not entirely along partisan lines. Ohio has a perfectly reasonable governor on these things as well. But there are a whole group of governors who aren’t going to take responsibility, are going to say, “I’ve got no money to do it. I’ll just open the economy. Trump wants me to do that.”
And more to the point, again, people move across state lines. So it can’t work this way, and the only point at which the Democrats have leverage is now. They can’t go, “Oh, well we’ll just trust the Republicans to come back and provide for the State of New York.” Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell have been giving the biggest F you to New York and New York City for months, and this Democratic belief that somehow this is all going to change and kumbaya is nuts.
I take you back to Romney, the now supposed sainted Romney, the only Republican who stand out, who, when he was behind closed doors with his richest owners, said, “My job is to not worry about the 47% of the nation that didn’t pay income taxes.” So that’s the most responsible Republican at the national level saying this. The Democrats have to use their leverage now. Similarly, they have to use their leverage now because you know, the Democrats were shocked, shocked that when they passed the prior bailout bills, Trump immediately decided to gut the inspector general defenses.
Marc Steiner: I was about to ask you about that, right.
Bill Black: What is the most predictable thing in the world? That Donald Trump will want to use this massive slush fund the Democrats have given him of hundreds of billions of dollars to benefit himself financially, which he can do indirectly. The Democrats put some protections in, but they’re easy to evade. You just use a cutout party. And you desperately need the most intensive inspector general investigations. And of course, Trump immediately gutted those as well, because the Democrats thought that Trump would actually play it straight, which is, boy, would you love to play poker against these people.
Marc Steiner: Who would win?
Bill Black: It’d get embarrassing.
Marc Steiner: So what we face, the outcome of this could actually be pretty dangerous for the economy and for the people of this country if this game continues to be played. And when I look at what’s happening in other countries, we always like to look at the Nordic countries, what are they… And when you have an advanced capitalist country looking at how they are doing things, that makes some sense with their social Democratic base. I mean, they are guaranteeing income for people, guaranteeing salaries. They are freezing rent. Even for businesses they’re freezing rent. They’re doing things to ensure that everybody is taken care of, because like people have been saying, add to that here to ensure that everybody has the medical care they need when they lose it because they’ve been laid off. We’re on the precipice of a disaster, and it’s like we’re dancing around the edges.
Bill Black: And even folks like Paul Krugman are making your point. We no longer have to drag that responsible Democratic middle that always refused to actually spend money when it was needed. They get it. Even they get it now. The Paul Krugmans of the world get it, that there’s a vastly better way to do this. Don’t let the income ever end to the workers. If you don’t ever have that happen, then you don’t have to worry about Trump scamming the money, because the money gets directly to the workers. It gets there quickly. You get more stimulus. You have people not suffering. You don’t see 10,000 people in a line for food, 10,000 people waiting in lines for food in the United States and such.
This is all preventable. We know how to prevent it. It’s being done in other countries. The Paul Krugmans of the world agree with us that we need to do it differently. It’s perfectly available to the Democrats. They don’t insist upon it. They give massive amounts of money that they know that Trump is going to use to benefit himself, benefit his cronies and political supporters, and harm anybody he views as a foe. He is open about the fact that he likes to use this, that he expects people to beg him for money, to give public thanks on bended knee for the money. And you’re right, we see better ways to do it, mostly in the Nordic States, but Germany, which is super conservative and such.
But we also see equally horrible ways to do it, like in Hungary. We see the rise of outright fascism, and Trump makes it absolutely clear with his “I have absolute powers” and stuff, but that is exactly what he wants to do. He wants absolute power of the money. He wants us to give him hundreds and hundreds of billions, trillions of dollars in his view would be best, so that he can dole it out, make himself wealthy, bail out his failing business empire, but mostly to try to get reelected. And what does he use, what has become the quintessential aspect of the small business bailout? Ruth’s Chris Steaks, which serves $70 stakes to people, you know, like regular Joe type of thing. This is the true face of the bailout, so the Democrats, again, there’s a saying, if you sit down in any poker game and you can’t figure out within two minutes who the fool in the game is, it’s you.
Marc Steiner: Well, okay. That’s an interesting point to conclude on. Your years in government fiscal oversight, the other work you did in government, teaching, what does that analysis tell us about A, why the Democrats are lacking in the ability to get things done and to push a line that really benefits the American people, and B, what do you do about that?
Bill Black: Well, first you educate them, so you take away the excuse, oh, we didn’t know there was another way to do it that was vastly better. All right, so we’ve taken away that excuse. You’ll notice that it’s barely, even though we’ve got super centrist Nobel Prize-winning Paul Krugman, who has often been a problem for progressives, saying, “You people are nuts,” that gets picked up almost nowhere. Instead, what we’re getting in the Washington Post, New York Times already is a whole series of columns saying the debt, the debt, the debt, at the federal level.
Now, state and local debt is a big problem. Federal debt in these circumstances is part of the solution, it is not the problem. Exactly the opposite. Again, the problem isn’t coming from conservative Republicans. They’re not the ones running these columns. It is the responsible right wing aspect, the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party that is doing this pushback and preventing us.
And then it’s things like MSNBC that do cheerleading about how Nancy Pelosi has supposedly turned these bills into models. No, they’re awful bills. As you say, compared to the Nordic countries, they are a D minus. Now admittedly, the bill before they got to it was terrible. They made it less terrible. It’s just D minus terrible still. We shouldn’t be searching for D minus, not even a passing grade with grade inflation, folks. We know how to do better, so it’s time for Democrats to insist that our leaders aim high.
Marc Steiner: And instead of saying we have inspector generals.
Bill Black: And inspector generals as well. But again, never giving Trump the money and having the money go directly to the taxpayers that need it, the workers that need it, is vastly better. As long as you give him money, then it’s always a catch-up game of trying to reduce the corruption, but he’s still going to corrupt. So wherever possible it should be absolutely paramount to give the money directly to the workers, and that can be done. The motif of the Democratic Party from Nancy Pelosi, every speech ought to be the war against corruption.
Marc Steiner: Well, Bill Black. I’m sorry. I’m sorry. Finish what you were saying.
Bill Black: That is what needs to go on, and right now we’re not fighting it. We got one corrupt party who is laughing all the way to the bank. That’s Trump, if you need a hint.
Marc Steiner: Well, as usual, you have outlined and enlightened what we need to know, so we need to continue to struggle to make it better. Bill, thanks so much for all your thinking and work. Look forward to our next conversation.
Bill Black: Thank you.
Marc Steiner: And I’m Marc Steiner here for The Real News Network. Let us know what you think about this. Where do you want us to take these conversations? And please stay safe, stay home, stay healthy. Take care.
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Bababtunde Ogunfolaju
Studio: Bababtunde Ogunfolaju
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.