Friday, July 6, 2012

A Russian 'Mir-acle?'

DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
7/6/2012



A Daily Telegraph report noting the upturn in the talks on the Syrian crisis said, "Diplomats were clearly pleased to have agreed a peace plan, confounding the pessimists…" Indeed, such an outcome could only have come about because of strong Russian support for the Kofi Annan peace mission. And while that Geneva meeting yielded a "transition plan" through a unity government that includes all stakeholders in Syria, including both government and opposition forces, any precondition for "regime change," i.e. the removal of an elected national leader, as a way of moving forward was naturally set aside.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has expressed willingness to exit for the cause of peace if that is what his people want. Thus, China's Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, in backing the Russia plan, declared: "A plan of political settlement on the Syrian issue can only be Syrian-led … Outsiders cannot make decisions for the Syrian people."

On that score, Russian diplomacy has won the day by toughing it out on the principles of integrity of sovereign nations, in effect resisting the latest aggressive US-North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) destabilization and Balkanization of a sovereign state.

Incidentally, the Russian word for "peace" known as mir aptly describes the possible "mir-acle" of peace in Syria.

With that hopeful thought, perhaps Syria can still be saved from the fate that befell Libya, which went through the brutal "R2P" (Right to Protect) intervention of Western powers led by Italy and France (with US support and direction). Many should know that Libya, after the fall of Gaddafi and under the governance of the National Transition Council (NTC) composed of anti-Gaddafi forces, is now in a state of chaos and massive deterioration of political-economic conditions.

In a March article the Washington Post declared, "In Libya, despot is gone but chaos reigns;" and this, few geopolitical laymen realize, is precisely what the Western powers intended all along: Chaos in a country where the external power gains unlimited opportunity for exploitation.

London's Independent quoted NTC chief and Washington man Mustafa Abdul Jalil commenting on the factional (brigades) fighting: "We are now between two bitter options. We deal with these violations by brigades strictly and put the Libyans in a military confrontation which we don't accept, or we split and there will be civil war. If there's no security, there will be no law, no development and no elections."

Nine years after the US invasion of Iraq, the country is still in shambles and continues to deteriorate under factional conflict, with bombings between Shi'ite and Sunni factions (and maybe US and British covert operations disguised as either) continuing to kill and maim innocent men, women, children, and religious pilgrims indiscriminately.

On the Afghanistan-Pakistan front, Sumaira Nasir Durrani reports on Centre for Research on Globalization: "The United Nations reported that in the year of 2011 the civilian death toll in Afghanistan was 3,021 and 4,507 Afghans were wounded. According to other sources the actual number of civilian casualties was probably five times as large as the number that the UN mentioned. In Feb. 2012 the annual report on 'Protection of civilians in armed conflict' prepared by the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), acknowledged that 3,021 civilian deaths last year is an increase of eight percent than the previous year's total of 2,790."

From the Voices Web site comes this: "According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, there were 111 US/Nato Predator drone attacks inside Pakistan during 2010 resulting in 957 civilian deaths. The United Nations reports that from 2006 to 2011, an estimated 1,245 civilians have died in US airstrikes in Afghanistan … Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai, whose cousin was killed in a US night raid in March, has repeatedly condemned US and Nato drone and other airstrikes that have resulted in the deaths of civilians."

These are just some samples of the violence that US and Nato have inflicted on the countries they have intervened in to allegedly "save the people" and "establish democracy."

The real intention of the West--with the US and Britain leading the rest of Europe by the nose--comprehensively described by geopolitical analyst Webster Tarpley runs like this: "The current US policy under the Obama administration with Hillary Clinton in the State Department aims at the destruction of all sovereign states on this planet. It's really rolling the world situation back to the time before the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 which established the regime of modern independent sovereign states. The desperation of the US and the British comes from their financial bankruptcy, and what they've got to do is increase the rate of exploitation and looting and sacking of the entire world economy… (And) In the course of this, they find that any national government is an intolerable obstacle… (as) It gets in their way."

In the same way that Western powers have looted Iraq and Libya, they have done the same, if not worse, to the Philippines, by turning it into a model for their "peaceful" subversion of a nation, starting with the 1986 elite counter-revolution of Cory Aquino's Yellow horde. Today, the Philippine state has effectively been destroyed with the US-Britain's looting in Malampaya, as well as of through our privatized electricity and other public utilities.

Worse, BS Aquino III is now even into calling US spy planes to hover above what should be an Asean Sea patrolled only by Asean forces. Evidently, with such people at the helm, no "mir-acle" is yet in store for the Philippines… that is, unless drastic revolutionary change occurs.

(Watch Destiny Cable GNN's HTL edition of Talk News TV, Saturdays, 8:15 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11:15 p.m., this week with senatorial candidate Joey de Venecia; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com)

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Killing us

DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
7/2/2012



The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) has again approved new rates for the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) for the new regulatory year starting July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013 on the strength of only a provisional authority (PA) before pending issues are resolved. The latest PA was issued on top of several previous PAs for 2010, 2011, and 2012.

For one, our fellow crusader, Mang Naro Lualhati, has pending, unresolved petitions on Meralco's Maximum Average Price (MAP), insisting that it should only be P0.90 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) as against ERC-approved rates that used to be around P1.60/kWh but now even raised to P1.6303/kWh. Another colleague of ours, Iligan Light and Power's Jojo Borja, has produced evidence of up to 900-percent overpricing of Meralco's costs that served as the basis for its rate hike applications before the ERC. Both of these were already brought to the courts for resolution; yet the ERC continues to issue its PAs.

Just what is the urgency of issuing these rate increases via these PAs when Meralco has continued to reflect annual increases in profits since 2006 up to the current year?

Last Feb. 2012 it was announced in the headline, "Meralco profit surges 40 percent," that the power company's "core net income, which strips out currency and derivatives-related items, climbed 22 percent to P14.9 billion from a year ago… (exceeding) the profit guidance of P14.5 billion." But take note of this: The power firm, which is indirectly controlled by Hong Kong-based First Pacific Co. Ltd. and partly owned by San Miguel Corp., "had 5.3 million customers last year, up 3.7 percent from a year ago."

Meralco says that its profits rose due to an increased number of customers, but a 40-percent increase in profits cannot be due to a mere 3.7-percent increase in customer base as its own media statement claims. That profit rise is simply from the price gouging rates that the ERC has been giving "provisionally" to Meralco over at least the past three regulatory years.

From a recent letter of our colleague Butch Junia: "Meralco's net earnings have soared year on year: P3.1 billion in 2008; P6.3 billion in 2009; P10.1 billion in 2010; P14.8 billion in 2011. For the year 2010, customer base grew 3 percent; sales increased 11 percent, but earnings soared 67 percent--which obviously came from rate increases rather than market growth or operational efficiencies … Best for the utility, hardly good for the public."

Again, with such profits, what is the urgency of granting PAs for rate increases to Meralco?

Such profit surges are only possible with the massive overpricing of Meralco costs, such as 500 percent on the tens of thousands of power transformers, 900 percent on electric poles, and similarly overpriced substations, contractors, ad nausea.

At the heart of the abuse, however, is ERC's continued defiance of a 2004 Supreme Court (SC) decision under Chief Justice Reynato Puno upholding the old 12-percent Return-on-Rate Base (RoRB) formula as the legal and just basis for setting power rates.

As Junia recaps: "Shortly after that (SC) decision, the ERC started the shift from RoRB to Performance Based Regulation (PBR) with the adoption of rate unbundling in 2003, and full PBR in 2007. Under RoRB, the distribution, supply and metering charge of Meralco was P0.70/kWh; under rate unbundling it was P0.90/kWh. With PBR, it was P1.2227/kWh in 2009, P1.491 in 2010, P1.6464 in 2011, P1.60 in 2012, to go up to P1.633 in July 2012-June 2013."

The PBR effectively raises Meralco's rate of return to over 15 percent; but that is not all. The ERC also provided incentives that added on pushed distribution utility (DU) returns to as high as 17 percent. But these are not the only problems residential consumers have with the present electricity rate-setting system, but are rarely told.

As Junia writes in his letter, the ERC "is mandated by the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (Epira) to 'ensure (for consumers) a reasonable price of electricity… (where) the rates prescribed shall be non-discriminatory.'"

Still, we see in Meralco's petition "for distribution charges… an increase to P1.962/kWh from P1.078/kWh for residential consumers using up to 200 kWh, P1.5535/kWh from P1.3851/kWh for those consuming 201-300 kWh, P1.5535/kWh from P1.3851/kWh for consumers of 301-400 kWh, and P2.4780/kWh from P2.3096/kWh for those that use over 400 kWh per month. Industrial users, meanwhile, with a minimum demand of 40 kW to less than 200 kW would have their supply charges raised to P990 from the current P910 … Large industrial users that consume 200 kW to less than 750 kW will pay supply charges of P4,110 while industrial users of 750 kW to less than 10,000 kW have to pay P14,920…"

Note: Up to 10,000 kW industrial users pay P1.49/kW but residential consumers using 201 kWh to 400 kWh pay P1/55/kWh to P2.30/kWh, while industrial and commercial power consumers using even higher kWh, such as shopping malls which go into millions of kWh, can pay as low as P0.20/kWh in distribution charges.

Residential users consume roughly 35 percent of distributed power but provide around 65 percent of Meralco's revenues, which is inversely proportional to industrial/commercial customers. Thus, residential consumers subsidize everyone else.

Soon the "open access" policy will push even higher rates for residential users as Meralco and DUs court industrial/commercial consumers with lower rates to prevent them from setting up their own power plants.

Meanwhile, "Shares of Meralco closed at P253.40 on Friday, up 0.96 percent from its previous close of P251 apiece"--this as the national economy suffers, as exemplified by the recent statement of businessman Robert Go, director of the Philippine Retailers Association and chairman of the Economic Development Committee of the Regional Development Council (RDC) saying "Because of these big power expenses, most of the profits of businessmen in the past year were wiped out and if this will continue, the workers will be affected because their employers can hardly adjust wages."

Stated simply, the power oligarchs are killing every one of us. Time to fight back.

(Watch Destiny Cable GNN's HTL edition of Talk News TV, Saturdays, 8:15 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11:15 p.m., this week with senatorial candidate Joey de Venecia; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com for our articles plus TV and radio archives)

Friday, June 29, 2012

Manning, Assange and Suu Kyi

DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
6/29/2012



On April 5, 2010 WikiLeaks released a classified US military video of three air strikes from a US Apache helicopter last July 12, 2007 in New Baghdad, Iraq. Eighteen people were killed, including two journalists working for Reuters, Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen, while two children were wounded in an incoming private van that was going to rescue one of the reporters before it was fired upon. We know of the children because the video that showed US ground troops arriving at the area--recorded by the gunsight camera on the Apache helicopter, Crazyhorse 18--had a soldier "running as he (carried) one of the children wounded in the attack on the van."

Thanks to YouTube, millions of global citizens laid witness to those gruesome events. But had it not been for Private Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old intelligence analyst with the US Army in Baghdad who allegedly passed on the material to WikiLeaks, the world might still have not had any inkling of the atrocities that transpired on that fateful day.

Manning was arrested in May 2010 in Iraq on suspicion of passing classified materials to the whistleblower Web site, then charged with communicating national defense information to an unauthorized source and aiding the enemy--all of which could result in lifetime imprisonment.

Meanwhile, the other figure in this controversy, Julian Paul Assange (aged 42 today), is an Australian computer programmer, Internet political activist, publisher, and journalist, best known as the founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, a Web site that publishes information from whistleblowers everywhere.

A hacker-activist in his youth, Assange has garnered numerous awards and nominations, including the 2009 Amnesty International Media Award, the 2010 Readers' Choice for Time's Person of the Year, the 2011 Sydney Peace Foundation gold medal, the 2011 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism, and a nod for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize. Fearing the accolades were a build-up for another "useful idiot," I kept quiet about him; now, I'm convinced he is genuine.

In 2010, a European arrest warrant was issued for Assange on what appeared to be trumped-up charges of rape and sexual assault. He was later arrested in the UK and freed on bail after 10 days. On May 30 of this year, Assange lost his Supreme Court appeal to prevent extradition to Sweden. Then on June 19, Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he sought political asylum on the basis of political persecution. Ecuador granted him temporary protection pending deliberations by the Ecuadorean parliament.

Just before his asylum bid and while serving house arrest in the UK, Assange had around half a dozen episodes of his own talk show beamed over Russia Today (seen here on Destiny Cable Channel 86). Every episode and interview I had the chance to follow was always interesting and in-depth; the last one with Imran Khan of Pakistan was no exception as it exposed the US as well as the Pakistani ruling class' corrupt politics.

The work and sacrifice of these two heroes, at a time when US imperialism is at its apogee, highlights the power of truth and modern information or--to borrow from another Internet dissident Alex Jones--the "Information War." This "Infowar" is one that will rouse the world against the US war industry and its controlled war-coddling mainstream media all over the world.

Indeed, these are the people who deserve all the international peace and democracy awards (except for the debased Nobel Peace Prize after it was bestowed to a mother-and-child killer in the White House, now infamous for his unmanned drone terrorism all over the world).

Sadly, there is no clamor yet in the Philippines for the kind of heroism of these two whistleblower-warriors for truth and global transparency. This is perhaps because a lot of column inches are being devoted to certain darlings of Western "human rights" advocates such as Aung San Suu Kyi.

Our Tribune colleague, Ken Fuller, wrote in "A rendezvous with disappointment" a good assessment of Suu Kyi and with apologies I summarize: "US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton flew in and… met Aung Sang Suu Kyi for talks … Then, on April 13, following the NLD (Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy) by-election victories, in came UK Prime Minister David Cameron … What is happening here… is that Western leaders… are now hurrying to secure a place at the head of the line … Surely Aung San Suu Kyi would not allow them to pillage her country? … (But as) we get to socio-economic questions… what will the economy look like? Will Myanmar attempt to industrialize? What will be the balance between public and private, local and foreign enterprise? … voters were told that the NLD would 'focus on seeking necessary international assistance for development of the nation,' and that 'it is required to make a shift to market economy with a right balance between freedom, stability and social justice, based on the rule of law.' So, there will be a market economy. But that is not all. 'It is required to closely cooperate with the International Monetary Fund…'"

Last week in Oslo, Suu Kyi personally received the Nobel Peace honor bestowed on her 21 years ago, getting "two standing ovations as she gave her long-delayed acceptance speech." Before the Norwegian Nobel Committee, the King and Queen of Norway, and about 600 dignitaries, "The 66-year-old champion of political freedom praised the power of her 1991 Nobel honor both for saving her from the depths of personal despair and shining an enduring spotlight on injustices in distant Burma."

But I wonder, notwithstanding the fact that Myanmar has never invaded other lands, what has Suu Kyi really said and done about Western imperialism and its heinous cruelties all over the world? Hasn't she merely epitomized the hypocrisy of the West by serving as "human rights" leverage against struggling Asian and African nations?

Indeed, placing her side-by-side with the heroic Manning and Assange only reveals who the real glove-puppet of the West is.

(Watch Destiny Cable GNN's HTL edition of Talk News TV, Saturdays, 8:15 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11:15 p.m., this week on "The Oust PiNoy Movement" with Mon Pedrosa; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com for our articles plus TV and radio archives)