Russian ruble collapses amidst mounting social and political tensions

russia_3124366b

By Andrea Peters
17 December 2014

The Russian ruble hit historic lows relative to the dollar and the euro early this week. In what analysts and government representatives are describing as the worst crisis since either 2008-2009 or the Russian default of 1998, the national currency was trading for as little as 80 rubles to the dollar and 100 to the euro on Tuesday, having undergone a 10 percent decline in just a single day.

Efforts by the Central Bank yesterday to stem the collapse failed. After it hiked interest rates from 10.5 to 17 percent, the ruble briefly recovered some of its value, but then resumed its downward spiral. Some experts say the central bank’s dramatic moves only worsened the situation by spreading a sense of panic.

On Tuesday, the US moved to deepen the ruble crisis with the announcement from the White House that President Obama would sign a bill by the end of the week authorizing him to impose harsher economic sanctions on Moscow and send lethal military aid to Ukraine.

Last month, the Central Bank allowed the ruble to float freely on international currency markets in the hope that this might stabilize the situation.

Russia’s economy is being hit by the simultaneous impact of Western sanctions resulting from the conflict over Ukraine and a collapse in the global price of oil, which is the anchor of the country’s economy. While the Russian government developed its budget based on an oil price of no less than $90 a barrel, crude is currently trading at less than $60 a barrel.

Investors are pulling out of Russia at a fast clip. In the fourth quarter of this year, capital flight hit $49 billion, according to the Central Bank. It is expected to total $134 billion for 2014 as a whole, more than double last year’s amount.

“The situation is critical,” said Sergei Shvetsov, first deputy governor of the Bank of Russia at a roundtable on financial markets in Moscow on Tuesday. “Believe me, the choice made by the central bank’s directors was a choice between the very bad and the very, very bad.” He indicated that further actions to stabilize the country’s monetary situation would be forthcoming.

The depreciation of the ruble comes alongside a sharp increase in inflation, with prices having risen by 8.9 percent since the start of the year, according to Rosstat, the state statistical agency. The head of Moscow’s Department of Trade and Services told the news agency Interfax that in Moscow, one of the most expensive cities in the world, the consumer basket of basic goods had risen by 10 percent compared to last year.

Food prices, in particular, are skyrocketing, having climbed by 20 to 25 percent since the start of 2014. News agencies are predicting a further 15 percent jump after the New Year holiday.

Domestic as well as foreign-made foodstuffs are climbing in cost, as Russian producers often rely on overseas inputs purchased with dollars and euros to make their products. The All-Russian Public Organization of Small and Medium Enterprises (OPORA) has appealed to the Ministry of Economic Development to legalize the use of euro-denominated prices in stores and government contracts, insisting that businesses would suffer huge losses without such a change.

Real wages are being hit hard by inflation, said Vice-Premier Olga Golodets in an interview with ITAR-TASS, and poverty is on the rise. “We are ending the year with 15.7 million poor. But under conditions of inflation, these numbers will inevitably grow, especially among families with children,” said Golodets, noting that households with children between the ages of 18 months and 3 years were at greatest risk.

“Everyone is in a tizzy, understanding that the depreciation of the ruble is affecting the population and threatens a social explosion,” said one government bureaucrat in an interview with Forbes.

Predictions for Russia’s economic outlook for next year continue to worsen. After reporting growth of just 0.7 percent in the third quarter of this year, the government is predicting a contraction of 0.8 percent in the first quarter of 2015. The online Russian press outlet RBK reports that, according to the Bank of Russia, if oil prices stay at $60 a barrel over the course of 2015, Russian gross domestic product will fall by 4.5 percent to 4.8 percent. On December 15, the United Arab Emirates Energy Minister said oil prices could fall to $40 a barrel.

On Tuesday, Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev called a meeting of the ministries of Economic Development and Finance, as well as the central bank, to work out a series of “anti-crisis measures.” Details have yet to be released.

Two Ministry of Finance officials indicated to Forbes that so far there is no clear understanding of what the government is preparing to do. Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said that his ministry was not considering the implementation of currency controls.

There is speculation that the Kremlin is preparing to carry out а bailout akin to what it implemented in 2008-2009, when it rescued the financial sector and other segments of big business with massive injections of funds. According toForbes, one official said the government has $160 billion rubles set aside in the 2015 budget for state intervention in the economy as well as the ability to borrow funds from various government financial institutions.

In a sign of frictions building up within the government, Minister of Economic Development Aleksei Ulyukaev said that, in hindsight, the central bank should have raised rates sooner. He added, “It is very important to ensure unity of action between the Bank of Russia and the government.”

Rosneft, the Russian oil giant run by Igor Sechin, a Kremlin insider with close ties to President Vladimir Putin, has been blamed for playing a role in the crisis. Last week, the company issued 625 billion rubles worth of bonds, flooding the market. Sechin denounced accusations that Rosneft was undermining the Russian economy as “a provocation.”

Even as the Russian ruling elite scrambles to find a way out of the immediate situation, there is a growing recognition that the economic disaster gripping the country is the result of the escalating geopolitical confrontation with the West, and, in particular, the United States. The director of the analytical department of the investment company REGION told RIA Novosti that the depreciation of the ruble is fundamentally bound up with speculative attacks against the currency being carried out by “non-residents,” making the central bank’s use of interest rates to stem the crisis ineffective.

Speaking to Forbes, one government insider described the situation in the government as one of near-panic and implied that the unraveling of the Russian economy was bound up with efforts on the part of the West to force regime-change in Russia. “Everyone understands that the current economic crisis is the consequence of the political crisis that emerged due to Putin’s return to the Kremlin. That is, no financial or economic anti-crisis plans will fundamentally change the situation,” he said.

 

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/12/17/rubl-d17.html

As Washington “Pivots” to Asia, China Does the Eurasian Pirouette

Go West, Young Han

trans-eurasian-corridor-300x150
 
By Pepe Escobar

November 18, 2014: it’s a day that should live forever in history. On that day, in the city of Yiwu in China’s Zhejiang province, 300 kilometers south of Shanghai, the first train carrying 82 containers of export goods weighing more than 1,000 tons left a massive warehouse complex heading for Madrid. It arrived on December 9th.

Welcome to the new trans-Eurasia choo-choo train.  At over 13,000 kilometers, it will regularly traverse the longest freight train route in the world, 40% farther than the legendary Trans-Siberian Railway. Its cargo will cross China from East to West, then Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus, Poland, Germany, France, and finally Spain.

You may not have the faintest idea where Yiwu is, but businessmen plying their trades across Eurasia, especially from the Arab world, are already hooked on the city “where amazing happens!” We’re talking about the largest wholesale center for small-sized consumer goods — from clothes to toys — possibly anywhere on Earth.

The Yiwu-Madrid route across Eurasia represents the beginning of a set of game-changing developments. It will be an efficient logistics channel of incredible length. It will represent geopolitics with a human touch, knitting together small traders and huge markets across a vast landmass. It’s already a graphic example of Eurasian integration on the go. And most of all, it’s the first building block on China’s “New Silk Road,” conceivably the project of the new century and undoubtedly the greatest trade story in the world for the next decade.

Go west, young Han. One day, if everything happens according to plan (and according to the dreams of China’s leaders), all this will be yours — via high-speed rail, no less.  The trip from China to Europe will be a two-day affair, not the 21 days of the present moment. In fact, as that freight train left Yiwu, the D8602 bullet train was leaving Urumqi in Xinjiang Province, heading for Hami in China’s far west. That’s the first high-speed railway built in Xinjiang, and more like it will be coming soon across China at what is likely to prove dizzying speed.

Today, 90% of the global container trade still travels by ocean, and that’s what Beijing plans to change.  Its embryonic, still relatively slow New Silk Road represents its first breakthrough in what is bound to be an overland trans-continental container trade revolution.

And with it will go a basket of future “win-win” deals, including lower transportation costs, the expansion of Chinese construction companies ever further into the Central Asian “stans,” as well as into Europe, an easier and faster way to move uranium and rare metals from Central Asia elsewhere, and the opening of myriad new markets harboring hundreds of millions of people.

So if Washington is intent on “pivoting to Asia,” China has its own plan in mind.  Think of it as a pirouette to Europe across Eurasia.

Defecting to the East?

The speed with which all of this is happening is staggering. Chinese President Xi Jinping launched the New Silk Road Economic Belt in Astana, Kazakhstan, in September 2013. One month later, while in Indonesia’s capital, Jakarta, he announced a twenty-first-century Maritime Silk Road. Beijing defines the overall concept behind its planning as “one road and one belt,” when what it’s actually thinking about is a boggling maze of prospective roads, rail lines, sea lanes, and belts.

We’re talking about a national strategy that aims to draw on the historical aura of the ancient Silk Road, which bridged and connected civilizations, east and west, while creating the basis for a vast set of interlocked pan-Eurasian economic cooperation zones.  Already the Chinese leadership has green-lighted a $40 billion infrastructure fund, overseen by the China Development Bank, to build roads, high-speed rail lines, and energy pipelines in assorted Chinese provinces. The fund will sooner or later expand to cover projects in South Asia, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and parts of Europe. But Central Asia is the key immediate target.

Chinese companies will be investing in, and bidding for contracts in, dozens of countries along those planned silk roads. After three decades of development while sucking up foreign investment at breakneck speed, China’s strategy is now to let its own capital flow to its neighbors. It’s already clinched $30 billion in contracts with Kazakhstan and $15 billion with Uzbekistan. It has provided Turkmenistan with $8 billion in loans and a billion more has gone to Tajikistan.

In 2013, relations with Kyrgyzstan were upgraded to what the Chinese term “strategic level.” China is already the largest trading partner for all of them except Uzbekistan and, though the former Central Asian socialist republics of the Soviet Union are still tied to Russia’s network of energy pipelines, China is at work there, too, creating its own version of Pipelineistan, including anew gas pipeline to Turkmenistan, with more to come.

The competition among Chinese provinces for much of this business and the infrastructure that goes with it will be fierce. Xinjiang is already being reconfigured by Beijing as a key hub in its new Eurasian network. In early November 2014, Guangdong — the “factory of the world” — hosted the first international expo for the country’s Maritime Silk Road and representatives of no less than 42 countries attended the party.

President Xi himself is now enthusiastically selling his home province, Shaanxi, which once harbored the start of the historic Silk Road in Xian, as a twenty-first-century transportation hub. He’s made his New Silk Road pitch for it to, among others, Tajikistan, the Maldives, Sri Lanka, India, and Afghanistan.

Just like the historic Silk Road, the new one has to be thought of in the plural.  Imagine it as a future branching maze of roads, rail lines, and pipelines. A key stretch is going to run through Central Asia, Iran, and Turkey, with Istanbul as a crossroads site. Iran and Central Asia are alreadyactively promoting their own connections to it. Another key stretch will follow the Trans-Siberian Railway with Moscow as a key node. Once that trans-Siberian high-speed rail remix is completed, travel time between Beijing and Moscow will plunge from the current six and a half days to only 33 hours. In the end, Rotterdam, Duisburg, and Berlin could all be nodes on this future “highway” and German business execs are enthusiastic about the prospect.

The Maritime Silk Road will start in Guangdong province en route to the Malacca Strait, the Indian Ocean, the Horn of Africa, the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, ending essentially in Venice, which would be poetic justice indeed.  Think of it as Marco Polo in reverse.

All of this is slated to be completed by 2025, providing China with the kind of future “soft power” that it now sorely lacks. When President Xi hails the push to “break the connectivity bottleneck” across Asia, he’s also promising Chinese credit to a wide range of countries.

Now, mix the Silk Road strategy with heightened cooperation among the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), with accelerated cooperation among the members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), with a more influential Chinese role over the 120-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) — no wonder there’s the perception across the Global South that, while the U.S. remains embroiled in its endless wars, the world is defecting to the East.

New Banks and New Dreams

The recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Beijing was certainly a Chinese success story, but the bigger APEC story went virtually unreported in the United States.  Twenty-two Asian countries approved the creation of an Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) only one year after Xi initially proposed it. This is to be yet another bank, like the BRICS Development Bank, that will help finance projects in energy, telecommunications, and transportation.  Its initial capital will be $50 billion and China and India will be its main shareholders.

Consider its establishment a Sino-Indian response to the Asian Development Bank (ADB), founded in 1966 under the aegis of the World Bank and considered by most of the world as a stalking horse for the Washington consensus. When China and India insist that the new bank’s loans will be made on the basis of “justice, equity, and transparency,” they mean that to be in stark contrast to the ADB (which remains a U.S.-Japan affair with those two countries contributing 31% of its capital and holding 25% of its voting power) — and a sign of a coming new order in Asia.  In addition, at a purely practical level, the ADB won’t finance the real needs of the Asian infrastructure push that the Chinese leadership is dreaming about, which is why the AIIB is going to come in so handy.

Keep in mind that China is already the top trading partner for India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.  It’s in second place when it comes to Sri Lanka and Nepal.  It’s number one again when it comes to virtually all the members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), despite China’s recent well-publicized conflicts over who controls waters rich in energy deposits in the region. We’re talking here about the compelling dream of a convergence of 600 million people in Southeast Asia, 1.3 billion in China, and 1.5 billion on the Indian subcontinent.

Only three APEC members — apart from the U.S. — did not vote to approve the new bank: Japan, South Korea, and Australia, all under immense pressure from the Obama administration. (Indonesia signed on a few days late.) And Australia is finding it increasingly difficult to resist the lure of what, these days, is being called “yuan diplomacy.”

In fact, whatever the overwhelming majority of Asian nations may think about China’s self-described “peaceful rise,” most are already shying away from or turning their backs on a Washington-and-NATO-dominated trade and commercial world and the set of pacts — from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) for Europe to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) for Asia — that would go with it.

When Dragon Embraces Bear

Russian President Vladimir Putin had a fabulous APEC. After his country and China clinched a massive $400 billion natural gas deal in May — around the Power of Siberia pipeline, whose construction began this year — they added a second agreement worth $325 billion around the Altai pipeline originating in western Siberia.

These two mega-energy deals don’t mean that Beijing will become Moscow-dependent when it comes to energy, though it’s estimated that they will provide 17% of China’s natural gas needs by 2020. (Gas, however, makes up only 10% per cent of China’s energy mix at present.)  But these deals signal where the wind is blowing in the heart of Eurasia. Though Chinese banks can’t replace those affected by Washington and EU sanctions against Russia, they are offering a Moscow battered by recent plummeting oil prices some relief in the form of access to Chinese credit.

On the military front, Russia and China are now committed to large-scale joint military exercises, while Russia’s advanced S-400 air defense missile system will soon enough be heading for Beijing.  In addition, for the first time in the post-Cold War era, Putin recently raised the old Soviet-era doctrine of “collective security” in Asia as a possible pillar for a new Sino-Russian strategic partnership.

Chinese President Xi has taken to calling all this the “evergreen tree of Chinese-Russian friendship” — or you could think of it as Putin’s strategic “pivot” to China.  In either case, Washington is not exactly thrilled to see Russia and China beginning to mesh their strengths: Russian excellence in aerospace, defense technology, and heavy equipment manufacturing matching Chinese excellence in agriculture, light industry, and information technology.

It’s also been clear for years that, across Eurasia, Russian, not Western, pipelines are likely to prevail. The latest spectacular Pipelineistan opera — Gazprom’s cancellation of the prospective South Stream pipeline that was to bring yet more Russian natural gas to Europe — will, in the end, only guarantee an even greater energy integration of both Turkey and Russia into the new Eurasia.

So Long to the Unipolar Moment 

All these interlocked developments suggest a geopolitical tectonic shift in Eurasia that the American media simply hasn’t begun to grasp. Which doesn’t mean that no one notices anything.  You can smell the incipient panic in the air in the Washington establishment.  The Council on Foreign Relations is already publishing laments about the possibility that the former sole superpower’s exceptionalist moment is “unraveling.” The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission can only blame the Chinese leadership for being “disloyal,” adverse to “reform,” and an enemy of the “liberalization” of their own economy.

The usual suspects carp that upstart China is upsetting the “international order,” will doom “peace and prosperity” in Asia for all eternity, and may becreating a “new kind of Cold War” in the region. From Washington’s perspective, a rising China, of course, remains the major “threat” in Asia, if not the world, even as the Pentagon spends gigantic sums to keep its sprawling global empire of bases intact. Those Washington-based stories about the new China threat in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, however, never mention that China remains encircled by U.S. bases, while lacking a base of its own outside its territory.

Of course, China does face titanic problems, including the pressures being applied by the globe’s “sole superpower.” Among other things, Beijing fears threats to the security of its sea-borne energy supply from abroad, which helps explain its massive investment in helping create a welcoming Eurasian Pipelineistan from Central Asia to Siberia. Fears for its energy future also explain its urge to “escape from Malacca” by reaching for energy supplies in Africa and South America, and its much-discussed offensive to claim energy-rich areas of the East and South China seas, which Beijing is betting could become a “second Persian Gulf,” ultimately yielding 130 billion barrels of oil.

On the internal front, President Xi has outlined in detail his vision of a “results-oriented” path for his country over the next decade. As road maps go, China’s “must-do” list of reforms is nothing short of impressive. And worrying about keeping China’s economy, already the world’s number oneby size, rolling along at a feverish pitch, Xi is also turbo-charging the fight against corruption, graft, and waste, especially within the Communist Party itself.

Economic efficiency is another crucial problem. Chinese state-owned enterprises are now investing a staggering $2.3 trillion a year — 43% of the country’s total investment — in infrastructure. Yet studies at Tsinghua University’s School of Management have shown that an array of investments in facilities ranging from steel mills to cement factories have only added to overcapacity and so actually undercut China’s productivity.

Xiaolu Wang and Yixiao Zhou, authors of the academic paper “Deepening Reform for China’s Long-term Growth and Development,” contend that it will be difficult for China to jump from middle-income to high-income status — a key requirement for a truly global power. For this, an avalanche of extra government funds would have to go into areas like social security/unemployment benefits and healthcare, which take up at present 9.8% and 15.1% of the 2014 budget — high for some Western countries but not high enough for China’s needs.

Still, anyone who has closely followed what China has accomplished over these past three decades knows that, whatever its problems, whatever the threats, it won’t fall apart. As a measure of the country’s ambitions for economically reconfiguring the commercial and power maps of the world, China’s leaders are also thinking about how, in the near future, relations with Europe, too, could be reshaped in ways that would be historic.

What About That “Harmonious Community”?

At the same moment that China is proposing a new Eurasian integration, Washington has opted for an “empire of chaos,” a dysfunctional global system now breeding mayhem and blowback across the Greater Middle East into Africa and even to the peripheries of Europe.

In this context, a “new Cold War” paranoia is on the rise in the U.S., Europe, and Russia.  Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who knows a thing or two about Cold Wars (having ended one), couldn’t be more alarmed. Washington’s agenda of “isolating” and arguably crippling Russia is ultimately dangerous, even if in the long run it may also be doomed to failure.

At the moment, whatever its weaknesses, Moscow remains the only power capable of negotiating a global strategic balance with Washington and putting some limits on its empire of chaos.  NATO nations still follow meekly in Washington’s wake and China as yet lacks the strategic clout.

Russia, like China, is betting on Eurasian integration.  No one, of course, knows how all this will end.  Only four years ago, Vladimir Putin was proposing “a harmonious economic community stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok,” involving a trans-Eurasian free trade agreement. Yet today, with the U.S., NATO, and Russia locked in a Cold War-like battle in the shadows over Ukraine, and with the European Union incapable of disentangling itself from NATO, the most immediate new paradigm seems to be less total integration than war hysteria and fear of future chaos spreading to other parts of Eurasia.

Don’t rule out a change in the dynamics of the situation, however.  In the long run, it seems to be in the cards.  One day, Germany may lead parts of Europe away from NATO’s “logic,” since German business leaders and industrialists have an eye on their potentially lucrative commercial future in a new Eurasia. Strange as it might seem amid today’s war of words over Ukraine, the endgame could still prove to involve a Berlin-Moscow-Beijing alliance.

At present, the choice between the two available models on the planet seems stark indeed: Eurasian integration or a spreading empire of chaos. China and Russia know what they want, and so, it seems, does Washington.  The question is: What will the other moving parts of Eurasia choose to do?

Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for Asia Times/Hong Kong, an analyst for RT, and a TomDispatch regular. His latest book is Empire of Chaos (Nimble Books). Follow him on Facebook.

Copyright 2014 Pepe Escobar

 

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175935/tomgram%3A_pepe_escobar%2C_eurasian_integration_vs._the_empire_of_chaos/

In 2009, the president promised nuclear disarmament. Five years later, our stockpile remains frightfully intact

Obama channels Dr. Stangelove: How the president learned to stop worrying and love the bomb

, TOMDISPATCH.COM

Obama channels Dr. Stangelove: How the president learned to stop worrying and love the bomb

This piece originally appeared on TomDispatch.

Mark these days. A long-dreaded transformation from hope to doom is taking place as the United States of America ushers the world onto the no-turning-back road of nuclear perdition. Once, we could believe there was another way to go. Indeed, we were invited to take that path by the man who is, even today, overseeing the blocking of it, probably forever.

It was one of the most stirring speeches an American president had ever given. The place was Prague; the year was 2009; the president was the recently sworn in Barack Obama. The promise made that day is worth recalling at length, especially since, by now, it is largely forgotten:

“As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act… So today, I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. I’m not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly — perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now, we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, ‘Yes, we can…’”

President Obama had been in office only three months when, boldly claiming his place on the world stage, he unequivocally committed himself and his country to a nuclear abolition movement that, until then, had at best existed somewhere on the distant fringes of power politics. “I know,” he added, “that there are some who will question whether we can act on such a broad agenda. There are those who doubt whether true international cooperation is possible… and there are those who hear talk of a world without nuclear weapons and doubt whether it’s worth setting a goal that seems impossible to achieve. But make no mistake. We know where that road leads.”

The simple existence of nuclear weapons, an American president declared, paved the road to perdition for humanity.

Obama as The Captain Ahab of Nuclear Weapons

At that moment, the foundations for an imagined abolitionist world were modest indeed, but not nonexistent.  The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) had, for instance, struck a bargain between nuclear haves and have-nots, under which a path to abolition was treated as real.  The dealseemed clear enough: the have-nots would promise to forego obtaining nukes and, in return, the world’s reigning nuclear powers would pledge to take, in the words of the treaty, “effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament.”



For decades before the Obama moment, however, the superpower arsenals of nuclear warheads continued to grow like so many mushrooms, while new nuclear states — Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea — built their own impressive arsenals.  In those years, with the singular exception of South Africa, nuclear-weapons states simply ignored their half of the NPT bargain and the crucial clause mandating progress toward eventual disarmament was all but forgotten.

When the Cold War ended in 1991 with the disappearance of the Soviet Union, and the next year Americans elected as president Bill Clinton, who was famously against the Vietnam War, it was at least possible to imagine that nukes might go the way of internationally banned chemical weapons. But Washington chose otherwise.  Despite a paucity of enemies anywhere on Earth, the Pentagon’s 1994 Nuclear Posture Review insisted on maintaining the American nuclear arsenal at Cold War levels as a “hedge,” an insurance policy, against an imagined return of Communism, fascism, or something terrible in Russia anyway — and Clinton accepted the Pentagon’s position.

Soon enough, however, even prominent hawks of the Cold War era began to worry that such a nuclear insurance policy could itself ignite a global fire. In 1999, a chief architect of the nuclear mindset, Paul Nitze, stepped away from a lifetime obsession with building up nuclear power to denounce nukes as “a threat mostly to ourselves” and to explicitly call for unilateral disarmament. Other former apostles of nuclear realpolitik also came to embrace the goal of abolition. In 2008, four high priests of the cult of nuclear normalcy — former Senator Sam Nunn, former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, and former Secretaries of State George Schultz and Henry Kissinger — jointly issued a sacrilegious renunciation of their nuclear faith on the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. “We endorse setting the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons,” they wrote, “and working energetically on the actions required to achieve that goal.”

Unfortunately, such figures had come to Jesus only after leaving office, when they were exempt from the responsibility of matching their high-flown rhetoric with the gritty work of making it real.

Obama in Prague was another matter.  He was at the start of what would become an eight-year presidency and his rejection of nuclear fatalism rang across the world. Only months later, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, in large part because of this stunning commitment. A core hope of the post-World-War-II peace movement, always marginal, had at last been embraced in the seat of power. A year later, at Obama’s direction, the Pentagon, in its 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, actually advanced the president’s purpose, committing itself to “a multilateral effort to limit, reduce, and eventually eliminate all nuclear weapons worldwide.”

“The United States,” that document promised, “will not develop new nuclear warheads.” When it came to the future of the nuclear arsenal, a program of responsible maintenance was foreseen, but no new ground was to be broken. “Life Extension Programs,” the Pentagon promised, “will use only nuclear components based on previously tested designs, and will not support new military missions or provide new military capabilities.”

Obama’s timing in 2009 was critical. The weapons and delivery systems of the nuclear arsenal were aging fast. Many of the country’s missiles, warheads, strategic bombers, and nuclear-powered submarines dated back to the early Cold War era and were effectively approaching their radioactive sell-by dates. In other words, massive reductions in the arsenal had to begin before pressures to launch a program for the wholesale replacement of those weapons systems grew too strong to resist.  Such a program, in turn, would necessarily mean combining the latest technological innovations with ever greater lethality in a way guaranteed to reinvigorate the entire enterprise across the world — the polar opposite of “effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament.”

Obama, in other words, was presiding over a golden moment, but an apocalyptic deadline was bearing down. And sure enough, that deadline came crashing through when three things happened: Vladimir Putin resurfaced as an incipient fascist intent on returning Russia to great power status; extremist Republicans took Congress hostage; and Barack Obama found himself lashed, like Herman Melville’s Captain Ahab, to “the monomaniac incarnation of all those malicious agencies which some deep men feel eating in them, till they are left living on half a heart and half a lung.” Insiders often compare the Pentagon to Moby Dick, the Great White Whale, and Obama learned why. The peaceful intentions with which he began his presidency were slapped away by the flukes of the monster, like so many novice oarsmen in a whaling skiff.

Hence Obama’s course reversals in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria; hence the White House stumbles, including an unseemly succession of secretaries of defense, the fourth of whom, Ashton Carter, can reliably be counted on to advance the renewal of the nuclear force. The Pentagon’s “intangible malignity,” in Melville’s phrase, was steadily quickened by both Putin and the Republicans, but Obama’s half-devoured heart shows in nothing so much as his remarkably full-bore retreat, in both rhetoric and policy, from the goal of nuclear abolition.

recent piece by New York Times science correspondent William J. Broad made the president’s nuclear failure dramatic. Cuts to the U.S. nuclear stockpile initiated by George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, he pointed out, totaled 14,801 weapons; Obama’s reductions so far: 507 weapons. In 2010, a new START treaty between Moscow and Washington capped future deployed nukes at 1,500. As of this October, the U.S. still deploys 1,642 of them and Russia 1,643; neither nation, that is, has achieved START levels, which only count deployed weapons. (Including stored but readily re-armed and targeted nukes, the U.S. arsenal today totals about 4,800 weapons.)

In order to get the votes of Senate Republicans to ratify the START treaty, Obama made what turned out to be a devil’s bargain.  He agreed to lay the groundwork for a vast “modernization” of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, which, in the name of updating an aged system, is already morphing into a full-blown reinvention of the arms cache at an estimated future cost of more than atrillion dollars. In the process, the Navy wants, and may get, 12 new strategic submarines; the Air Force wants, and may get, a new long-range strike bomber force. Bombers and submarines would, of course, both be outfitted with next-generation missiles, and we’d be off to the races. The arms races.

All of this unfolds as Vladimir Putin warms the hearts of nuclear enthusiasts everywhere not only by his aggressions in Ukraine, but also by undercutting the landmark 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty by testing a new ground-launched cruise missile. Indeed, just this fall, Russia successfully launched a new intercontinental ballistic missile. It seems that Moscow, too, can modernize.

On a Twenty-First Century Road to Perdition

Responding to the early Obama vision of “effective measures” toward nuclear disarmament, and following up on that 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, senior Pentagon officials pursued serious discussions about practical measures to reduce the nuclear arsenal. Leading experts advocated a shift away from the Cold War’s orgasmic strike targeting doctrine that still necessitates an arsenal of weapons counted in the thousands.

In fact, in response to budget constraints, legal obligations under a jeopardized non-proliferation treaty, and the most urgent moral mandate facing the country, America’s nuclear strategy could shift without wrenching difficulty, at the very least, to one of “minimal deterrence.” Hardcore national security mavens tell us this. Such a shift would involve a reduction in both the deployed and stored nuclear arsenal to something like 500 warheads. Even if that goal were pursued unilaterally, it would leave more than enough weaponry to deter any conceivable state-based nuclear threat, including Russia’s, no matter what Putin may do.

Five hundred is, of course, a long way from zero and so from the president’s 2009 goal of abolition, and yet opposition even to that level would be fierce in Washington. Though disarming and disposing of thousands of nukes would cost far less than replacement, it would still be expensive, and you can count on one thing: Pentagon nuclearists would find firm allies among congressional Republicans, who would be loathe to fund such a retreat from virtue’s Armageddon. Meanwhile, confronting such cuts, the defense industry’s samurai lobbyists would unsheathe their swords.

But if a passionate Obama could make a compelling case for a nuclear-free world from Prague in 2009, why not go directly to the American people and make the case today? There is, of course, no sign that the president intends to do such a thing any longer, but if a commander-in-chief were to order nuclear reductions into the hundreds, the result might actually be a transformation of the American political conscience. In the process, the global dream of a nuclear-free world could be resuscitated and the commitment of non-nuclear states (including Iran) to refrain from nuclear-weapons development could be rescued. Most crucially, there would no longer be any rationale for the large-scale reinvention of the American nuclear arsenal, a deadly project this nation is even now preparing to launch. At the very least, a vocal rededication to an ultimate disarmament, to the actual abolition of nuclear weapons, would keep that road open for a future president to re-embark upon.

Alas, Pentagon advocates of “minimal deterrence” have already been overridden. The president’s once fiercely held conviction is now a mere shadow of itself. As happened with Ahab’s wrecked whaling ship, tumultuous seas are closing over the hope that once seized the world’s attention. Take it for granted that, in retirement and out of power, ex-president Obama will rediscover his one-time commitment to a world freed from the nuclear nightmare. He will feel the special responsibility proper to a citizen of “the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon.” The then-former president’s speeches on the subject will be riveting and his philanthropy will be sharply targeted. All for naught.

Because of decisions likely to be taken this year and next, no American president will ever again be able to embrace this purpose as Obama once did. Nuclear weapons will instead become a normalized and permanent part of the twenty-first century American arsenal, and therefore of the arsenals of many other nations; nuclear weapons, that is, will have become an essential element of the human future — as long as that future lasts.

So yes, mark these days down. Nuclear abolition itself is being abolished. Meanwhile, let us acknowledge, as that hopeful young president once asked us to, that we know where this road leads.

James Carroll is the bestselling author of the National Book Award-winning memoir “An American Requiem,” “Constantine’s Sword,” a history of Christian anti-Semitism and 10 novels. His latest book is “Jerusalem, Jerusalem: How the Ancient City Ignited Our Modern World.” He lectures widely on war and peace and on Jewish-Christian-Muslim reconciliation. He lives in Boston.

What the decline of McDonald’s really means

Death of a fast-food Goliath: 

McDonald’s is on the decline in America. Here’s why that isn’t automatically good news

Death of a fast-food Goliath: What the decline of McDonald's really means
(Credit: 1000 Words via Shutterstock/Salon)

The reign of the golden arches is ending. McDonald’s reported this week that its already-declining U.S. sales nose-dived in November, down 4.6 percent compared to last year. The company that introduced America to fast food, and has come to stand as its icon, is fading away.

It would be a mistake, however, to think that America’s falling out of love with fast food. It’s just that these days, we call it Chipotle.

There are plenty of reasons ascribed to McDonald’s downfall, but one constantly cited is that the post-”Super Size Me” world just isn’t eager to subject itself to the chain’s version of food any longer. Americans, the narrative goes, are demanding more of their meals. And the spoils are going to a new generation of “fast casual” providers who can provide they’re rising to the challenge.

McDonald’s certainly seems to believe this to be the case. While the company says it plans to pare its offerings down to the essentials, one of the new initiatives it’s spearheading in an attempt to reverse its fortunes is a sleek, touch-screen burger customization system, giving customers a greater degree of control over the options they do have — just like at Chipotle. Crucially, the company also seems to be realizing that there may be a problem with the food itself: building on its recent P.R. campaign aimed at demystifying the origins of McRibs and McNuggets, executives say they’re also considering paring down the list of ingredients in their highly processed offerings. In November, it rejected a new variety of genetically modified potato from its biggest supplier.



None of that, however, holds a candle to the image Chipotle is selling, best encompassed by “The Scarecrow.” The viral video’s success lay in its portrayal of everything it claims its food isn’t: unnatural, inhumanely raised, factory farm meat laden with God-knows-what chemicals and additives. “From the very beginning, Chipotle has used really high-quality fresh ingredients, and prepares all the foods we serve,” company spokesman Chris Arnold boasted to the AFP. ”So from the beginning, we were doing something which is pretty different than what was happening in traditional American fast food.”

Chipotle’s opened itself up to a fair amount of scrutiny from critics who say it’s overselling just how enlightened its “farm to face” fare truly is, however. Most of its food isn’t organic, and the company still uses genetically modified ingredients. While its efforts to source local, humanely raised and antibiotic-free meat are encouraging, it isn’t always able to live up to its own high (and highly advertised) standards. In some cases, customers end up paying premium fare for a product that’s more of the same.

This is a system-wide trend. Promising signs that other fast food giants are beginning to reform their ways — Panera ditching artificial additives, Chick-Fil-A eliminating chickens raised with antibiotics, Burger King removing gestation crates from its pork supply chain and switching over to cage-free eggs, In-N-Out Burger paying its workers a living wage — are laudable, but they shouldn’t be mistaken for what they are: positive P.R.-garnering baby steps toward improvement of a system that requires a total overhaul.

What Mark Bittman calls Improved Fast Food is still, after all, fast food. It still comes laden with fat, sodium and calories, often in excess of what you’ll get from McDonald’s. Even Chipotle continues to pour Coca-Cola. “Natural,” one of the new guard’s go-to adjectives, is a word with plenty of positive connotations but no FDA-enforceable definition; “humanely raised,” as a standard for livestock, is fallible at best. And I hate to break it to friends of Five Guys and Smashburger, but there’s really no such thing as a “better burger“ (or, for that matter, a better beef burrito) from a health perspective, and certainly not if you’re looking for a sustainable meal. Our growing understanding of diet’s contribution to climate change, on the contrary, holds that we’ve got to drastically cut down our consumption of meat, and of beef in particular.

But consumers don’t care how a Big Mac compares to a burrito in terms of fat and calories, according to a lengthy analysis of the company’s downfall in Fortune – they just care that Chipotle’s food is “seen as being natural, unprocessed and sustainable.” McDonald’s failing may not be that it’s so much worse than its competitors — it’s just that it’s so much worse at making itself look better. This is a food provider, after all, that’s still working to convince us that its burgers don’t contain ground-up worms.

That Americans are seeking out fresh, healthy food is unequivocally a good thing, one that’s already brought about some important reforms. But we’re still a long way away from revolution.

Lindsay Abrams is a staff writer at Salon, reporting on all things sustainable. Follow her on Twitter @readingirl, email labrams@salon.com.

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/12/why_the_end_of_mcdonalds_doesnt_mean_the_end_of_fast_food/?source=newsletter

 

 

DIGITAL MUSIC NEWS

Attorneys In Apple Antitrust Lawsuit

Must Find New Plaintiff By Tuesday

 

Justice      After slogging through years of legal tussles, the antitrust class action lawsuit against Apple Inc. encountered another hiccup this week when the presiding judge removed the last remaining “named plaintiff” from the suit. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers scolded Marianna Rosen and her attorneys on Monday (Dec. 8) for not providing more complete information about the iPods Rosen had purchased. That move came after Apple lawyers successfully argued that the devices Rosen bought were not among those affected by the lawsuit.

Judge Rogers also quickly rejected Apple’s argument that the case should be dismissed because it’s too late to name a new plaintiff. She ordered the attorneys suing Apple to identify a new lead plaintiff by Tuesday (Dec. 16).

As reported by Billboard, a class-action suit must identify at least one person as a “named plaintiff” who suffered the losses or injuries alleged in the case. Rosen had previously said she purchased several iPods that qualified, but Apple attorneys produced evidence that those devices either had the wrong software or were purchased outside the time frame of the lawsuit. Rosen and her attorneys said she had purchased two other iPods in 2008, but Apple lawyers were able to produce records that showed they were purchased with a credit card issued to her husband’s law firm. Apple attorney William Isaacson argued that meant she was not legally the purchaser. A series of pretrial rulings had narrowed the case to covering just 19 months between September 2006 and March 2009.

Both sides estimate 8 million people bought iPods that were potentially covered by the lawsuit. The plaintiffs claim Apple used restrictive software that prevented iPods from playing music purchased from competitors of Apple’s iTunes store, and maintain that amounted to unfair competition. Apple was able to sell iPods at inflated prices because the software froze makers of competing devices out of the market, plaintiffs’ attorneys argue. They also say Apple is liable for $350 million, an amount that would be tripled if a jury finds the company violated federal antitrust rules. 

Lawyers: Apple Secretly Deleted

Competitors’ Downloads From iPods

 

     Before the antitrust suit against Apple was delayed while attorneys search for a new lead plaintiff (see story, above), lawyers presented evidence that the company deleted music that some iPod owners had downloaded from competing music services without telling them. According to the Wall Street Journal, when a user who had downloaded music from a rival service in the period between 2007 and 2009 tried to sync an iPod to the user’s iTunes library, Apple would display an error message and instruct the user to restore the factory settings. Attorney Patrick Coughlin said that, when the user restored the settings, the music from rival services would disappear.

“You guys decided to give them the worst possible experience and blow up” a user’s music library, Coughlin said in U.S. District Court in Oakland.

Apple insists the moves were legitimate security measures, and Apple security director Augustin Farrugia testified the company did not offer a more detailed explanation because, “We don’t need to give users too much information. We don’t want to confuse users.” Farrugia told the court that hackers with names like “DVD Jon” and “Requiem” made Apple “very paranoid” about protecting iTunes. Updates that deleted non-Apple music files were intended to protect consumers from those system break-ins, he said, explaining, “The system was totally hacked.”

Apple declined to comment to the Journal outside of the court testimony. 

Time Spent Listening To Pure-Play

Streams Increases While AM/FM Slips

 

     Satisfaction and time-spent with digital streaming of broadcast (AM/FM) radio is slipping and soon could be overtaken by such on-demand pure-play companies as Pandora, Spotify, and iTunes. That’s the word from Bridge Ratings President Dave Van Dyke, who said in a LinkedIn post that time spent with broadcast simulcast online streams five years ago (2009) was 2-1/2 half hours a day, while pure-play time spent was just under 1-1/2 hours. Furthermore, until 2012 broadcast online listening and pure-play listening continued to increase.

That all changed in 2013, Van Dyke says, as time spent per day with online broadcast streaming dropped while pure-play time spent continued to increase. “At Bridge Ratings, our first thought was that this could be an anomaly,” he observes. “The perception was that all internet streaming behavior was increasing. [But] trends do not support this thinking.”

In fact, a new year-end analysis from Bridge Ratings suggests that, since 2012, broadcast radio online daily time spent listening (TSL) has fallen 9.4% (2.65 to 2.40 hours per day) while pure-play online listening has increased 65% (1.7 to 2.35 hours per day). “By this time next year, online pure play time spent will have surpassed broadcast radio’s online simulcast TSL,” Van Dyke says. “And if broadcast radio streaming content remains more or less the same as it is, we project this trend will continue on out to at least 2017 with a large gap favoring pure play internet listening.” 

Grooveshark Offers New Digital

Music App In Plan to “Go Legit”

 

     After suffering a string of legal setbacks over the last few years, Grooveshark has developed a new app designed to set the company on a legitimate path to digital music streaming. As CNET reports, the new Broadcasts app lets users create customized radio stations without running afoul of the record companies. The app, expected to launch next month, lets customers build and access custom radio stations and text fellow users as they listen to music. Designed for iOS and Android users, the app will cost 99 cents a month and be commercial-free. The online stations will be developed directly by users rather than generated by Grooveshark.

One of the primary objectives behind the new app is to create a business model that will keep the company out of the court system. Grooveshark currently offers websites both for PCs and mobile devices in which users can search for and stream an unlimited number of songs produced by major record labels. That system led several record labels to sue the company, arguing Grooveshark lacked the necessary rights to upload the copyrighted songs. Back in September a federal judge in New York ruled that Grooveshark’s co-founders had uploaded almost 6,000 songs for which they had no licenses, and subsequently destroyed evidence of the uploads.

Since then, Grooveshark has created dedicated iOS and Android apps for its streaming service, but both of those apps were taken down following complaints from the record labels. The new Broadcasts app means Grooveshark will pay government-mandated performance fees set by the Copyright Royalty Board rather than negotiate directly with the recorded music companies. 

Pandora Releases New User

Interface For Mobile Listening

 

Pandora Mobile      Pandora this week released a beta version of a refreshed mobile user interface that includes new station personalization features and functionality. According to a company statement, the update currently is available to only 3% of iPhone and Android smartphone users, but will roll out to all mobile and tablet listeners over the coming months.

“For more than a decade, our engineering team has worked to perfect the personalized radio listening experience and unleash the infinite power of music for our listeners,” Pandora Chief Technology Officer Chris Martin said in standard PR-speak. “With our users logging more than 1.65 billion listening hours in September alone, we were extremely mindful in the way we made adjustments to the [user interface] so as to enhance and simplify the experience.”

Major changes include enhanced station personalization capabilities and improved artist discovery. The redesigned interface also is reported to be simpler to use and clearer to the ear. “Listeners are given a different sense of place and navigation with the new transitions from the ‘station list’ to the ‘now playing’ screen, and can view comprehensive thumb history and adjust thumb feedback for old tracks listened to,” the company said. [Read more: Company statement]

 

 

A publication of Bunzel Media Resources © 2014

CIA torture and the crimes of the state

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/uploads/3/cia_torture.jpg

10 December 2014

The unclassified executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on CIA torture, released Tuesday, describes, in extensive detail, horrific crimes that unquestionably violate domestic and international laws.

The review of the Bush administration’s “enhanced interrogation program” documents the systematic use of sadistic forms of torture, including waterboarding, sleep deprivation (for up to a week at a time), head-banging, sensory deprivation, exposure to extreme temperatures, holding detainees in stress positions, confinement in coffin-like boxes, “rectal hydration” and “rectal feeding.” See, “Senate report on CIA interrogation details brutal torture methods.”

The report condemns these practices as illegal, immoral and ineffective, and denounces the CIA for withholding information from Congress and falsely claiming that its brutal interrogation methods helped foil terror attacks, capture and kill Al Qaeda operatives and “save lives.”

However, the most pertinent and obvious questions that arise from the report are not even being raised in the political establishment or the media: Who will be held accountable? Who will be indicted? Who will be prosecuted?

The Intelligence Committee Democrats, led by Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, do not name a single top Bush administration official, limiting their exposé to former high-ranking CIA officials. There are no formal proposals or calls for criminal prosecutions or other actions to hold those responsible for these heinous actions accountable. The report seeks to maintain the absurd fiction that the torture program was an isolated aberration, involving only a handful of operatives.

In fact, the program of CIA torture was planned, implemented and monitored at the highest levels of the state. The cast of criminals includes President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and CIA directors George Tenet, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden.

The response to the report by many of these very same criminals leaves no doubt that such methods continue, in one form or another, today, and will be employed on an even broader scale in the future. In advance of the release of the report, Bush gave an interview in which he rejected the Senate committee’s suggestion that he was deceived by the CIA about the scope and nature of the interrogation program and categorically defended it.

Cheney called talk of CIA deception “a crock” and all but accused Feinstein and her allies on the committee of treason. Hayden and a number of other former top CIA officials launched a media campaign in advance of the report’s release calling the report flawed and biased and warning that it would spark anti-American protests and terror attacks around the world. The propaganda campaign against the report continued after its release, with top Republicans and most Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee joining in.

The Obama administration too is culpable, functioning as an accomplice to the crimes described. From his first day in office, Obama worked might and main to shield CIA torturers and Bush administration officials and prevent their prosecution. In 2010, Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, announced that the Justice Department would not prosecute CIA operatives who destroyed videotapes of CIA waterboarding sessions in 2005.

Obama made John Brennan, who oversaw the torture program as a CIA official under Bush, his chief counterterrorism adviser during his first term and elevated him to become CIA director in his second. Brennan and the White House have worked together to attempt to suppress the Senate report, withholding documents from the committee and then sitting on the completed draft of the report for two years. Under Brennan, the CIA spied on Senate staffers preparing the report, violating the constitutional separation of powers, the Fourth Amendment ban on arbitrary searches and seizures, and a number of US laws.

Congress itself, including Feinstein and the rest of the Democratic lawmakers, are also complicit in the torture program and other criminal practices. They were briefed repeatedly about the interrogation program, and if they were misled by the CIA, it is because they wanted to be misled.

Feinstein has for years been an unswerving defender of the US intelligence apparatus. She has categorically defended the National Security Agency spying programs and denounced whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and Chelsea (Bradley) Manning as criminals and traitors.

The so-called liberal media has played no less an integral part. The Intelligence Committee report includes an entire section that details the manner in which the CIA fed leaks of classified information on its interrogation program to the New York Times and the Washington Post to manipulate public opinion in favor of such methods. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, articles were published and television programs produced aimed at legitimizing torture.

In her speech on the Senate floor Tuesday introducing the Intelligence Committee report, Senator Feinstein presented the torture program as an unfortunate and wrongheaded, if understandable, response to the 9/11 attacks and the need to wage the “war on terror.” This is a lie.

As the WSWS repeatedly warned, the phony war on terror was a criminal conspiracy to justify endless war abroad and a massive attack on democratic rights at home.

The CIA torture program itself was only an extreme expression of a break with bourgeois legality that characterizes every aspect of US policy. The theft of the 2000 election set the stage for the post-9/11 assault on democratic rights and creation of a police state-in-waiting, including Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Department, the Northern Command, rendition, indefinite detention, drone assassinations and mass NSA spying.

Within the United States, the police, operating in close collaboration with the military and intelligence agencies, function ever more openly as an instrument of social and political repression. The “war on terror” is being brought home.

The acts described in the Senate report reveal the essence of bourgeois rule in the United States. The response must be not merely shock and horror, but an independent political movement of the working class to put an end to the capitalist system and hold accountable the criminals that preside over it.

Barry Grey

 

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/12/10/pers-d10.html

Neglecting the Lessons of Cypherpunk History

 

Over the course of the Snowden revelations there have been a number of high profile figures who’ve praised the merits of encryption as a remedy to the quandary of mass interception. Companies like Google and Apple have been quick to publicize their adoption of cryptographic countermeasures in an effort to maintain quarterly earnings. This marketing campaign has even convinced less credulous onlookers like Glenn Greenwald. For example, in a recent Intercept piece, Greenwald claimed:

“It is well-established that, prior to the Snowden reporting, Silicon Valley companies were secret, eager and vital participants in the growing Surveillance State. Once their role was revealed, and they perceived those disclosures threatening to their future profit-making, they instantly adopted a PR tactic of presenting themselves as Guardians of Privacy. Much of that is simply self-serving re-branding, but some of it, as I described last week, are genuine improvements in the technological means of protecting user privacy, such as the encryption products now being offered by Apple and Google, motivated by the belief that, post-Snowden, parading around as privacy protectors is necessary to stay competitive.”

So, while he concedes the role of public relations in the ongoing cyber security push, Greenwald concurrently believes encryption is a “genuine” countermeasure. In other words, what we’re seeing is mostly marketing hype… except for the part about strong encryption.

With regard to the promise of encryption as a privacy cure-all, history tells a markedly different story. Guarantees of security through encryption have often proven illusory, a magic act. Seeking refuge in a technical quick fix can be hazardous for a number of reasons.