The Global 1%: Exposing the Transnational Ruling Class

Global Research

Prof. Peter Phillips

Kimberly Soeiro

This study asks: Who are the the world’s One percent power elite? 

And to what extent do they operate in unison for their own private gains over benefits for the 99 percent? 

We examine a sample of the 1 percent: the extractor sector, whose companies are on the ground extracting material from the global commons, and using low-cost labor to amass wealth. These companies include oil, gas, and various mineral extraction organizations, whereby the value of the material removed far exceeds the actual cost of removal.We also examine the investment sector of the global 1 percent: companies whose primary activity is the amassing and reinvesting of capital. This sector includes global central banks, major investment money management firms, and other companies whose primary efforts are the concentration and expansion of money, such as insurance companies. 

Finally, we analyze how global networks of centralized power—the elite 1 percent, their companies, and various governments in their service—plan, manipulate, and enforce policies that benefit their continued concentration of wealth and power. We demonstrate how the US/NATO military-industrial-media empire operates in service to the transnational corporate class for the protection of international capital in the world.

The Occupy Movement has developed a mantra that addresses the great inequality of wealth and power between the world’s wealthiest 1 percent and the rest of us, the other 99 percent. While the 99 percent mantra undoubtedly serves as a motivational tool for open involvement, there is little understanding as to who comprises the 1 percent and how they maintain power in the world. Though a good deal of academic research has dealt with the power elite in the United States, only in the past decade and half has research on the transnational corporate class begun to emerge.[i]

Foremost among the early works on the idea of an interconnected 1 percent within global capitalism was Leslie Sklair’s 2001 book, The Transnational Capitalist Class.[ii] Sklair believed that globalization was moving transnational corporations (TNC) into broader international roles, whereby corporations’ states of orgin became less important than international argreements developed through the World Trade Organization and other international institutions. Emerging from these multinational corporations was a transnational capitalist class, whose loyalities and interests, while still rooted in their corporations, was increasingly international in scope. Sklair writes:

The transnational capitalist class can be analytically divided into four main fractions: (i) owners and controllers of TNCs and their local affiliates; (ii) globalizing bureaucrats and politicians; (iii) globalizing professionals; (iv) consumerist elites (merchants and media). . . . It is also important to note, of course, that the TCC [transnational corporate class] and each of its fractions are not always entirely united on every issue. Nevertheless, together, leading personnel in these groups constitute a global power elite, dominant class or inner circle in the sense that these terms have been used to characterize the dominant class structures of specific countries.[iii]

Estimates are that the total world’s wealth is close to $200 trillion, with the US and Europe holding approximately 63 percent. To be among the wealthiest half of the world, an adult needs only $4,000 in assets once debts have been subtracted. An adult requires more than $72,000 to belong to the top 10 percent of global wealth holders, and more than $588,000 to be a member of the top 1 percent.  As of 2010, the top 1 percent of the wealthist people in the world had hidden away between $21 trillion to $32 trillion in secret tax exempt bank accounts spread all over the world.[iv] Meanwhile, the poorest half of the global population together possesses less than 2 percent of global wealth.[v] The World Bank reports that, in 2008, 1.29 billion people were living in extreme poverty, on less than $1.25 a day, and 1.2 billion more were living on less than $2.00 a day.[vi] Starvation.net reports that 35,000 people, mostly young children, die every day from starvation in the world.[vii] The numbers of unnecessary deaths have exceeded 300 million people over the past forty years. Farmers around the world grow more than enough food to feed the entire world adequately. Global grain production yielded a record 2.3 billion tons in 2007, up 4 percent from the year before—yet, billions of people go hungry every day. Grain.org describes the core reasons for ongoing hunger in a recent article, “Corporations Are Still Making a Killing from Hunger”: while farmers grow enough food to feed the world, commodity speculators and huge grain traders like Cargill control global food prices and distribution.[viii] Addressing the power of the global 1 percent—identifying who they are and what their goals are—are clearly life and death questions.

It is also important to examine the questions of how wealth is created, and how it becomes concentrated. Historically, wealth has been captured and concentrated through conquest by various powerful enities. One need only look at Spain’s appropriation of the wealth of the Aztec and Inca empires in the early sixteenth century for an historical example of this process. The histories of the Roman and British empires are also filled with examples of wealth captured.

Once acquired, wealth can then be used to establish means of production, such as the early British cotton mills, which exploit workers’ labor power to produce goods whose exchange value is greater than the cost of the labor, a process analyzed by Karl Marx in Capital.[ix] A human being is able to produce a product that has a certain value. Organized business hires workers who are paid below the value of their labor power. The result is the creation of what Marx called surplus value, over and above the cost of labor. The creation of surplus value allows those who own the means of production to concentrate capital even more. In addition, concentrated capital accelerates the exploition of natural resources by private entrepreneurs—even though these natural resources are actually the common heritage of all living beings.[x]

In this article, we ask: Who are the the world’s 1 percent power elite? And to what extent do they operate in unison for their own private gains over benefits for the 99 percent? We will examine a sample of the 1 percent: the extractor sector, whose companies are on the ground extracting material from the global commons, and using low-cost labor to amass wealth. These companies include oil, gas, and various mineral extraction organizations, whereby the value of the material removed far exceeds the actual cost of removal.

We will also examine the investment sector of the global 1 percent: companies whose primary activity is the amassing and reinvesting of capital. This sector includes global central banks, major investment money management firms, and other companies whose primary efforts are the concentration and expansion of money, such as insurance companies.

Finally, we analyze how global networks of centralized power—the elite 1 percent, their companies, and various governments in their service—plan, manipulate, and enforce policies that benefit their continued concentration of wealth and power.

The Extractor Sector: The Case of Freeport-McMoRan (FCX)

Freeport-McMoRan (FCX) is the world’s largest extractor of copper and gold. The company controls huge deposits in Papua, Indonesia, and also operates in North and South America, and in Africa. In 2010, the company sold 3.9 billion pounds of copper, 1.9 million ounces of gold, and 67 million pounds of molybdenum. In 2010, Freeport-McMoRan reported revenues of $18.9 billion and a net income of $4.2 billion.[xi]

The Grasberg mine in Papua, Indonesia, employs 23,000 workers at wages below three dollars an hour. In September 2011, workers went on strike for higher wages and better working conditions. Freeport had offered a 22 percent increase in wages, and strikers said it was not enough, demanding an increase to an international standard of seventeen to forty-three dollars an hour. The dispute over pay attracted local tribesmen, who had their own grievances over land rights and pollution; armed with spears and arrows, they joined Freeport workers blocking the mine’s supply roads.[xii] During the strikers’ attempt to block busloads of replacement workers, security forces financed by Freeport killed or wounded several strikers.

Freeport has come under fire internationally for payments to authorities for security. Since 1991, Freeport has paid nearly thirteen billion dollars to the Indonesian government—one of Indonesia’s largest sources of income—at a 1.5 percent royalty rate on extracted gold and copper, and, as a result, the Indonesian military and regional police are in their pockets. In October 2011, the Jakarta Globe reported that Indonesian security forces in West Papua, notably the police, receive extensive direct cash payments from Freeport-McMoRan. Indonesian National Police Chief Timur Pradopo admitted that officers received close to ten million dollars annually from Freeport, payments Pradopo described as “lunch money.” Prominent Indonesian nongovernmental organization Imparsial puts the annual figure at fourteen million dollars.[xiii] These payments recall even larger ones made by Freeport to Indonesian military forces over the years which, once revealed, prompted a US Security and Exchange Commission investigation of Freeport’s liability under the United States’ Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Peru suspends coca eradication programme

Al Jazeera

Minister says country will focus on catching major drugs traffickers, but move prompts concern from US ambassador.

Peru's new government has temporarily suspended the eradication of coca plants, the base ingredient of cocaine, as it works to re-design its anti-drug programmes, the country's interior ministry said.

News of the suspension in eradication work prompted surprise and concern from US officials, whose country has tried for years to limit coca production in Peru as part of a broader "war on drugs" in the region.

The United Nations says Peru is now the world's leading coca grower and could surpass Colombia as the top cocaine producer.

Coca has been commonly used in Peru and other Andean nations for centuries and plays an important role in traditional indigenous culture. Many chew coca leaves or consume the plant in other ways, such as coca tea.

It is considered effective as a treatment for altitude sickness and is often used in medicine and in traditional religious ceremonies.

But supporters of eradication say most of the coca crop is cultivated for the cocaine industry.
"We are working on how to re-direct efforts," said Oscar Valdes, the Peruvian interior minister.

Valdes said eradication would resume "very soon" but added that the government wanted to focus more on catching major traffickers and cutting off access to supplies, such as kerosene used to refine coca into cocaine.

'Frontal fight' on trafficking

"The public must understand that the reduction of illicit crops will continue, as the president has said, and there will be a frontal fight against drug trafficking," Valdes said.

Richard Soberon, head of the anti-drugs programme for Peruvian President Ollanta Humala's government, said there was an indefinite "pause" in the eradication programme in the Alto Huallaga region northeast of Lima to evaluate the effort.

"In every country, in Afghanistan, in Colombia, in Bolivia, in Mexico, it is normal to have these pauses to do the necessary evaluation of what has happened, to correct mistakes," he said.

Bolivia to Fight Food Shortage with Non-GMO Seeds

Organic Authority
Jill Ettinger

State-owned farms and companies will provide non-genetically modified seeds and fertilizers to the people of Bolivia, says a new law signed into effect by Bolivian president, Evo Morales.

In what Morales is calling a “food revolution,” over the course of the next decade, the government will invest $5 billion, mostly in supporting small-scale farmers and growers to help establish an inclusive, holistic food system, eliminating the country’s need to purchase GMO seeds from companies like Monsanto that are eager to expand their presence in South America.

Protests in Bolivia have erupted recently out of concern over the excessive exportation of the highly nutritious regional grain, quinoa, which has become a natural-foodie darling in the U.S., and popular among those who follow a wheat and gluten free diet. While exporting the sought-after grain brings revenue to the country, locals are forced to eat lower quality foods instead of regional staples. Biotech companies sell their GMO seeds cheap, making it hard for some farmers to resist in light of the limited access to indigenous grains that are being shipped to the U.S.

Morales’ sustainable vision for the nation is attracting both praise and criticism for being idealistic as the nation joins their neighbors, Peru, in a move away from GMOs; they’re also committing efforts to an heirloom seed-saving program and a long-term redevelopment plan that is expected to reduce Bolivia’s dependence on fossil fuels.

Bolivia is just one of many nations around the world facing potentially disastrous food shortages beyond their imminent vulnerabilities, and this program is anticipated to support a strong infrastructure of development and sustainability measures that will lead them into economic prosperity and a return to a healthy embrace of indigenous food and culture.

Peru Cancels Canadian-Owned Mine After 6 Protesters Killed In Clash

Internet Free Press

Peru's government canceled a Canadian-owned silver mine in the southern highlands Friday after six people were killed and at least 30 wounded when police fired on mostly indigenous protesters opposing the project.

Protesters also attacked a police station and a state bank in a second city.

The bloodshed occurred when police turned back protesters who tried to take over an airport near the city of Juliaca in Puno state, an area they have paralyzed with road blockades since May 9 in a bid to cancel the Santa Ana mine as well as a proposed hydroelectric project on the Inambari river.

The outgoing government of President Alan Garcia announced after leftist military man Ollanta Humala won the presidential election June 5 that it was scrapping the Inambari project. In April, it canceled a huge copper mining project in another southern state after three protesters died in clashes with police.

Mining accounts for two-thirds of Peru's export earnings and has been the underpinning of a decade of robust economic growth, but the rural poor have benefited little from mining and complain it contaminates their water and crops.

Dr. Percy Casaperalta, who directed the evacuation of wounded after Friday's clash at Manco Capac airport, said at least 4,000 protesters were involved. He provided the toll of six dead and at least 30 wounded by telephone from the local hospital Carlos Monge Medrano.

Television images of the airport showed its perimeter walls breached and tires burning on the tarmac.

Speaking with journalists in Lima, Interior Minister Miguel Hidalgo said police in Azangaro, about 68 kilometers from Juliaca, were “in a difficult situation.” Local radio reports said about 500 protesters angry over the deaths at the airport burned tires and threw rocks at the local police station and a state bank.

Hours after the violence, Deputy Mining Minister Fernando Gala announced that the government had revoked a 2007 decree granting approval to Bear Creek Mining Corp. of Victoria, British Columbia, to mine silver at Santa Ana in Puno. The decree was required because the mine site is within 80 kilometers of an international border, in this case with Bolivia.

Bear Creek's director, Andrew Swarthout, told the Associated Press that the company had not received formal notification of the decree's revocation.

He said any government attempt to cancel the project would be illegal and amount to “expropriation.”

When Peru Practiced Mass Sterilization With IMF Blessings

Axis of Logic

The French media have said little in favor of the victory by leftist-nationalist candidate Ollanta Humala over Keiko Fujimori, daughter of former President Alberto Fujimori, in Sunday’s Peruvian presidential elections. The elections revived a scandal about a forced-sterilization program led by Alberto Fujimori from 1995 to 2000 with blessings from the IMF, financial support from NGOs including the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), and few questions about the approaches used.

Under IMF tutelage and banner for the fight against poverty by birth control, during the late 90's Alberto Fujimori, Peruvian politician of Japanese ancestry, promoted a program of forced sterilization for the lowest social strata. Illiterate indigenous peasants were the key target. The reported number of victims is 300,000. Over the same period 25,590 men underwent vasectomies.

The family planning program that advocated this voluntary surgical contraception (AQV) was answering a call from the IMF to reduce the country’s birth rate.

In exchange for bonuses, government emissaries persuaded women to let themselves be operated on for some cash and for food that was limited mostly to a bag of rice. The finality of the sterilization was kept hidden. Appalling sanitation resulted in medical complications. Over 20 deaths were officially recorded.

The reports mostly show that the victims were usually not informed when they gave their consent, and coercive measures were often used. The program also involved a quota system. Public-sector medical personnel were forced, under threat of dismissal, to sterilize some number of women set by their department every month.

In twenty years, only one family has been compensated, although around 2,000 have filed complaints.
Although many observers have expressed concern about Ollanta Humala, whose personality is presented as caustic because of his Marxist-Leninist roots, the victory of this former lieutenant-colonel seems more like "The Revenge of the other Peru": that of the poor Indian. Peru’s 48-year old new president is putting aside the Chavez model and wishing to follow in Lula’s footsteps.

Translated for Axis of Logic by author and columnist, Dady Chery.

Original Source in French: Le Monde

Peru election: Early results suggest Humala victory

BBC

First results in Peru's presidential election run-off suggest leftist Ollanta Humala has a narrow lead over right-wing candidate Keiko Fujimori. 

On the left and right of the political spectrum -
presidential hopefuls Ollanta Humala and Keiko Fujimori

The polls indicated a lead of about 2% for Mr Humala, a one-time ally of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.

Ms Fujimori is the daughter of jailed ex-president Alberto Fujimori.

The two candidates are at opposite ends of the political spectrum - a fact that worried some Peruvians who said they would not vote for either of them.

Preliminary results from three separate polling companies indicated Mr Humala had won around 51% of the vote, with Ms Fujimori trailing at around 49%.

Mr Humala and Ms Fujimori led the field after the first round on 10 April, which saw the defeat of three centrist candidates.

No candidate gained more than the 50% needed to win the election outright.

Reluctant voters
 
If Mr Humala is confirmed as the winner, he will succeed Alan Garcia, who could not stand for a second term.

Ollanta Humala, 48, comes from a left-wing tradition of greater state intervention. He staged a short-lived rebellion against Alberto Fujimori in 2000 and narrowly lost to Mr Garcia in the last presidential election in 2006.

He campaigned on a promise to increase the state's role in the economy and redistribute wealth to Peru's poor majority.

His critics fear he will embark on interventionist policies similar to those of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, although Mr Humala says he is more in sympathy with Brazil's moderate left-wing approach.

He has also denied allegations that he committed human rights abuses during the fight against Shining Path rebels in the 1990s when he was an army captain.

Keiko Fujimori, 36, appeals to Peruvians who still admire her father, president for a decade from 1990. He is now serving a 25-year jail sentence for corruption and organising death squads.

She has defended his record, saying by taming hyper-inflation and defeating Marxist Shining Path rebels, he laid the basis for Peru's current economic boom.

She supports free-market economic policies, advocates a tough approach to crime and has promised to improve social programmes and infrastructure in poor areas. 

Critics say her main aim is to secure a pardon for her father, a claim she denies.

If the final result differs from the preliminary polls and she wins the election, she would become Peru's first woman president.

Voting is compulsory in Peru but surveys before the election suggested that around 10% of voters could abstain or spoil their ballots, Reuters news agency said.

Opinion: Is the U.S. Neutral in Peru’s Elections?

Living In Peru

By Coletta A. Youngers
Washington Office for Latin America

Keiko Fujimori has found in former U.S. Assistant Secretary
of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs,
Roger Noriega, and U.S. Amabassador to Peru,
Rose Likins, two enthusiast supporters, according to Youngers.

With less than a week to go before Sunday’s vote, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Roger Noriega, presented a report to the Peruvian government purporting to document Venezuelan government support for the campaign of presidential contender Ollanta Humala. 

According to Noriega, “We have a very sensitive source in Venezuela who says that Humala receives money, possibly from the Venezuelan Embassy in Lima, where cash is sent by military plane from La Paz (Bolivia), and from there across the border that is controlled by military attaches of the Venezuelan embassy in Lima.” 

In an interview with Univision, Noriega claims that “sources” in Venezuela have told him that Venezuelan military officers delivered cash for the campaign, but that he won’t release the report or the names of his sources so as to not put them in jeopardy.  A high-level Peruvian government official told Univision that the report provided no proof of the allegations.
 
That Noriega sees Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez as a threatening enemy is no secret.  (Assistant Secretary from 2003 to 2005, Noriega was replaced by a career diplomat in large part for having driven U.S.-Venezuelan relations to the breaking point.) Yet somehow, despite his obvious enmity for Chávez, Noriega claims to have internal sources that have provided him with this information. 

Also highly questionable is his timing, which certainly appears to be intended to give Humala’s opponent, Keiko Fujimori, a boost before Sunday’s vote.  Ironically, Noriega was given an award by the government of former President Alejandro Toledo for his work (then as a top aide to then-U.S. Senator Jesse Helms) for his efforts to bring an end to the Fujimori dictatorship of the 1990s.  (Now that he is working to put another Fujimori back in the presidential palace, he should have the decency to return the award.)
 
Such meddling in the electoral politics of Latin American countries was commonplace during previous administrations, though it sometimes backfired.  In 2002, Evo Morales came very close to winning the presidency (which he then assumed in 2006) after statements against him by the U.S. Ambassador, Manual Rocha, caused his popularity to jump significantly.  To its credit, since assuming office, the Obama administration has refrained from public interventions in electoral politics. 

According to a spokesperson for the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, “The United States supports the democratic process, including elections that are free, fair, and transparent, and looks forward to learning the outcome of Peru’s presidential race.  The Peruvian people will choose the next president of Peru.  Regardless of who is elected, the United States looks forward to continuing its strong bilateral relationship with Peru.”

Behind the scenes, however, the U.S. Ambassador to Peru, Rose Likins, is evidently playing a very different role.  As reported in a previous blog, she has openly expressed support for Keiko Fujimori’s candidacy in private meetings, including with a group of human rights activists where she actually attempted to defend Keiko Fujimori’s human rights credentials. 

According to journalist Gustavo Gorriti, “The U.S. Embassy strongly opposes Humala’s candidacy.”  Like Noriega, Ambassador Likins no doubt fears another progressive government in South America joining the ranks of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela – all countries more willing to stand up to entrenched economic interests and the United States.

It is certainly true that Peruvian President Alan García is now one the few consistent U.S. allies in the region.  If Keiko Fujimori wins the elections on Sunday, it would be logical to assume that she would continue to play that role.  However, it would be a mistake for the U.S. government to simply put Humala in the Chávez box.  As reported previously – and despite Noriega’s claims to the contrary – Humala has sought to distance himself from Chávez, presenting himself instead as a more moderate candidate in the mold of the highly popular Lula in Brazil.  Moreover, during the second round Humala has broadened his political support to include a range of progressive and moderate Peruvians.  In short, if Humala were to win Sunday’s elections, it would behoove the U.S. government to reach out and try to work with him, rather than ending up in yet another situation of tense bilateral relations.

As is often the case in Washington, the official memory is short-lived.  In the 1990s, the U.S. government was a key international actor in responding to human rights violations and the steady dismantling of democratic institutions in Peru.

Developments there were seen as a direct threat to the democratic advances across the region and hence a threat to the U.S. government’s interest in promoting stable, democratic governments.  Since then the U.S. voice has largely subsided.  But a return to Fujimorismo in Peru would necessitate far more attention from the U.S. Congress and the Obama administration.  Whoever wins Sunday’s vote, the U.S. government should be vigilant with regards to issues related to democracy, the rule of law and human rights in Peru and should work with its Latin American neighbors to ensure that the hard-fought gains of the last decade are not rolled back.

Finally, U.S. officials should not overlook the fact that a significant percentage of the population supports Humala – particularly in the southern and central parts of the country – which underscores the need address the countries’ real and deep inequities.  While Peru has had impressive economic growth over the last decade, the levels of inequality have only improved slightly. 

Clearly, far too many Peruvians continue to suffer from poverty, extreme poverty, lack of opportunities for meaningful employment and a poor quality of life overall.  If measures are not taken to address these issues – measures that go beyond food handouts – then the problems that Peru faces today will continue to grow larger, including social conflict and violence.  Rejecting Humala as the “Chávez candidate” may be politically expedient for some, but negates the important role he has played in bringing the issue of inequality and poverty into the political debate.



Coletta Youngers is a senior associate with the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), and an analyst of human rights and U.S. foreign policy toward the Andean region.

Hillary Clinton Pleads Case for Coup Leader in Honduras

New York Times

LIMA, Peru — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton pleaded Monday with Latin American countries to welcome Honduras back into their circle, a year after the country’s left-leaning president was ousted in a coup that has left a residue of bitterness throughout the region.

Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Nicaragua and other nations refuse to recognize the new Honduran leader, Porfirio Lobo, who was elected after lengthy wrangling between the United States and the coup leaders failed to restore President Manuel Zelaya to power. He had been bundled out of the country in his pajamas last June, and spent months trying to reclaim his job.

Addressing a meeting of the Organization of American States here, Mrs. Clinton noted that the United States had condemned Mr. Zelaya’s ouster. But she said, “We saw the free and fair election of President Lobo,” and she praised him for setting up a truth commission to investigate the coup.

“Now it’s time for the hemisphere as a whole to move forward and welcome Honduras back into the inter-American community,” Mrs. Clinton said, after several foreign ministers inveighed against Mr. Lobo’s government, which they said had violated human rights.

Honduras was expelled from the O.A.S. in the wake of the coup, with the support of the United States. Continued tensions over the coup suffused the discussions here, though Nicaragua failed to get Honduras added to the formal agenda of the meeting.

For her part, Mrs. Clinton was trying to avoid a replay of last year’s O.A.S. meeting, which fell into an even more acrimonious debate over whether to readmit Cuba. She was also trying to marshal support for the Obama administration’s push for sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.

“I fully expect Iran to pull some stunt in the next couple of days because they know sanctions are on the way,” she said Sunday. “I think we’ll see something coming up in the next 24 to 48 hours where Iran says, ‘Wait a minute, wait a minute, look what we’re going to do now.’ ”

In Lima, Mrs. Clinton briefly met with Brazil’s deputy foreign minister, Antônio de Aguiar Patriota, to discuss both Iran and Honduras. Brazil, which tried with Turkey to broker a deal with Iran over enrichment of its uranium, is expected to vote against an Iran resolution.

In a meeting on Monday morning with Peru’s president, Alan García, Mrs. Clinton praised the country’s support for nonproliferation, which she said sent “a message of unity to Iran and North Korea that their actions pose a threat to the peace and stability of the world community.”

Mrs. Clinton faced an awkward moment when Mr. García praised her for her advocacy of women’s rights, then abruptly walked out of the room, leaving her alone in front of a pair of microphones with a bemused smile on her face. Mrs. Clinton explained that the president was running late for his next meeting, and then quickly beat her own retreat from his palace.