#Same day international logistics provider in London

[vanguardwest]

Same day international logistics provider in London get a quote & book online in Minutes. Reliable, Secure And Trusted Courier Services. Easy Online Booking. No Account Needed. Instant Quotes. UK's Leading Courier. Live Tracking.

Call Us- 44 07950476339

[lm25courier]

London Delivery Services: Ensuring Swift and Reliable Deliveries Across the Capital

Introduction

In the bustling city of London, efficient delivery services are crucial for businesses and individuals alike. London delivery services offer a lifeline, ensuring that parcels, documents, and goods reach their destinations promptly and securely. This article delves into the world of London delivery services, exploring their features, benefits, and how they streamline the delivery process for customers across the capital.

Navigating London's Delivery Landscape

Understanding the Diverse Range of Delivery Services

London boasts a diverse range of delivery services, catering to various needs and preferences. From standard courier services to specialized same-day deliveries, customers have access to a plethora of options to suit their specific requirements.

Choosing the Right Delivery Service

Selecting the right delivery service entails considering factors such as delivery speed, reliability, and cost-effectiveness. Whether it's a time-sensitive business document or a personal package, choosing a reputable delivery service is paramount to ensure a seamless delivery experience.

Features of London Delivery Services

Speed and Efficiency

London delivery services prioritize speed and efficiency, ensuring that parcels and documents are delivered in a timely manner. With a network of dedicated couriers and advanced logistics systems, these services streamline the delivery process, minimizing delays and ensuring prompt deliveries.

Real-Time Tracking

Many London delivery services offer real-time tracking capabilities, allowing customers to monitor the progress of their shipments from pickup to delivery. This transparency enhances peace of mind and provides customers with valuable insights into the whereabouts of their parcels.

The Importance of Reliable Delivery Services

Supporting Businesses

Reliable delivery services play a vital role in supporting businesses across London, facilitating the seamless movement of goods and supplies. From e-commerce retailers to local businesses, reliable delivery services enable businesses to meet customer expectations and maintain operational efficiency.

Convenience for Individuals

For individuals, London delivery services offer unparalleled convenience, allowing them to send and receive parcels with ease. Whether it's a gift for a loved one or an important document, these services ensure that deliveries are made conveniently and efficiently.

FAQs About London Delivery Services

How much does it cost to use London delivery services?

The cost of using London delivery services varies depending on factors such as delivery speed, package size, and destination. Customers can request quotes from service providers to obtain accurate pricing information.

Are London delivery services available on weekends and holidays?

Yes, many London delivery services operate 24/7, including weekends and holidays, to ensure that customers have access to delivery solutions whenever they need them.

Can I schedule a specific delivery time with London delivery services?

Yes, most London delivery services offer flexible scheduling options, allowing customers to specify their preferred pickup and delivery times for added convenience.

What happens if my parcel is lost or damaged during transit?

London delivery services typically offer insurance coverage for lost or damaged parcels. Customers should review the terms and conditions of their chosen service provider for details on insurance coverage and claims procedures.

Do London delivery services offer international shipping?

Yes, many London delivery services offer international shipping options, allowing customers to send parcels to destinations around the world. Additional fees and delivery times may apply for international shipments.

Can I track my parcel in real-time with London delivery services?

Yes, most London delivery services provide real-time tracking capabilities, allowing customers to monitor the progress of their shipments online or through mobile apps.

Conclusion

In conclusion, London delivery services play a vital role in facilitating the seamless movement of parcels and documents across the capital. With their emphasis on speed, efficiency, and reliability, these services ensure that deliveries are made promptly and securely, supporting businesses and individuals alike. By choosing a reputable delivery service, customers can enjoy peace of mind knowing that their parcels are in safe hands.

[cequonveut]

FIC REC

Title: Blackberry Jam

Author: JulietsEmoPhase

Rating: E

Exploding Snap Trope for @gameofdrarry: Period Piece / Nine of Ravenclaw

Word Count: 36031

Tags: Alternate Universe - Muggle, Alternate Universe - World War II, Alternate Universe - Childhood Friends, Friends to Lovers, Growing Up Together, Sharing a Bed, First Kiss, First Time, Angst, Light Angst, Fluff and Angst, Mild Smut, Internalized Homophobia, Frottage, Suicidal Thoughts, Hurt/Comfort, Emotional Hurt/Comfort, Mild Hurt/Comfort, Consensual Underage Sex

Summary: 10-year-old Harry and Draco are evacuated from London during the Blitz, and through a logistical error, end up sharing not only a home but a bed. Follow them as they grow up against the backdrop of the war, discovering who they really are and slowly falling in love.

WWII Muggle AU. Mild smut, warnings for some thoughts of self harm/suicide.

Rec Notes:

This is the kind of fic where you finish reading it, you lie on the floor in existential crisis because how can you ever experience anything that will make you feel like this again? And then you go back to the fic and reread your favorite parts but that ends up in you rereading the entire thing again and now it’s 5am but you don’t care because this fic euphoria is worth every minute of sleep deprivation.

So it’s a Muggle AU set during World War II, and while it may sound as if there’s too much that’s been changed, this work weaves the HP universe into this setting fantastically. Even the style of the writing reflects the time period and really sucks you into the story.

The story starts when Harry and Draco are young, 10-11 years old, and follows them as they grow up in wartime and just does such an excellent job of showing how their feelings develop.

Also, you may be put off by the time period, but while this fic will make you Feel™ things, it’s not out to hurt you without providing the comfort right after.

Cannot recommend this fic enough, it’s one of my favorites and I think should be a classic among Drarry works!

Excerpt:

“Draco,” he began, wiping his mouth to make sure he’d gotten the last of the berry juice off it.  “Do you think, if we weren’t…living together, we would be friends now.” ...

   ...But Draco contemplated his response.  “Honestly,” he said after a few moments.  “I’m not sure if we would.”

   Harry felt like ice flooded his chest.  He couldn’t imagine Draco not being his friend.  He was his special friend, different to his best friend Ron.  Draco was like his brother or something.  They shared everything, and when they were apart Harry felt like he was missing some part of himself.

   “Oh,” he said, then cleared his throat to try and dislodge the lump there. 

   “I mean,” Draco said carefully.  “You played on the football team, and ran around in the muck.  I played piano and never ran anywhere.  I’m not sure we would have talked much, if we hadn’t been placed in the same house.”

   “Yeah,” Harry said, chewing on his lip.  “I guess you’re right.”

   He was surprised by Draco taking his hand, their palms and fingers sticky from all the berries they had devoured as they interlocked, and Harry turned to look at Draco once more.  “I am extremely glad we are friends now though,” he said, his grey eyes wide and shining.  “If anything good has come out of this ghastly war, it is that at least we got the chance to become friends.”

   “Great friends,” Harry agreed enthusiastically, his chest swelling again with happiness.

   “Best friends,” Draco insisted solemnly.  And Harry supposed that was true.  It didn’t mean Ron was any less important to him, but he got to see Draco every day, and where as Ron was fun and loud and great at football, Draco was like Harry’s special secret.  They were two halves, two sides of the same bed.

   “Best friends,” Harry repeated, squeezing their hands together, as if making a promise. 

Link to fic: https://archiveofourown.org/works/7145645/chapters/16224158#workskin

[1americanconservative]

📷 Michael Yon@MichaelYon 📷4 hours ago

Afghanistan SITREP From sourceOCC, 12:00 AMWestern nations race to complete Afghan evacuation as deadline loomsWestern nations rushed to complete the evacuation of thousands of people from Afghanistan on Wednesday as the Aug. 31 deadline for the withdrawal of foreign troops drew closer with no sign that the country's new Taliban rulers might allow an extension.In one of the biggest such airlifts ever, the United States and its allies have evacuated more than 70,000 people, including their citizens, NATO personnel and Afghans at risk, since Aug. 14, the day before the Taliban swept into the capital Kabul to bring to an end a 20-year foreign military presence.U.S. President Joe Biden said U.S. troops in Afghanistan faced mounting danger and aid agencies warned of an impending humanitarian crisis for the population left behind.Biden said they were on pace to meet the deadline, set under an agreement struck with the Islamist group last year to end America's longest war."The sooner we can finish, the better," Biden said on Tuesday. "Each day of operations brings added risk to our troops."Two U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said there was growing concern about the risk of suicide bombings by Islamic State at the airport.British foreign minister Dominic Raab said the deadline for evacuating people was up to the last minute of the month.Tens of thousands of Afghans fearing persecution have thronged Kabul's airport since the Taliban takeover, the lucky ones securing seats on flights.Many people milled about outside the airport - where soldiers from the United States, Britain and other nations were trying to maintain order amid the dust and heat - hoping to get out.They carried bags and suitcases stuffed with possessions, and waved documents at soldiers in the hope of gaining entry. One man, standing knee-deep in a flooded ditch, passed a child to man above."I learned from an email from London that the Americans are taking people out, that's why I've come so I can go abroad," said one man, Aizaz Ullah.While the focus is now on those trying to flee, the risk of starvation, disease and persecution is rising for the rest of the population, aid agencies say.1/4A U.S. Marine with the Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force-Crisis Response-Central Command (SPMAGTF-CR-CC) escorts a child to his family during an evacuation at Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, Afghanistan,"There's a perfect storm coming because of several years of drought, conflict, economic deterioration, compounded by COVID," David Beasley, executive director of the U.N. World Food Programme, told Reuters in Doha, calling for the international community to donate $200 million in food aid."The number of people marching towards starvation has spiked to now 14 million."The EU said this week it was planning to quadruple aid and was seeking coordination with the United Nations on delivery as well as safety guarantees on the ground.The U.N. human rights chief said she had received credible reports of serious violations by the Taliban, including "summary executions" of civilians and Afghan security forces who had surrendered. The Taliban have said they will investigate reports of atrocities.The Taliban's 1996-2001 rule was marked by harsh sharia law, with many political rights and basic freedoms curtailed and women severely oppressed. Afghanistan was also a hub for anti-Western militants, and Washington, London and others fear it might become so again.LAND ROUTESA NATO country diplomat in Kabul, who declined to be identified, said several international aid groups were desperate to get Afghan staff out and neighbouring countries should open their land borders to allow more people to leave."Iran, Pakistan and Tajikistan should be pulling out far more people using either air or land routes. It's vital air and land routes are used at a very fast pace," the diplomat told Reuters.The Taliban said all foreign evacuations must be completed by Aug. 31, and asked the United States to stop urging talented Afghans to leave, while also trying to

persuade people at the airport to go home, saying they had nothing to fear."Foreign troops should withdraw by the deadline. It will pave the way for resumption of civilian flights," Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen said on Twitter."People with legal documents can travel through commercial flights after Aug. 31."The Dutch government, echoing some other governments, said it was all but certain that many people eligible for asylum would not be taken out in time.Dutch troops had managed to get more than 100 people to Kabul airport, Foreign Minister Sigrid Kaag said, but hundreds of others risked being left behind.The U.S.-backed government collapsed as the United States and its allies withdrew troops two decades after they ousted the Taliban in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States by al Qaeda, whose leaders had found safe haven in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.Taliban leaders have begun talks on forming a government.OCC, 1:45 AMWhat Will the Taliban Do With Their New US Weapons?With its quick seizure of power, the Taliban also acquired U.S. military equipment left behind by the withdrawal or abandoned by Afghan forces.What Will the Taliban Do With Their New US Weapons? Capturing the enemy’s weapons has been a standard guerrilla tactic for centuries. The American Army could not have succeeded against King George III without seizing the king’s food and armaments. It is one thing to capture weapons and other materiel; it is another to be given the enemy’s gear on a silver platte In the images of the Taliban fighters flooding the streets of Kabul, one detail attracts attention: the lack of the ubiquitous Kalashnikov. Few Taliban appearing now carry the signature weapon of insurgent fighters, the AK-47, and its countless variants from the handmade PakistaniA Taliban fighter stands guard at a checkpoint in the Wazir Akbar Khan neighborhood in the city of Kabul, Afghanistan, Sunday, August 22, 2021.Capturing the enemy’s weapons has been a standard guerrilla tactic for centuries. The American Army could not have succeeded against King George III without seizing the king’s food and armaments. It is one thing to capture weapons and other material; it is another to be given the enemy’s gear on a silver platter. In the images of the Taliban fighters flooding the streets of Kabul, one detail attracts attention: the lack of the ubiquitous Kalashnikov. Few Taliban appearing now carry the signature weapon of insurgent fighters, the AK-47, and its countless variants from the handmade Pakistani versions to the updated Russian AK-19. Most of the Taliban in Kabul’s street seems to prefer American M4 carbines and M16 rifles with their many gadgets attached, from expensive optics to laser sights and flashlights, an uncommon picture in contrast to just a few weeks earlier. The answer to the question concerning the source of these small arms is straightforward: war looting. Another and more important question needs an answer: The fate of the extensive military materiel that the U.S. left behind during its withdrawal or that which was in the hands of the Afghan forces that melted so quickly away as the Taliban advanced. As a landlocked country, Afghanistan makes moving military materiel back to the U.S. neither an easy nor an economical endeavor. Much was removed anyway, and much handed over to Afghan government forces. What couldn’t be taken back, was left. Blowing up in situ large quantities of war materiel is cheaper than shipping it out of Afghanistan. Still, that option creates toxic legacies that would affect the local population for a long time, as happened in Iraq. Nevertheless, lack of time and unreasonable expectations on the survivability of the Afghan security forces caught the Pentagon by surprise. According to Joshua Reno, author of “Military Waste: The Unexpected Consequences of Permanent War Readiness,” recirculating weapons in the places a military force leaves when the battle is over will augment the risks that small arms or other weapons are going to fuel and intensify civil war or instability. According

to a top Pentagon logistics specialist, there is no clear record of the quantity and quality of military equipment left behind. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan stated that the Taliban probably would not give such materiel back to the U.S. at the airport, adding a note of farce to an already disastrous situation. One of the immediate conclusions drawn from the less-than-optimal U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan is how the U.S. can minimize the chances of future disasters stemming out of the Taliban’s use and trade of abandoned U.S. and Afghan military materiel. U.S. military and intelligence had already walked that path in the 1990s, after the anti-Soviet mujahedeen pushed out the Soviet Union. The task at that time was to recover Stingers, highly sophisticated portable surface to air missiles. In order to have a chance against the Soviet Union’s heavily armed attack helicopter Mil Mi-24, essentially a flying tank, the U.S. had equipped the mujahedeen with Stingers in the 1980s. As soon as the war ended with the Soviet defeat, the possibility of those Stingers being employed for terrorist attacks or falling into hostile government hands ignited a hunt to get the portable missiles back. The U.S. intelligence community scrambled to buy them back, allegedly at $100,000 per unit, or obtain the portable missiles by any means. Steve Coll in his acclaimed book “Ghost Wars,” mentioned that when the Taliban seized Kabul in 1996, an estimated 600 of the 2,300 Stingers provided by the CIA during the Soviet-Afghan war remained unaccounted for. Tehran was competing in the same race to acquire as many of the wayward Stingers as possible. Providentially, the threat of a terrorist using a Stinger to shoot down an American passenger plane did not materialize, nor did the Taliban develop a successful insurgent anti-aircraft campaign with the leftovers. And yes, history repeats itself. Today’s quantity and quality of weapons that the Taliban are hoarding since their lightning advance will arguably have unintended negative consequences far from Afghan borders. Sales to hostile governments and on the black market may provide additional revenue to the Taliban and increase uncertainty and instability not only in Central Asia but beyond. Militant organizations such as the Haqqani network, already in Kabul, possess the capability to smuggle weapons from Afghanistan to the Middle East, the African continent, and even to Southeast Asia. Possible scenarios range from small arms used to foster instability in the region or night vision goggles and military-grade communication equipment reaching other militant groups, including the Islamic State. More significant items now in the hands of the Taliban, such as helicopters, can neither be maintained nor flown due to a lack of Taliban pilots and trained maintenance crews. The materiel, however, could be handed over to countries interested in sensitive U.S. technology, and that list is not short. The war looting includes armored Humvees, aircraft, and attack helicopters, as well as military scout drones. Most of the Afghan Air Force’s aircraft were used by Afghan pilots to escape into neighboring Central Asian countries as Kabul fell, but the number still parked on Afghan airfields is unknown. The fall of Kabul, predictably, has been compared with the fall of Saigon. Most of the analogies point to helicopters leaving the roof of the American Embassy. However, another analogy worth referencing is related to the North Vietnamese political commissars’ scrambling to reach the ARVN and South Vietnamese police’s archives to locate the list of intelligence officials and collaborators. In an era of Big Data and databases stored in the cloud, there is a sudden realization that deleting data from the servers and smashing hard drives is not a bulletproof solution. Moreover, there are severe concerns that hundreds of military biometric devices, abandoned in U.S. bases, left a digital breadcrumb trail that the Taliban will use to locate and target former security officials and government supporters.

Handheld Interagency Identity Detection Equipment, in short HIIDE, devices are meant to digitally identify friends from foes via a biometric reading, against databases with fingerprints, iris scans and distinctive facial features. Similarly, social media users in Kabul left a digital trail not only on their mobile phones but also on the internet. It’s now digital proof that can be used against them when the Taliban feels confident of their grip on power and local media control. Discounting the Taliban’s capabilities in accessing actionable digital intelligence could be a mistake. Besides the probable support that the Taliban could receive from foreign intelligence services, it is not wise to disparage the ingenuity of militant groups in harnessing low-tech schemes to counter high-tech weaponry. An example is provided by the case of pro-Iranian militants in Iraq using $26 off-the-shelf software to intercept live video feeds from U.S. Predator drones, potentially providing them with information they need to monitor the unblinking eyes of U.S. drones. The threat of insurgents intercepting drone video feeds has been patched with encrypted communication; however, examples of low-tech tactical efficiencies abound. Since a decade ago, the Taliban have been using off-the-shelf commercial drones to shoot propaganda films and provide aerial scouting and to guide kamikaze flying bombs. This is a playbook borrowed by Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. The recent Taliban capture of Boeing ScanEagle drones, developed for surveillance, could add a new capability to the fighters’ growing arsenal. Also, their tactical use could evolve into alternative and deadly options. From a propaganda perspective, the videos of Taliban fighters parading in Afghan cities with their U.S. war trophies increase the criticism of the Biden administration’s withdrawal decision. Although it remains unclear how the Taliban will govern Afghanistan, the propaganda value of their white flags waving in the wind from the top of U.S.-made Humvees inspires other jihadist and radical Islamist groups to imitate the Taliban’s actions. The perception of augmented combat capabilities provided by the war looting could also push Central Asian countries to strengthen their bilateral security ties with Moscow and Beijing, no matter what, in the face of a Taliban with modern equipment. Sun Tzu, the revered author of the “Art of War,” quoted shoulder to shoulder with von Clausewitz in contemporary Western military PowerPoint presentations, states that the golden rule is to know your enemy. Probably 20 years were not enough.OCC, 2:55 AM Biden, Stoltenberg

[daloy-politsey]

Palestine was more prepared for the first coronavirus wave than many other governments because the PA’s security forces successfully lobbied the international community to provide them with a public health emergency simulation the previous year. “International donors gave them a workshop, and they modeled it on the basis of a potential MERS [Middle East respiratory syndrome] outbreak,” said Tahani Mustafa, a Jordanian-based research fellow at the London School of Economics.

The exercise proved beneficial, since the PA already suffered from limited logistical options and an obstructed health sector as a result of the Israeli military occupation, which has prevented the acquisition of supplies and equipment and greatly constrained the travel necessary to keep up-to-date with medical training and development, according to a report by al-Shabaka, an independent global Palestinian think tank.

Mustafa explained that the simulation was meant to include a workshop for representatives of the various branches of the security sector first, followed by a workshop for relevant political actors, such as representatives of the Health Ministry. The first workshop in 2019 addressed potential solutions to anticipated problems—which included a novel respiratory coronavirus.

Before the second workshop could take place, Covid-19 hit. With the first simulation fresh in memory, the PA moved fast, setting up a joint operations center where the Health Ministry, the prime minister’s office, and the security branches came up with procedures and rules and then delegated them to each governorate in the West Bank.

“With the first wave, what you had was an instantaneous response as soon as there was an outbreak in Bethlehem,” Mustafa said. “They basically shut down the area, and then a week or two later you ended up having the entire West Bank go into this severe lockdown. They did an OK job in the first couple of months. From what I was told, there was a lot of public consistency, where people were complying with the rules.” But unlike the simulation, the pandemic didn’t end.

Ten months have passed since those early days of relative success, and a different reality has emerged in the occupied territories. Makeshift checkpoints of dirt and stone now divide the towns. Travel and trade with Israel have been restricted even more than usual. And testing kits and supplies have run critically low. All 350 artificial respirators available in the territories had been put to use by July, according to the Health Ministry. At the same time, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was pushing for annexation, a threat that preoccupied the Palestinian leadership. With the government overwhelmed, the PA saw no choice other than to look abroad for financial support. But it ran into a roadblock.

In the past, Palestinians relied heavily on US support, which amounted to around $400 million a year, according to a 2018 congressional report. But the bipartisan Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act, which was signed into law by President Trump in 2018, slashed that funding to virtually nothing. According to that law, any foreign entity receiving US aid must consent to the jurisdiction of US courts regarding anti-terrorism claims, meaning the PA would be subject to terrorism-related lawsuits based on American law. Considering that it pays a stipend to the families of Palestinian citizens who are imprisoned in Israel, some of whom are being held on terrorism charges, the PA opted against accepting any US money. When the Palestinian economy shuttered after the first wave of the coronavirus, Washington pledged $5 million in aid—a paltry sum, roughly 1 percent of what had been the annual US aid budget to the PA.

According to data from the Palestinian Finance Ministry Service and an analysis by the London-based Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, since March, the PA has received no aid from Arab countries, some of which signed US-backed normalization agreements with Israel during that period. These cuts arrived on top of a 50 percent decrease in foreign aid from outside the region, with total funding dropping from $500 million in 2019 to $255 million in 2020.

“When we ask how Palestinians are able to live under these conditions, we have to understand that it’s never been much better,” said Yara Asi, a postdoctoral scholar at the University of Central Florida who is researching health and development in fragile and conflict-ravaged populations. “For Palestinians who can afford it, they will continue to access higher-quality private facilities or, travel conditions permitting, travel to Jordan, Egypt, or other states for advanced [health] care they are unable to get in the territories,” she said. “Low-income Palestinians will continue to rely on the public health sector, buoyed by inconsistent aid to the Palestinian Authority, as US funding has essentially ended.”

While donors in other parts of the world have filled some of the funding shortfalls, Asi added, many Palestinians will now be unable to access health care altogether while resources run dry and medical facilities and providers remain overworked and understaffed. For example, “thousands of Palestinians are missing needed vision care, as they have not been able to access ophthalmologists for months,” she said. “One report estimated that 1,200 surgical procedures to help restore vision have been canceled since April.”

[newstfionline]

Friday, April 9, 2021

The $50 billion race to save America’s renters from eviction (Washington Post) The Biden administration again extended a federal moratorium on evictions last week, but conflicting court rulings on whether the ban is legal, plus the difficulty of rolling out nearly $50 billion in federal aid, means the country’s reckoning with its eviction crisis may come sooner than expected. The year-old federal moratorium—which has now been extended through June 30—has probably kept hundreds of thousands or millions of people from being evicted from their apartments and homes. More than 10 million Americans are behind on rent, according to Moody’s, easily topping the 7 million who lost their homes to foreclosure in the 2008 housing bust. Despite the unprecedented federal effort to protect tenants, landlords have been chipping away at the moratorium in court. Treasury Department officials have been armed with nearly $50 billion in emergency aid for renters who have fallen behind, and are racing to distribute it through hundreds of state, local and tribal housing agencies, some of which have not created programs yet. The idea is to get the money to renters before courts nationwide begin processing evictions again.

A court filing says parents of 445 separated migrant children still have not been found. (NYT) The parents of 61 migrant children who were separated from their families at the U.S.-Mexico border by the Trump administration have been located since February, but lawyers still cannot find the parents of 445 children, according to a court filing on Wednesday. In the filing, the Justice Department and the American Civil Liberties Union indicated slow progress in the ongoing effort to reunite families that were affected by a policy to prosecute all undocumented immigrants in the United States, even if it meant separating children from their parents. Of the 445 remaining children, a majority are believed to have parents who were deported, while more than 100 children are believed to have parents currently in the United States, according to the court filing. The government has yet to provide contact information that would help locate the families of more than a dozen children.

N Ireland leaders call for calm after night of rioting (AP) Rioters set a hijacked bus on fire and hurled gasoline bombs at police in Belfast in at least the fourth night of serious violence in a week in Northern Ireland, where Brexit has unsettled an uneasy political balance. Youths threw projectiles and petrol bombs at police on Wednesday night in the Protestant Shankill Road area, while rioters lobbed bricks, fireworks and petrol bombs in both directions over the concrete “peace wall” separating the Shankill Road from a neighboring Irish nationalist area. Police Service of Northern Ireland Assistant Chief Constable Jonathan Roberts said several hundred people gathered on both sides of a gate in the wall, where “crowds ... were committing serious criminal offenses, both attacking police and attacking each other.” He said a total of 55 police officers have been injured over several nights of disorder. The recent violence, largely in pro-British loyalist areas, has flared amid rising tensions over post-Brexit trade rules for Northern Ireland and worsening relations between the parties in the Protestant-Catholic power-sharing Belfast government.

Biden seems ready to extend US troop presence in Afghanistan (AP) Without coming right out and saying it, President Joe Biden seems ready to let lapse a May 1 deadline for completing a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Orderly withdrawals take time, and Biden is running out of it. Biden has inched so close to the deadline that his indecision amounts almost to a decision to put off, at least for a number of months, a pullout of the remaining 2,500 troops and continue supporting the Afghan military at the risk of a Taliban backlash. Removing all of the troops and their equipment in the next three weeks—along with coalition partners who can’t get out on their own—would be difficult logistically, as Biden himself suggested in late March. “It’s going to be hard to meet the May 1 deadline,” he said. “Just in terms of tactical reasons, it’s hard to get those troops out.” Tellingly, he added, “And if we leave, we’re going to do so in a safe and orderly way.”

One in six Latin American youths left work since pandemic’s start (Reuters) Across Latin America and the Caribbean, one in every six people aged 18 to 29 has left work since the coronavirus pandemic began, forcing many to abandon their studies, a report said on Thursday. The precariousness of employment for young people rose across the region, according to an investigation by Canadian charity Cuso International based on data from a U.N. commission and a poll by the International Labour Organization. “It’s extremely difficult for young people to access the labor market due to issues around specialization, lower wages, and poverty,” the advocacy group’s Colombia director Alejandro Matos told Reuters. More than half of those who stopped working since the start of the pandemic were let go by their employers, the report said, while others saw their businesses close and those employed in the informal sector could not work due to lockdowns.

Myanmar ambassador in London locked out of embassy after speaking out against military (Washington Post) Myanmar’s ambassador to Britain, who has spoken out again the military coup in his country, said he was barred from the embassy in London on Wednesday by officials loyal to the military junta. “They are refusing to let me inside,” Kyaw Zwar Minn told the Telegraph. “They said they received instruction from the capital, so they are not going to let me in.” Kyaw Zwar Minn told the British newspaper that when he left the embassy during the day, colleagues and officials linked to the military stormed the premises and kept him from reentering that evening. In early March, the ambassador, a former military colonel, spoke out against the military’s detention of the former British colony’s leader Aung San Suu Kyi, drawing criticism from the junta that had orchestrated her ouster and praise from the British government for his “courage.” The London-based ambassador was recalled, according to Myanmar state television, after he posted a statement on the embassy’s Facebook page demanding “the release of State Counsellor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and President U Win Myint,” but he did not return to Myanmar.

Merkel tells Putin to pull back troops as Kremlin accuses Ukraine of provocations (Reuters) German Chancellor Angela Merkel told Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday to pull back the Kremlin’s military buildup near the border with Ukraine, while he in turn accused Kyiv of “provocative actions” in the conflict region. Ukraine has raised the alarm over an increase in Russian forces near its eastern border as violence has risen along the line of contact separating its troops from Russia-backed separatists in its Donbass region. Russia has said its forces pose no threat and were defensive, but that they would stay there as long as Moscow saw fit. A senior Kremlin official said on Thursday that Moscow could under certain circumstances be forced to defend its citizens in Donbass and that major hostilities could mark the beginning of the end of Ukraine as a country.

China builds advanced weapons systems using American chip technology (Washington Post) In a secretive military facility in southwest China, a supercomputer whirs away, simulating the heat and drag on hypersonic vehicles speeding through the atmosphere—missiles that could one day be aimed at a U.S. aircraft carrier or Taiwan, according to former U.S. officials and Western analysts. The computer is powered by tiny chips designed by a Chinese firm called Phytium Technology using American software and built in the world’s most advanced chip factory in Taiwan, which hums with American precision machinery, say the analysts. Phytium portrays itself as a commercial company aspiring to become a global chip giant like Intel. It does not publicize its connections to the research arms of the People’s Liberation Army. The hypersonic test facility is located at the China Aerodynamics Research and Development Center (CARDC), which also obscures its military connections though it is run by a PLA major general, according to public documents, and the former officials and analysts, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter. Phytium’s partnership with CARDC offers a prime example of how China is quietly harnessing civilian technologies for strategic military purposes—with the help of American technology. The trade is not illegal but is a vital link in a global high-tech supply chain that is difficult to regulate because the same computer chips that could be used for a commercial data center can power a military supercomputer.

Indonesia landslides death toll rises to 140, dozens missing (AP) The death toll from mudslides in eastern Indonesia has risen to 140 with dozens still missing, officials said Wednesday, as rain continued to pound the region and hamper the search. East Flores district on Adonara island suffered the highest losses with 67 bodies recovered so far and six missing. Mud tumbled down from surrounding hills early on Sunday, catching people at sleep. Some were swept away by flash floods after overnight rains caused rivers to burst their banks. On nearby Lembata island, the downpour triggered by Tropical Cyclone Seroja sent solidified lava from a volcanic eruption in November to crash down on more than a dozen villages, killing at least 32 and leaving 35 unaccounted for, according to the National Disaster Mitigation Agency.

Reversing Trump, Biden Restores Aid to Palestinians (NYT) The Biden administration announced on Wednesday that it would restore hundreds of millions of dollars in American aid to Palestinians, its strongest move yet to reverse President Donald J. Trump’s policy on the protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The package, which gives at least $235 million in assistance to Palestinians, will go to humanitarian, economic, development and security efforts in the region, and is part of the administration’s attempt to rehabilitate U.S. relations with Palestinians, which effectively stopped when Mr. Trump was in office. The restoration of aid amounted to the most direct repudiation so far of Mr. Trump’s tilt toward Israel in its decades-old conflict with the Palestinian population in Israeli-controlled territories.

Royal rift ends (NYT) Jordan’s King Abdullah II said on Wednesday that the “discord” that has roiled the kingdom for days has “been stopped,” signaling a resolution to a rare royal rift that resulted in the house arrest of Prince Hamzah bin Hussein, the former crown prince, and the detention of several Jordanian officials who were accused of plotting a foreign-backed coup against the monarchy.

Conflict and COVID driving record hunger in DR Congo, warns UN (Al Jazeera) A record 27.3 million people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are facing acute hunger, one-third of the violence-wracked Central African country’s population, largely because of conflict and the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the United Nations has warned. The DRC is “home to the highest number of people in urgent need of food security assistance in the world,” the World Food Programme and the Food and Agriculture Organization said on Tuesday in a joint statement, describing the scale of the crisis as “staggering”. “For the first time ever we were able to analyse the vast majority of the population, and this has helped us to come closer to the true picture of the staggering scale of food insecurity in the DRC,” Peter Musoko, WFP’s representative in the country, said. “This country should be able to feed its population and export a surplus. We cannot have children going to bed hungry and families skipping meals for an entire day,” he said.

Beware The Carpet Cleaner (The Guardian) Parkinson’s disease is the fastest-growing neurological disorder in the world, and the US is experiencing an explosion of cases. In the last decade, the number of Parkinson’s cases in America has increased 35%, and a neurologist at the University of Rochester Medical Center thinks over the next 25 years it will double again. Most cases of the disease are considered idiopathic—without a clear cause. But researchers now believe one factor is environmental exposure to trichloroethylene (TCE), a chemical compound used in industrial degreasing, dry-cleaning, and household products like some shoe polishes and carpet cleaners. TCE is a carcinogen already linked to renal cell carcinoma, cancers of the cervix, liver, biliary passages, lymphatic system and male breast tissue, fetal cardiac defects, and more. Several studies point to a link between Parkinson’s and workplace exposure to TCE. The US Labor Department issued guidance on TCE saying exposures to carbon disulfide (CS2) and TCE are presumed to “cause, contribute or aggravate Parkinsonism.”

‘Tantalizing’ results of 2 experiments defy physics rulebook (AP) Preliminary results from two experiments suggest something could be wrong with the basic way physicists think the universe works, a prospect that has the field of particle physics both baffled and thrilled. Tiny particles called muons aren’t quite doing what is expected of them in two different long-running experiments in the United States and Europe. The confounding results—if proven right—reveal major problems with the rulebook physicists use to describe and understand how the universe works at the subatomic level. “We think we might be swimming in a sea of background particles all the time that just haven’t been directly discovered,” Fermilab experiment co-chief scientist Chris Polly said in a press conference. “There might be monsters we haven’t yet imagined that are emerging from the vacuum interacting with our muons and this gives us a window into seeing them.” If confirmed, the U.S. results would be the biggest finding in the bizarre world of subatomic particles in nearly 10 years, since the discovery of the Higgs boson, often called the “God particle,” said Aida El-Khadra of the University of Illinois, who works on theoretical physics for the Fermilab experiment.

Unlikely chauffeur (Foreign Policy) Kevin Rudd is best known as a former Australian prime minister. Last Tuesday night in Queensland, he was mistaken for an Uber driver. The former Labor party leader became an unlikely chauffeur when a group of revelers—described as “tipsy” by Rudd’s daughter—piled into his car as he sought parking at a local restaurant. Rudd obliged the passengers, reportedly driving half the journey to the town’s main drag before being recognized by his would-be customers. “Four young Melburnians getting drenched in a Queensland subtropical downpour at Noosa last night with no Uber in sight … So what’s a man to do?” Rudd later wrote on Twitter.

[rockandrollstorytime]

Rock and Roll Storytime #8: The Rolling Stones at Altamont (AKA One of the Worst Concert Disasters of All Time)

The year 1969 had been a hectic one, both for the world in general (with the continuing Vietnam War, the Chappaquiddick incident, and the moon landings) and especially for rock and roll (with the death of Brian Jones, Woodstock, and the Beatles starting to head full-steam down the road that led them to their break-up in April 1970). Capping off this year full of highs and lows, there was Altamont, which has been labelled by many as the death of the 60′s. At the very least, it certainly brought a premature end to the idealism that the youths of that generation held dear.

Lord knows, I will always say that Brian Jones should have had a chance to get back on his feet and I’m super salty that he’s dead, but honestly, I’m glad he missed out on this one. 

Before I tell the story of Altamont though, I must ask… Whose bright idea was it to hire the Hell’s Angels as security for a Rolling Stones concert and pay them with $500 of beer?

Well, to answer that question, I’m going to have to begin this story with the ending of another. Truly, the roots of this ill-thought-out decision lies within events that had happened that summer. 

I’ve mentioned Brian Jones already, but to give those of you who are new to this the rundown, Lewis Brian Hopkin Jones was the Stones’ first guitarist, and at the start, he was the brains of the band. Seven years, a bunch of internal conflict with Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, and Andrew Loog Oldham, a messy relationship with Anita Pallenberg, drug abuse and alcoholism, two drug trials, and a fuck-ton of stress later, Brian was in a state we’d call “mental exhaustion” (didn’t help that his physical health was shit too). Where in 1966 he was contributing some of the best parts of the Stones’ early music, such as the sitar on “Paint It Black”, in 1969, he’d rarely show up to the studio, and if he did, he would usually be too intoxicated to properly contribute. In fact, on Let It Bleed, he only contributed to two songs: “Midnight Rambler” (congas) and “You’ve Got the Silver” (autoharp).

In June 1969, the Stones decided they wanted to go on tour again, but then, they found out that due to the fact that Brian had twice been convicted of drug possession, it’d be unlikely that he could receive a visa to perform in the U.S.A., if at all. Ultimately, Mick and Keith decided that their best option would be to fire Brian, and so, on June 8, 1969, they went down to Brian’s home, Cotchford Farm, to tell him that he would no longer be with the group. According to those present, Brian had been expecting this, and in the various press releases, it was made to appear as if Brian had left the band on his own terms. His statement read, in part, “I no longer see eye to eye with the others over the discs we are cutting. We no longer communicate musically. The Stones’ music is not to my taste any more. The work of Mick and Keith has progressed at a tangent, at least to my way of thinking. I have a desire to play my own brand of music rather than that of others, no matter how much I appreciate their musical concepts.”

At this point in time, whether Brian was accepting of this turn of events or not is up to conjecture. 

In either case, the Stones brought in 20-year-old Mick Taylor (previously of John Mayall’s Bluesbreakers) to replace Brian, and at a press conference on June 13, the Stones announced that they would be holding a free concert on July 5 in order to properly introduce their new guitarist. 

And then, just three days before the concert was set to take place, Brian drowned in his backyard swimming pool, being just twenty-seven years old. Although the coroner ruled it death by misadventure (which personal research seems to support), theories have long persisted that Brian was, in fact, murdered, but that is, of course, a story for another day. 

The Stones in the Park concert quickly became a tribute to Brian Jones, and at the start, Mick read two verses of Percy Bysshe Shelley’s Adonais, and as the band launched into “I’m Yours and I’m Hers” by Johnny Winters (one of Brian’s favourite songs), thousands of butterflies were released, though this was against park stipulation, as they were voracious Cabbage White butterflies, and many had died due to the boxes not being properly ventilated. 

What’s important to this story about the concert at Hyde Park is that the London chapter of the Hell’s Angels was there providing security that day. It is also important to note that the Grateful Dead (who, incidentally, also had a member of the 27 Club in their line-up) had also hired the Hell’s Angels as security numerous times. 

Several months later, the Stones had been having a pretty good run with their American tour, which was able to slightly mitigate some of the shady business practices Allen Klein had subjected them to, but throughout, fans and journalists kept complaining about high ticket prices. If you ask me though, those bitches were lucky. I’d rather be paying three to eight dollars (equivalent to $21.21 to $56.57 in 2019) as opposed to a minimum of $159 that tickets to a Rolling Stones concert now sell for. Not to mention, Woodstock had happened in August that year, and that was a big success, so in Mick Jagger’s 26-year-old, immature, unwise brain, that obviously meant that they should have another free concert like the one at Hyde Park. Really, in his mind, the peace and love movement was only just beginning, so what could go wrong?

As Murphy’s Law will tell you, “Anything that can go wrong will go wrong” 

Oh, and go wrong it did. 

The first major problem was that they couldn’t get a venue. 

The concert was set for December 6, and their tour manager, Sam Cutler, struggled to get them a venue. He tried San Jose’s State University, but there had been a three-day festival recently, and the city wasn’t exactly in the mood for another batch of hippies storming the city so soon afterward, so that was out of bounds. He then tried gunning for San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park, but there was a football game between the Chicago Bears and the San Francisco 49-ers taking place in the same general location, which made use of the venue impractical. He then tried getting Sears Point Raceway on board, but disputes quickly arose over filming distribution rights and an up-front fee of $300,000.

Finally, just two days before the concert was set to take place, the Stones’ management managed to get a hold of Altamont Speedway (it helped that the owner, Dick Carter, apparently offered the venue for free). 

As you can imagine, there was a whole shit-ton of problems that arose from that, and Rolling Stone magazine, in its piece on the tragedy, listed the following logistical problems: 

“1) Promise a free concert by a popular rock group which rarely appears in this country. Announce the site only four days in advance.

2) Change the location 20 hours before the concert.

3) The new concert site should be as close as possible to a giant freeway.

4) Make sure the grounds are barren, treeless, desolate.

5) Don’t warn neighboring landowners that hundreds of thousands of people are expected. Be unaware of their out-front hostility toward long hair and rock music.

6) Provide one-sixtieth the required toilet facilities to insure that people will use nearby fields, the sides of cars, etc.

7) The stage should be located in an area likely to be completely surrounded by people and their vehicles.

8) Build the stage low enough to be easily hurdled. Don’t secure a clear area between stage and audience.

9) Provide an unreliable barely audible low fidelity sound system.

10) Ask the Hell’s Angels to act as ‘security’ guards.”

Most sane people would have quit while they were ahead, but this is the Rolling Stones we’re talking about. Between Brian Jones having five kids by the age of twenty-three, Mick Jagger allegedly sleeping with over 4,000 women (and don’t get me started on him and David Bowie), Keith Richards’ drug habits and his snorting his dad’s ashes, Bill Wyman dating a teenager while he was in his forties, and Charlie Watts punching Mick Jagger in the face, we are absolutely not dealing with the most sane bunch of individuals on the planet. 

And let’s not forget that some idiot decided it’d be a great idea to pay the Hell’s Angels in $500 of beer (the equivalent of $3,535.43 in 2019).

Yeah, if you listened closely to the sounds of the earth in 1969, I can guarantee you, you probably would have heard a barely-cold-in-the-ground Brian Jones spinning in his grave over this stupidity (because he was acting as the band’s manager for a time in their early days before Andrew Oldham came on board). 

Let’s also not forget that they hired a particularly notorious batch of Hell’s Angels from Oakland, California, whereas the Grateful Dead found their “security bikers” in Sacramento. Apparently, Grateful Dead manager Rock Scully even tried to warn the Stones about the “real” Hell’s Angels after seeing the footage from Hyde Park, but obviously, they didn’t take whatever warning he tried to give them to heart. The hippies in general had a romanticized image of the Hell’s Angels in their heads, seeing them as “outlaw brothers of the counterculture.”

No points for guessing how that worked out, but let’s continue regardless. 

Set to perform that night were Santana, Jefferson Airplane, The Flying Burrito Brothers, Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young, the Grateful Dead, and of course, the Rolling Stones. 

They would all be performing on a stage that was just thirty-nine inches off the ground and surrounded on all sides by over 300,000 attendees. Apparently, this had been planned to create a more “intimate” experience. 

From what I could tell, waivers were not involved. 

For the sake of time, I can’t give you a minute-by-minute analysis of the event, but I can still provide a basic timeline of all that happened. 

So, everything went relatively smoothly as Santana performed their set, but it was only downhill from there. As the day progressed, the crowd started fighting each other, and the “security” sure as hell didn’t help matters. At some point, someone knocked over one of the Angel’s motorcycles, which was likely an accident. However, the Angels were already pretty pissy, and plus, rule number one when it comes to the Angels is “Don’t mess with the motorcycles.” So, the Angels, already high thanks to someone spiking the beer with acid, started indiscriminately assaulting audience members they didn’t like with sawed-off pool cues and motorcycle chains, including a guy who was running around naked and someone else who was trying to take pictures of the stage. One woman who called in to a radio station the next day reported that she saw five fistfights, and the Angels were involved in every last one. She tried to intervene, but the people around her warned her not to, fearing for both their safety and hers. 

During Jefferson Airplane’s set, Marty Balin was knocked unconscious when he tried to intervene in a fight between the audience members and Hell’s Angels. When Paul Kantner grabbed a mic and sarcastically thanked the Angels, Bill Fritsch grabbed the mic from him and started arguing with him about it. In addition, Denise Jewkes, lead singer of Ace of Cups, was hit in the head with a beer bottle and suffered a skull fracture. Her husband, Noel, had to lead his six-month pregnant wife through the sea of people so she could get medical attention. The Stones later paid her medical expenses. By this point, news of what was going on out front was beginning to seep into the backstage areas and even back to the Stones at their hotel room, but most of the acts decided to press on regardless. However, after hearing about what happened to Marty from Michael Shrieve, the guys from the Grateful Dead decided to book it. 

Yeah. Thanks a bunch, assholes.

The crowd did calm down a bit for the Flying Burrito Brothers’ set, because really, who can say no to Gram Parsons? However, that calm was only temporary. When the Stones arrived by helicopter, it wasn’t even ten seconds before someone punched Mick Jagger in the face. Also, Bill Wyman missed the first helicopter out, so the Stones were already going to be late.

And then Mick Jagger decided he wanted to be all dramatic and shit, so the crowds were forced to wait until nightfall for the Stones’ set.

Meanwhile, during Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young’s set, a “stoned out” Angel reportedly stabbed Stephen Stills in the leg whenever he stepped forward to sing, leaving trails of blood running down his leg.

By the time the Stones were anywhere near ready to take the stage, things started to degenerate even further, to the point where the Angels (who already despised Mick’s scrawny, English arse) pretty much forced the Stones to go out on stage regardless of whether they were ready or not, just to prevent a full-scale riot.

It was in that moment Mick knew… he fucked up royally.

As Mick observed the constant fighting between the audience members and Hell’s Angels during the show as he sang “Sympathy for the Devil”, he desperately, defeatedly, pleaded for calm, his usual bravado completely absent for once in his adult life. However, it was clear that the Angels already weren’t going to listen to the flamboyant musician they clearly hated, and tensions had been simmering too long throughout the day, so Mick’s pleas for peace practically went completely unheard. 

Mick Taylor later said, “The Hell’s Angels had a lot to do with it. The people that were working with us getting the concert together thought it would be a good idea to have them as a security force. But I got the impression that because they were a security force they were using it as an excuse. They’re just very, very violent people. I think we expected probably something like the Hell’s Angels that were our security force at Hyde Park, but of course they’re not the real Hell’s Angels, they’re completely phony. These guys in California are the real thing — they’re very violent. I had expected a nice sort of peaceful concert. I didn’t expect anything like that in San Francisco because they are so used to having nice things there. That’s where free concerts started, and I thought a society like San Francisco could have done much better. We were on the road when it was being organized, we weren’t involved at all. We would have liked to have been. Perhaps the only thing we needed security for was the Hell’s Angels. I really don’t know what caused it but it just depressed me because it could have been so beautiful that day”

(I feel so sorry for Mick Taylor. The kid was just twenty years old when he saw all this bullshit going down.)

Now, what I’m going to do with this go-around, before I describe what happened next, is tell you a little bit about Meredith Hunter. He was just eighteen when he went to Altamont with his girlfriend, Patti Bredehoft. The only reason he had a gun that day, according to his family, was for self-protection, given that he was basically a young black man with a white girlfriend in a sea of white people, at a time and place where racism was still very much prevalent. Allegedly, the gun didn’t even have any bullets in it; it would just be a last resort to deter anyone giving him trouble. Like most 18-year-olds, he was also a bit naive, and though his girlfriend wanted to leave, he convinced her to stay for the Rolling Stones’ set. At one point, he was already set upon by Hell’s Angels, but that time, it was only a scuffle. What is known is that he was high on methamphetamines, but what isn’t known for sure is his general demeanour. Some said he had a crazy look in his eye, while others said that he seemed calm, though he was upset at the violence. 

And then, all hell broke loose. 

As “Under My Thumb” was ending, cameras found an opening into the crowd, into which stumbled Meredith Hunter. He grabbed his gun, a .22 calibre revolver, which was visible to cameras against Patti’s dress. When Alan Passaro saw this, he immediately assumed that Hunter was trying to shoot somebody, and started stabbing him (this was, again, in plain view of a bunch of cameras). Subsequently, he was repeatedly kicked in the head, trying to tell his attackers that he wasn’t trying to kill anybody. However, the Angels were convinced that he was attempting to shoot somebody, and that’s essentially what the narrative became- that a crazed black kid high on meth tried to shoot Mick or one of the other Rolling Stones (which, believe me, I’d be salty about even if I hadn’t read a Rolling Stone article about him).

It was little Mick Taylor who managed to keep things rolling (a bit) by suggesting they play “Brown Sugar”, which had only been recorded the previous Tuesday. 

Somehow, after the vicious beating he’d suffered, Meredith was still alive, and a doctor at the scene looked at him and recommended that he get immediate medical attention, or else he’d die. However, the only helicopter at the scene was reserved for the Rolling Stones, and the pilot made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that no one else was allowed on board. Hunter ended up dying of his injuries while they waited for emergency responders. 

I don’t quite know how well the situation was explained, but still, dick move on the part of the helicopter pilots. 

In addition to Hunter, three other people died, one after falling into a fast-moving irrigation duct while tripping on LSD, and two others were killed in their sleeping bags during a hit-and-run accident. There were also four reported births, one of which occurred during Jefferson Airplane’s set. 

The day after the concert, the Stones flew back to London, as the news slowly disseminated throughout the world. 

In 1971, a documentary about the tragedy, Gimme Shelter, was released to the public. However, in the years since, many have argued that is meant to excuse the Stones’ actions and is an apologist piece of media. Still, the footage itself does show a chilling account of what happened that day, if you can ignore that overall narrative (though you really shoudn’t ignore that). 

Alan Passaro was later charged with Meredith’s murder, but was acquitted by an all-white jury, who likely either excused the crime due to racism, or just didn’t have the full story.

After Altamont, just about everybody turned on each other. The audience members, many of whom undoubtedly still live with the scars of that fateful night blamed the Hell’s Angels, whereas the Angels laid some of the blame on the audience members, and most of it on the people who hired them, whilst the Stones said they’d never work with the Hell’s Angels again (which, allegedly, almost resulted in some of them trying to assassinate Mick Jagger). 

In my honest, humble, not-so-professional opinion, I say the blame should be laid with the Stones’ management, Mick Jagger, the Grateful Dead, and the Hell’s Angels. The concert should have been planned over a matter of months instead of weeks, held in a proper venue, and above all else, not had fucking Hell’s Angels as security guards. 

While the Grateful Dead came out of it rather unscathed (mostly because they didn’t play), it’s been said that the Stones lost quite a bit of their edge. It’s easy to say that they grew up a lot because of this event, becoming a lot humbler, and a lot less greedy and risky as a direct result of this. It’s even to a point where people haven’t liked much of what they’ve put out since the 1980’s. Santana and Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young declined to have their performances shown in Gimme Shelter, and have since spoken very little about the event. Meanwhile, Alan Passaro drowned in 1985, though the circumstances of his death are suspicious, to say the least. Meanwhile, Meredith Hunter’s family still deals with the trauma of his death, and aside from a $10,000 ($70,708.59) settlement, the Stones never even approached the family to offer their condolences, or even a half-assed explanation (I don’t recommend the latter approach). The Hell’s Angels also had their reputations as dangerous outsiders cemented by this event, given that they’d caused at least 75-90% of the violence that took place that day. 

Keith Richards has maintained his “fuck-all” attitude about this through the years, even writing in his 2010 autobiography “In actual fact, if it hadn’t been for the murder, we’d have thought it a very smooth gig by the skin of its fucking teeth.”

There is a reason that many of the dreams of the 60′s died at Altamont, and all the evidence you really need is the footage that was shot that night and the words of the people who saw the fiasco first hand. 

Sources: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/remembering-meredith-hunter-the-fan-killed-at-altamont-630260/ https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/the-rolling-stones-disaster-at-altamont-let-it-bleed-71299/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidchiu/2019/12/03/altamont-at-50-the-disastrous-concert-that-brought-the-60s-to-a-crashing-halt/#535871c31941 https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-chaos-of-altamont-and-the-murder-of-meredith-hunter https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-altamont-festival-brings-the-1960s-to-a-violent-end https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/music/altamont-wasnt-the-end-of-the-60s-it-was-the-start-of-rock-n-roll-disasters https://worldhistoryproject.org/1969/12/6/altamont-free-concert Altamont by Joel Selvin Life by Keith Richards https://allthatsinteresting.com/altamont-speedway-free-concert https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/lifestyle/altamont-rolling-stones-50th-anniversary/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Free_Concert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Meredith_Hunter http://timeisonourside.com/chron1969.html https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/02/01/altamont-free-concert-in-1969/ https://www.ranker.com/list/altamont-free-concert-facts/jen-jeffers http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/on-this-day/On-This-Day–Deaths-at-Rolling-Stones–Altamont-Concert-Shocks-the-Nation.html https://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/bk-aow/altamont.php https://westegg.com/inflation/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUlyVSfhgaM https://www.setlist.fm/setlist/the-rolling-stones/1969/altamont-speedway-tracy-ca-43d6fbb3.html https://slate.com/culture/2018/07/just-a-shot-away-a-history-of-altamont-by-saul-austerlitz-reviewed.html

[mattkennard]

The War on Hope: How the US tried to stop Evo Morales

In the middle of the night on April 16, 2009, an elite Bolivian police unit entered the four-star Hotel Las Americas situated in the eastern city of Santa Cruz, a hotbed of opposition to the President Evo Morales’s government. Flown in from the capital, La Paz, the commandos planned to raid a group of men staying in the upscale lodgings. What happened in the early hours of that morning is still disputed, but at the end of the operation, three men who were asleep in bed had been killed in cold blood. Some say they were executed, while the Bolivian government claims its officers won out in a 20-minute firefight. In the aftermath, the story gained international attention when it was revealed that two of the dead were not even Bolivian. One was Michael Dwyer, a 26-year-old Irishman from County Cork, where he had been a bouncer and security guard before moving to Santa Cruz just six months earlier. Another, Árpád Magyarosi, was Hungarian-Romanian, and had been a teacher and musician before relocating to Bolivia at the same time. The third person killed in the operation was the ringleader of the group, Eduardo Rózsa-Flores, an eccentric Bolivian-Hungarian who had been born in Santa Cruz before fleeing the country during the US-backed dictatorship of Hugo Banzer in the 1970s. His family moved to Chile before the ascent of another US-backed dictator in that country, General Augusto Pinochet, and resettled finally in Hungary. Rózsa was a supporter of Opus Dei, the right-wing Catholic sect, and fought in the Croatian independence war in the early 1990s, founding the paramilitary International Platoon that many believed was aligned with fascistic elements. Two journalists, including a British photographer, died in suspicious circumstances while investigating the platoon. In Santa Cruz on that night, two others, Mario Tadic, a Croatian, and Elöd Tóásó, also from Hungary, were arrested and remain in a high- security La Paz prison to this day. Two more suspects, both with Eastern European connections, were not at the scene and are still missing.

It transpired that the government had acted on intelligence indicating that these men comprised a cell of terrorists who were planning a program of war and violence in the country, which included a somewhat bizarre plan to blow up Evo Morales, the president, and his cabinet on Lake Titicaca, the biggest lake in the Andes and a major tourist attraction. The intelligence services, after a tip-off from an informer close to the group, had been following them for a number of months. They decided to act soon after a bomb exploded at the house of the Archbishop of Santa Cruz, Cardinal Julio Terrazas. The government appointed a seven-person committee to investigate the plot, headed by César Navarro, deputy minister for coordination with social movements and civil society, which spent the next five months until November 2009 looking into it. Among the items seized during the raid was Rózsa’s laptop in which investigators claim to have discovered emails between ex-CIA asset and Cold War double-agent István Belovai. “There are emails between Rózsa and Belovai, he was the brains behind it,” Mr Navarro told me in his office in the presidential palace in La Paz. “He would ask them logistical questions about escape routes, about whether the government or police would be able to get to them.” Belovai, who died in 2010, was a spook who called himself “Hungary’s first NATO soldier”. Rózsa is thought to have become friends with Belovai in the 1990s during the Balkan war.

At the time of the attacks, the attitude of the US embassy, revealed through the cables sent from La Paz to Washington, was one of incredulity at the government’s claims and worry about persecution of the opposition. One comment was headlined ‘“Terrorism” excuse for mass arrests?” The US embassy was concerned about “raising fears of possible arrests of members of the Santa Cruz-based political opposition”. Another cable did admit that in “an interview released posthumously, the group’s leader [Rózsa] advocated the secession of Santa Cruz department, Bolivia’s largest and most prosperous state”. The reaction from the opposition was no less sympathetic. The right-wing governor of Santa Cruz, Rubén Costas, accused the Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS) government of “mounting a show” in the aftermath. The photos released by the government afterward told a different story. Rózsa and Dwyer can be seen posing with large caches of heavy weaponry including pistols and sub-machine guns, and a large rifle with telescopic sights. President Morales said the cell was planning to “riddle us with bullets”. A US embassy official met with a public defender assigned to alleged terrorist Tadic. She told the official that “the Santa Cruz leaders named by the government are most likely linked with the group” – these leaders were in fact intimately involved with the US embassy. Tadic, she said, had been stockpiling weapons and carrying out military training on rural properties outside Santa Cruz. She confirmed they were responsible for placing the explosive device in front of the cardinal’s house, while Tadic had testified that the next target was going to be Prefect Rubén Costas’ residence, and that Rózsa had advised Costas to strengthen his security gate to minimize the damage. The intent in targeting the cardinal and the prefect was to make it look like MAS supporters were carrying out the attacks.

The fact that the alleged terrorists were staying in a four-star hotel with no discernible day job suggested they must have had money coming from somewhere. The pictures of these foreigners partying in Santa Cruz – subsequently released – also show they were accepted and welcomed openly by some powerbrokers in the city – it seemed to go all the way to the top, even the prefect of the department. But none came more powerful than Branko Marinkovic, a local oligarch of Croatian origin, who had been a long-time friend of the US embassy and is now in exile in the US after being identified as one of those “most likely” to have been involved with the terrorist group. Juan Kudelka, Marinkovic’s right-hand man, said in March 2010 that he had been asked by Marinkovic to pass envelopes of money to Rózsa as part of the plan to support this terrorist group, called, he said, “La Torre”. Another suspect, Hugo Achá Melgar, a keen friend of a strange human rights group in New York, also soon fled to the US, where he was also welcomed with open arms. “[T]here are several factors that could induce the [government of Bolivia] to connect us to suspected extremist groups in Santa Cruz,” noted one US embassy cable released by WikiLeaks. “The petition of political asylum from alleged terrorist Hugo Acha and his wife, allocation of USAID assistance to a Bolivian organization suspected of funding a terrorist cell in Santa Cruz, and an implied [US Government] role based on the [Government of Bolivia’s] assertion that the Santa Cruz cell leader organized meetings and had contacts in Washington.” All of these assertions turned out to be true; in fact, the situation was worse than that. The US planned to bring the opposition from all over the country together in a supra-departmental business lobby in an effort to rid Bolivia of its socialist government.

At the time, the US embassy “reassured” Vice President Álvaro García Linera “that there was no US government involvement”, and President Obama vouched for that too when asked by President Morales soon after. But Mr Navarro, the investigator, still didn’t believe it. “The US didn’t not know,” he told me. When I brought Vice President Linera into the Financial Times office in London to speak to the union at the paper, he told me: “Nothing like this happens in Bolivia without the US knowing something about it.” Even if we assume the US embassy didn’t know of the cell, why would the US then provide a sanctuary to alleged funders of “terrorists” whose own public defender was telling the embassy that they were “most likely” guilty? The answer is long and complex and reveals the lengths to which the US has gone to undermine the democratically elected government of Evo Morales since it came to power in 2005.

Turning the tide

The raid and the deaths came at a pivotal moment in Bolivian history. At that time the poorest country in South America, it also had the highest proportion of indigenous people in the continent – 60 percent. In December 2005, there was a tectonic shift in the power structure of the nation, unheard of since independence from Spain, when the country elected its first ever indigenous president, the socialist trade union leader Evo Morales. It wasn’t a sudden development but followed decades of confrontation and public protests that had escalated in the previous five years. In 2000, the so-called “Water Wars”, centered in the city of Cochabamba in the middle of the country, had pitched the local communities en masse against the government and the World Bank which had overseen the privatization of the water industry and resultant soaring prices. Police had been instructed to arrest people collecting rainwater to avoid the new prices they could not afford. Over the next years, the indigenous movement, which is based around small micro-democratic communities, grew stronger. In 2003, mass protests spread and thousands of demonstrators went on to blockade La Paz before troops, allegedly under orders of the government, shot dead a score of protesters.

The presidential incumbent, Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, more commonly known as Goni, was forced out and fled to Miami, where he lives to this day. It was in this ferment that Morales, a former cocalero (coca picker) turned trade union leader, and his party, MAS, came to power with a huge take of the popular vote. This turn of events, however, was not greeted kindly by the traditional elites in Bolivia and their international backers. The US had been sending its own political “experts” for years to try to avoid exactly this scenario: a 2005 documentary, Our Brand is Crisis, shows a team of slick campaign managers from Greenberg Carville Shrum, the political consultancy, successfully running Goni’s campaign as he defeated Evo Morales in the 2002 presidential elections. This time it was different: the US was powerless to stop Morales, causing serious worry among planners. Bolivia remains one of the most unequal societies in the western hemisphere, but the established state of affairs had made some people very rich. As the New York Times put it when describing Santa Cruz: “Scenes of extreme poverty stand in contrast here with the construction of garish new headquarters of corporations from Brazil, Europe and the United States.” On top of this, the land distribution has led some analysts to describe the set-up as akin to “semi-feudal provinces dominated by semi-feudal estates”. Five percent of the landowners control over 90 percent of the arable land. When MAS came to power it sought to deal with this egregious inequality, which is marked pretty consistently along race lines, with the poor landless peasants largely comprising the indigenous population. As always, the US supported the oligarchy, which in turn supported the continued slavery of the country to US corporations.

A land reform program was started by Morales to break up the huge rural estates that had long been controlled by a small elite and to redistribute land that was fallow to landless indigenous peasants. The government stipulated that private ownership of huge estates would only be acceptable if put to “social use”. But a plan like that was going to engender vociferous opposition from an entrenched elite that felt it was being usurped. One particularly illustrative case is that of Ronald Larsen, a 67-year-old American from Montana, who came to Bolivia in 1968 and who, by the time President Morales came to power, owned 17 properties throughout Bolivia (along with his sons), comprising 141,000 acres, or three times the size of the country’s biggest city. The new Bolivian government accused Mr Larsen of keeping indigenous Guarani farmers as “virtual slaves”, and tried to deliver seeds to them to help them escape from servitude. Mr Larsen responded: “These people, their main thing in life is where they’re going to get their next bowl of rice. A few bags of rice buys a lot of support.”1 The government reported that it was fired on as it tried to deliver the said rice.

The reaction to land reform from the east of the country, where the majority of natural resources and wealth is located, was near hysterical. A class of magnates – most of European descent – own many of the businesses there and, over the next three years, with their allies in the media luna (the crescent-shaped “opposition” area of the country) worked to bring down the new President Morales. The US government and its agencies, which had for decades exercised overwhelming economic and political power over Bolivia in tandem with these newly displaced elites, was not a benign player in this period. It actively worked to help the opposition and undermine the democratically elected government. The spider web of US control was, and is, extensive, with many US agencies created at the height of the Cold War still in place, civilized language hiding their use, first, as a tool against Soviet influence in the region, and now to undermine the democratic socialism of MAS. Despite vast natural gas reserves, these agencies, alongside transnational corporations and their local compradors in government, have conspired to keep Bolivia the second-poorest country, and among the most unequal, in South America.

When the MAS government threatened to upend that social order, it was logical that the US would be nervous. One of President Morales’ first acts in power was to shutter the CIA office that had until then, he said, been operating in the presidential palace. Morales’ claims that the various agencies that make up the US foreign policy apparatus have been giving covert support to the opposition are dismissed by the US government as “conspiracy theories”. Alongside the US government, a score of non-governmental institutions, some headquartered in New York, or US-ally Colombia, have been working to undermine the democratic government in Bolivia and continue to this day.

Paying clandestine visits

When I interviewed César Navarro, who headed the investigation of the April 2009 incident, in his office lined with pictures of Che Guevara and prominent members of Bolivian civil society, he spoke at 100 miles an hour, desperate to get all the information out as quickly as possible. “Rózsa didn’t come here by himself, they brought him,” he told me. “Hugo Achá Melgar brought him.” The prosecutor in the case had charged that one of Achá’s business cards was found in the backpack of one of the alleged terrorists. Further, it was claimed that Achá met with Rózsa on at least three occasions, while testimony from other terrorist suspects in custody implicated Achá as a financial supporter of the group. The Bolivian government has tried to request the extradition of Achá, who is currently in the United States, to no avail.

Achá’s story reveals a long trail that leads all the way to a set of plush offices in the midtown area of Manhattan. The husband of a prominent opposition congresswoman, Achá was the founder and head of a Bolivian version of the Human Rights Foundation (HRF), an American non- governmental organization (NGO) based in New York. Not very well known – but boasting Elie Wiesel and Václav Havel on its “international council” – the HRF was founded in 2005 by a character atypical of the NGO and human rights world. A rich playboy-cum-political talking head, Thor Halvorssen could be spotted on the Manhattan party scene, as well as giving his two-pennies-worth on Fox News.

His foundation is not typical either – Mr Halvorssen told The Economist in 2010 that he wanted his organization to break from the traditional NGO mold. First his group had an overt agenda, the magazine said, focusing “mainly on the sins of leftist regimes in Latin America”. But his tactics were different, too. “With the confidence of a new kid on the block,” the article continued, “he argues that the big players in human rights have become too bureaucratic, and disinclined to do bold things like pay clandestine visits to repressive countries.” From his midtown Manhattan office, Halvorssen said: “They work in these big marbled offices, where’s the heart in that?” It was in the dusty streets of La Paz that he wanted to be. In many ways, Halvorssen was merely a chip off the old block. HRF’s obsession with the “repressive” governments of, particularly, Venezuela and Bolivia was not something new to the family. Neither were clandestine activities. Halvorssen’s father, Thor Halvorssen Hellum, is a Venezuelan businessman, the head of one of the richest families in the country. In 1993, he was arrested and charged with homicide and other counts after a group of terrorists set off a series of six bombs around the capital, Caracas. It was named the “yuppie” terrorists plot because its planners were allegedly bankers and other gilded elite who hoped that the panic caused by the bombs would help them speculate on the stock market. The Houston Chronicle noted at the time: “Police have identified one alleged mastermind as Thor Halvorssen, a former president of telephone company CANTV, former presidentially-appointed anti-drug commissioner, and, according to officials, a former operative of the US Central Intelligence Agency in Central America.” Halvorssen Hellum eventually spent 74 days in prison before a superior court judge found him innocent of attempted homicide and all other charges related to the bombings. Many found the decision murky. And two hours after his release, another “human rights” NGO, the International Society for Human Rights, appointed him director of its Pan-American committee. During a CIA “anti- drug” campaign in Venezuela, which saw a ton of nearly pure cocaine shipped to the US in 1990, Mr Halvorssen Hellum, in his position as narcotics chief, was again in trouble. The New York Times reported that “[t]he DEA discovered that Halvorssen, who had his own links to the CIA, was using information from DEA cases to smear political and business rivals”.

Like father like son. Halvorssen Jnr’s own human rights project, the HRF, was set up, he said, to help in “defending human rights and promoting liberal democracy in the Americas”. HRF “will research and report on human rights abuses” and “produce memoranda, independent analyses, and policy reports”. But it is clear that the organization is set up, primarily, to malign the governments of Venezuela and Bolivia. It did have sizeable funds to carry out its tasks. The group’s financial accounts make interesting reading. In the year ending December 31, 2006, the first full year of operations, the group spent $300,518 on its programs. By the next year, ending 2007, this had more than doubled to $644,163. In 2008, this had gone down to $595,977, but it surged again in 2009 to $832,532, as political violence was reaching a head in Bolivia. Interestingly, in the year ended 2008, “general programs”, which was the highest spending category, was $85,525, or 14.4 percent of total spending on “program services”. By 2009, “general programs” spending was up 813 percent to $458,840, and comprised 55 percent of total spending. In the four years from 2006 to 2009, HRF has spent nearly $2.6 million on running costs. But where was the money going? We do know thanks to the WikiLeaks cables that when Branko Marinkovic, the oligarch, fled to the US from Bolivia, one of his first ports of calls was the HRF office in Manhattan. Unfortunately, we don’t know what they talked about. In its six years of operations, the group has released two 30-odd page annual reports, and 16 other reports on varying topics related to “repressive governments”. To be fair, the group did organize an Oslo human rights conference which, one Wall Street Journal journalist noted, was “unlike any human-rights conference I’ve ever attended”, because “there was no desire to blame … the US or other Western nations”.

In the same article, Mr Halvorssen laughed off claims that he, like his father, was in cahoots with the CIA, calling such claims “conspiracy theories”. But links between his group and Achá, the man accused of buying the tickets for the terrorists in Santa Cruz, were closer than he let on. Mr Halvorssen maintained that the Bolivian group was “inspired by HRF’s work” but is “a group of Bolivian individuals … a wholly independent group with a board of directors made up entirely of Bolivian nationals”. Really? Achá was briefing the US embassy on his problems all through the period and officers from the embassy met with him in “his capacity as head of Human Rights Foundation – Bolivia”, which the embassy was told was tightly linked to the New York-based organization. One cable notes that Achá’s outfit is “an affiliate of the larger Human Rights Foundation group” – the one headed by Mr Halvorssen.

The HRF group in New York naturally still denies any wrongdoing by Achá, and is, according to some, likely helping him in his efforts to remain in the US. Its spokesperson told the press that “Human Rights Foundation in Bolivia has carried out extraordinary work denouncing human rights abuses in that country, and unfortunately the response of Morales comes in the form of insults and unfounded accusations … We have carried out an internal review and have found no evidence that Mr. Acha is linked to the group that the government claims is carrying out separatist activities.” As WikiLeaks cables reveal, the group further accused President Morales of “vilifying the reputation” of HRF due to HRF–Bolivia’s reporting on the “destruction of democratic institutions, the grand human rights violations in Bolivia” and the “anti-democratic character of the Morales Administration”. It was a typical response. The Bolivian human rights ombudsman (Defensor del Pueblo) Waldo Albarracin, referring specifically to the Human Rights Foundation, told the US embassy: “they do not have the facts and so any opinion they have is just that, an opinion.”

Achá was at one point arrested on suspicion of being involved in the plot. The cables reveal the concern of the embassy over the arrest of this “Embassy contact and leader of a human rights NGO”. Achá had even given the embassy a copy of the warrant for his arrest, which he linked to his “investigations” into a massacre in the Pando department of Bolivia (carried out, in fact, by far-right elements of the opposition). But, like many of the opposition figures, he was successful in persuading the US to grant him political asylum. The cable ends by saying that “Acha is currently in the US”. Providing a sanctuary for Bolivian suspects would become a theme of US policy. In fact, the US had been active in his alleged terrorist education. According to the WikiLeaks cables, Achá had actually participated in a Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies “Terrorism and Counterinsurgency” course in Washington in late 2008 – one assumes to gain knowledge for his own violent “counter-insurgency” terrorism back in Bolivia. Included in the course’s mandatory reading were “Left Wing Terrorism in Italy” by Donatella della Porta and “Lenin on Armed Insurrection” by Tony Cliff.

Roger Pinto, a senator for the opposition party, Podemos, told the US embassy that the government “has evidence that Acha was involved with the alleged Santa Cruz cell”. He added that Achá was involved in trying to solicit funds for the group from opposition leaders in the media luna, the opposition stronghold, but only in order to “set up a self-defense force for the Media … not to assassinate the President”. Pinto contended that, among others, Achá had approached the mayor of the central city of Trinidad, Moises Shriqui, with Rózsa to enlist his support. Pinto said that Shriqui flatly refused to get involved and discounted the group as “a really bad idea”. Another opposition Podemos deputy, Claudio Banegas, told the US embassy that the congressional investigation into the Santa Cruz group had revealed that Achá did in fact have a relationship with the cell. His colleague said his involvement was “not at the top of the lighthouse, just at the bottom”. In another cable from La Paz, Achá is called a “human rights lawyer” and it is noted that political officers from the embassy met twice with him in Santa Cruz while he was investigating the September 2008 massacre of indigenous peasants in the Pando department of Bolivia. “He was preparing a report detailing a high degree of Morales administration involvement to provoke violence in Pando,” the cable added. Halvorssen never mentioned whether this “wholly independent group” had received funding from the HRF for the task, but his own group came to similar politically motivated and erroneous conclusions about the Pando massacre. Incidentally, Thor Halvorssen contacted the Financial Times soon after I asked for an interview with a résumé of my apparent “radicalism” and precipitated my departure from the paper. These “believers in freedom”, as mentioned, only believe in freedom when it benefits them.

La España Gloriosa

Bolivian people, and particularly the business community in the country, have always had a strong disdain for a central government they see as interfering and stifling. To this purpose, in most areas of the country, there are institutions called civic committees, which organize and represent business interests. They have become especially important in the opposition stronghold of the media luna. In Santa Cruz, where the Rózsa group was foiled, the civic committee has become the major non-governmental voice of opposition to Evo Morales. Its presidency has been held by some of the most powerful businessmen and politicians in the country, including Rubén Costas, the current governor of Santa Cruz. Its funding comes from 220 businesses in the department. In its internal report on civil society in Bolivia (which I obtained through the Freedom of Information Act), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) reported that the two main columns on either side of the state are “the civic committees […] on the right, and the large labor organizations on the left”. There have been accusations that the Santa Cruz civic committee (SCCC) has members with fascist leanings involved in violence against indigenous citizens, particularly in the affiliated youth branch. Ignacio Mendoza, a senator in Sucre, who is part of the left-wing opposition to MAS, told me: “Against us there is the Santa Cruz Civic Committee and the Youth Union, which is a neo-fascist group. These groups always threaten.” In the New York Times, correspondent Simon Romero noted: “It is no surprise that many Bolivian supporters of Mr. Morales view Santa Cruz as a redoubt of racism and elitism.” He added: “This city remains a bastion of openly xenophobic groups like the Bolivian Socialist Falange, whose hand-in-air salute draws inspiration from the fascist Falange of the late Spanish dictator, Francisco Franco.”

This would appear to include the SCCC. At the conclusion of a series of interviews at SCCC’s offices, the group’s spokesperson inexplicably allowed me to download a tranche of files from the computer in the main office. These included racist cartoons of Evo Morales, as well as a poem lauding the old colonial country, Spain.

One reads (my translation):

The grand Spain with benign fate. 

Here he planted the sign Of surrender.

And it did in its shadow An eminent people

Of clear front A loyal heart

There is also a letter titled Filial Espana (Spanish affiliate) sent by the president of the committee to the president of the far-right civic committee in Spain, Carlos Duran Banegas, thanking him for his support and help. Another folder includes a coat of arms for Germán Busch who was a president of Bolivia in the 1930s and was believed by many Bolivians to have Nazi tendencies. Reports by the fascist- linked grouping UnoAmerica also feature prominently on the SCCC computer. In fact, among the documents there are photos taken, one must assume, by an SCCC photographer of UnoAmerica delivering its report on Pando to the Organization of American States (OAS) in New York.

The computer files I retrieved were also full of unhinged documents calling Chávez and Morales terrorists. One reporter accurately noted that the SCCC is “a sparkplug of separatist agitation in the East”. Despite these leanings, the US taxpayer, through USAID, is funding members of this group. In the WikiLeaks cables, under the subtitle “Blowing Smoke”, an August 2007 dispatch makes fun of Bolivian government claims about USAID activities being used to help the opposition. But inadvertently this proved it. It noted: “[a]nother USAID contractor, Juan Carlos Urenda (a Santa Cruz civic leader) described the MAS accusations as an attempt to cast a smokescreen over the ‘serious problems in this country’.” A search in the trove of documents from the SCCC’s computer turns up the same Mr Urenda, USAID contractor, as the author for the SCCC of a long article lauding the history of the department’s autonomy struggle. A prominent lawyer in the east, in 1987 he published a book called Departmental Autonomies, which, he noted, “outlines what will be the fundamental doctrine of the process of autonomy”. He went on: “Conscious of the error of having structured the country in a centralized way, [Santa Cruz] has not ceased in its attempt to decentralize the state throughout its republican history.”

It turns out that Mr Urenda was actually one of the founders of the SCCC’s pre-autonomy council and one of the area’s most prominent ideologues. This finding makes a mockery of USAID’s claim to be apolitical. As its own report noted: “it is clear that Bolivian civil society in the first columns on both sides [civic committees and labor organizations] are playing roles that are less social and more political and governmental.” Although they shy away from talking about direct aid, the top brass of the SCCC were full of praise for USAID when I talked to them. Documents from the computer also show extensive preparations for the Ferexpo 2007, a business show in the city, which US ambassador Philip Goldberg would attend. “USAID in Bolivia was supporting democratic organizations and tourism and fairs,” said Ruben Dario Mendez, the spokesperson. “They were interested in fomenting political participation. Evo doesn’t like that, he doesn’t like there to be freedom.”

It’s not just USAID that helps out. Mr Mendez noted that the Journalists’ Association of Santa Cruz has an agreement with the US embassy that helps them print books and put on events, an agreement which is not in place in other parts of the country. “In some cases the US helps us,” he said. “Anyone can submit a proposal to get help. I have attended events about political governance, about freedom of expression, human rights,” he added. “There was a new penal prosecution code, and a workshop on that has been carried out by USAID for years.” He was still optimistic about the ability of USAID to go about its work: “There are still organizations and people in Santa Cruz who believe in democracy. This was proved the other day when I went to the opening of a center for the support of democracy, USAID helped fund this, they work with the university president, and the vice-president of the civic committee helped set this up.” He obviously thought that USAID believed in his type of democracy. “We have a totalitarian system here, if there was a democratic government there wouldn’t be a problem here. The biggest problem in Bolivia is centralism.” (A view echoed in USAID’s reports.) The extensive cache of reports from both organizations on the office computer also reveals the links between the SCCC and the NGOs HRF and UnoAmerica. These were evidently being sent out as primers on the situation in Bolivia.

I found more evidence of US support for these right-wing opposition forces in Sucre, the judicial capital of the country, where in August 2006 President Morales announced the opening of the constituent assembly. It would spend six months redrafting the constitution with enhanced rights for indigenous communities, more economic control of the country’s resources, as well as land reform. It was eventually passed by a referendum in 2009. “Sucre is like the dividing line between the east and the altiplano [poorer indigenous west] so the idea was it was a place that could bring peace between the two peoples,” Mr Mendoza, the left-wing senator, told me as we sat in the local government headquarters. “But radical groups here connected themselves with Santa Cruz and all of a sudden it became about something bigger.” The whole process was marred by violence, as the opposition set out to scupper the process. “It all comes down to racism,” he added. “The constituent assembly was largely made up of indigenous farmers and that prompted racism. People were saying, ‘Whoever doesn’t jump is a llama’, acting superior to indigenous people and calling them llamas because they are from the altiplano.”

As the killings and lootings got under way, the US made no statement of condemnation. “They are setting fire to gas pipelines, and the US government does not condemn that?” asked Morales at the time. “Of course, they know they [the opposition groups] are their allies. So why would they denounce them?” He was right.

The tactics used by the SCCC mirrored those used in Chile when the US was trying to destabilize the government of Salvador Allende in the early 1970s; he was eventually taken out in a US-backed anti-democratic coup. In Bolivia, there was the violence from the local youth groups but also strikes – this time organized by the business elites – designed to bring the country to its knees and keep goods from being delivered to the west of the country. The Confederation of Private Businesses called for a national shutdown if the government refused “to change its economic policies”. Altogether this was called a “civic coup”. It failed, but around the same time the US was trying to rejuvenate the opposition, according to evidence uncovered during my time there. While in Sucre, I talked to the civic committee for the department of Chuquisaca, in which the city sits, still an opposition stronghold. Félix Patzi, the president, described the civic committee’s role as keeping “an eye on government projects to make sure they follow through on their promises”. But the US embassy had been in contact with a staggering request, he recalled. “They made an offer years ago. They wanted to finance a meeting of all the civic committees in the country to bring them together in 2007,” he said. The idea was “to bring together the works of the different civic committees to encourage communication between them”. He added: “I don’t know why the US did it, but we heard from Santa Cruz that the idea was to create a national civic committee.” The US obviously knew (from its own internal documents) that such a national civic committee would be right wing and take on a political and governmental role. That must have been its intention. Mr Patzi said the Chuquisaca committee refused because it doesn’t receive outside funding, but, he added, “I don’t how many other civic committees have accepted money from the US.”

Back at the SCCC I talked to other officials who gave the impression of a tight relationship with the US. “We’ve always tried to work so that civil society in Bolivia has its own place to develop,” said Nicolas Ribera Cardozo, vice president of the SCCC. “We’ve always had a conversation with the US about it.” He said that in the past year-and-a-half as vice president he had had two conversations with the head of communications and publications at the embassy. “What they put across was how they could strengthen channels of communication,” he said. “The embassy said that they would help us in our communication work and they have a series of publications where they were putting forward their ideas.” But things were even better under Bush. “There were better programs under Bush; there were programs from USAID and DEA [the US Drug Enforcement Administration] to deal with narco-trafficking.” He added that the US-funded National Endowment for Democracy had “held informative workshops for young people about leadership”. For him it was not controversial that these programs were designed to help the opposition. “Of course they were opposition, it’s a liberal train of thought, you train people to be more aware, productive.”

The most controversial aspect of the SCCC is its youth branch, the Unión Juvenil Cruceñista (UJC), who have been called by one Bolivia analyst “paramilitary shock-troops”. They roam the streets of Santa Cruz in times of unrest and have been involved in violent attacks and atrocities against indigenous peasants, as well as damage to government buildings. The US embassy noted that the UJC “have frequently attacked pro-MAS/government people and installations”, adding, “Their actions frequently appear more racist than politically motivated. Several months ago, a group of mainly white Youth Union members attacked an altiplano migrant … The Youth Union has boasted to the press that it has signed up 7000 members to participate in the [civil defense militias] – the number is likely inflated but many of those who have signed-on are militant.” Another cable noted: “the Santa Cruz youth union seems to be radicalizing: one group waving Santa Cruz flags drove through town in a jeep emblazoned with swastikas.” In the aftermath of the Rózsa plot, the police apprehended Juan Carlos Gueber Bruno, reportedly an advisor to the UJC, and former SCCC activist, who was known as “Comandante Bruno”.

“Youth Union violence was basically in retaliation to a threat,” Mr Cardozo told me. “The youth groups did participate in these things but because they thought it was a threat and MAS started it.”

I also talked to Samuel Ruiz, president of the UJC, at the SCCC headquarters, surrounded by photos of previous presidents, including Marinkovic and Costas. “The committee was formed in 1952 as a means to protect this region, it was under attack from other regions and felt it needed to protect itself,” said Mr Ruiz. “The civic committee existed but it was felt it could do with a youth branch too.” Now the UJC has 3,000 passive members, and 500 active, according to its president. Asked three times if it has any indigenous people as members, he avoided the question twice. On the third time of asking, he replied: “What percentage? I don’t know. There are 20 representatives in different provinces that represent areas with indigenous people.” He complained that when Morales came to power he got rid of USAID and other US groups – a false claim. “It has had a huge impact,” he said. “When there were international agencies, Bolivia was much more peaceful, now we see loose arms and legs about the streets, there are kidnappings, it’s violent and dangerous whereas it wasn’t before.” The UJC had taken matters into its own hands. He said that the government was bringing people from Chile and Peru to train farmers in military combat, and that Venezuelan and Cuban doctors were actually providing military training. His paranoia about Cuban and Venezuelan influence was similar to that shown in the cables from US officials. He claimed that Morales sent campesinos to Santa Cruz to start violence at the height of the tension, even though the cables noted that Morales went out of his way to avoid casualties. “[M]ilitary planners have told us that President Morales has given them instructions not to incur civilian casualties,” one noted. “Field commanders continue to tell us they will require a written order from President Morales if asked to commit violence against opposition demonstrators.” Another said: “A senior military planner told [an embassy official] December 13 that President Morales wants the military to be careful to avoid violent confrontations with demonstrators if called upon to support Bolivian police.”

“We are monitoring government to see what they are doing,” Ruiz claimed. “But for example they are getting people from Peru to come and train campesinos who kill my friends, and they are training campesinos in war, what are we meant to do?” On the resulting violence against indigenous people, Ruiz said it was self-defense. “After last elections, Evo sent campesinos to Santa Cruz to start aggression; our organization sent out its people but only to defend itself … It’s not a direct threat,” he admitted, but it worried him because they were “training campesinos who can’t even read or go out and feed themselves”. Ruiz claimed the UJC has never had any weapons – which is also demonstrably false.

The cables also revealed US suspicions in the same period that “some Crucenos are reportedly forming fighting groups”. They would know, as they were funding them. “Sources reported that Crucenos are developing fighting/defense groups and are equipped with weapons such as long rifles and hand guns.” Ruiz claimed that fighting campesinos caused the Pando massacre. “The Venezuelans killed the indigenous people. There are photos … The Venezuelans infiltrated by entering through the Cuban doctors,” he said. “They went to Pando to form military strategy for organization, so it wasn’t chaos, but all the campesinos, armed people, were drunk, and the Venezuelans killed them by mistake because they didn’t know what side they were on, and they also shot in the leg a Bolivian journalist because they wanted them to stop filming.” The SCCC were also implicated in the Rózsa plot by Ignacio Villa Vargas, a local fixer and driver for the group, who said that a number of their members had been involved. But the SCCC believed that the Morales government organized the Rózsa plot. They did, though, admit to me that Rózsa had been to their offices, but they claimed that he was trying to infiltrate the committee on behalf of the government, disguised as a journalist. I was shown screenshots of supposed emails between Rózsa and Vice President Álvaro García Linera, which were clearly faked, dating from August 2008 and March 2009, just before the raid in the Hotel Las Americas.

The cables revealed by WikiLeaks noted that the opposition “are nervous to the point of paranoia”. They were also trying to cover their tracks with delusional conspiracy theories. As noted above, one of those suspected of involvement in the terror cell was retired president of the SCCC, Branko Marinkovic, one of the wealthiest men in Bolivia, who owns a vast soybean business and large tracts of land in the east of country. His parents were emigrants from the former Yugoslavia in the 1950s and Marinkovic became a successful businessman before moving into politics, a well-trodden route in the east of Bolivia. When the Morales government came to power and embarked on a land reform program that took fallow lands from their owners to give to landless peasants, men like Marinkovic had much to lose. In a 2007 interview with the New York Times, Marinkovic predicted that Bolivia would soon be like Zimbabwe “in which economic chaos will become the norm”. (The head of the International Monetary Fund’s western hemisphere countries unit in the same year praised the Morales government for what he referred to as its “very responsible” macroeconomic policies.) But Marinkovic continued – “speaking English with a light Texas twang he picked up at Southern Methodist University” – with a veiled threat: “If there is no legitimate international mediation in our crisis, there is going to be confrontation. And unfortunately, it is going to be bloody and painful for all Bolivians.” This was just before the Rózsa-Flores plot was scuppered.

The New York Times also noted that Croatian news services had investigated claims that Marinkovic “sought to raise a paramilitary force with mercenaries from Montenegro, where his mother was born”. Marinkovic denied the claims, but there is no doubt he was pushing for a break-up of the country in the same way Yugoslavia had been split in the 1990s. On September 1, 2008, Marinkovic flew to the US, and when he came back just a week later the east of the country was in open revolt. At around the same time, US ambassador Philip Goldberg met in secret with the governor of Santa Cruz, Rubén Costas (the meeting was captured by a news organization). Initially Marinkovic filed a lawsuit against two government officials for “slander” for linking him with the Rózsa-Flores plot. His attorney declared that he “is in Santa Cruz, will stay in Santa Cruz, and will remain in the country”, to prove he had no links to the terrorist cell. Except now he is in hiding. The UJC president divulged that he was in the US. “The government has already cast him as guilty and he can’t defend himself from here so he asked the US for political exile and they granted it to him.” Like Achá. He added that he didn’t know if Marinkovic had ever met Rózsa. Maybe it’s not so surprising. “The US has had a very good relationship with Branko Marinkovic,” said Mr Navarro, MAS minister. “When he was head of civic committee they shared their opposition to the president.” Marinkovic once jettisoned plans to visit Argentina due to distrust of the Morales-allied Kirchner government, fearing that he might be arrested there and extradited to Bolivia. During one of Marinkovic’s trips to the US, he, contrariwise, participated in strategy meetings with political consultants Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and other polling and consulting firms, according to WikiLeaks cables.

When I had finished talking to the SCCC, I asked if there was anyone else I should speak to. The spokesperson recommended former general Gary Prado, who is infamous for being the man who captured Che Guevara and handed him over to his executioners. At the time Prado was a young captain in the Bolivian army. “Where do I find him?” I asked. “He usually has coffee over there in a little café about 4pm every day,” I was told. I subsequently found out that Gary Prado is under house arrest, but as it is not enforced he moves around freely. I head along to his house in an upmarket neighborhood of Santa Cruz. “I am under house arrest but I go to work every day so there’s not much point in that,” he said. Mr Navarro had told me there was “a group of retired generals who have advised the civic committee in the event of a government attack on them”. Prado is alleged to be among them. The government has drawn attention to a meeting Prado had with Rózsa at his house. “I gave an interview to Rózsa- Flores just like I’m giving to you, he came here to this same room, we had an interview about the guerrilla Che Guevara in Bolivia, he took a picture with me here, and that’s all the contact I had with him.” Rózsa apparently thought he was the new Che Guevara, as well as the new Hemingway. But from what Prado does know, he doesn’t believe that Rózsa planned to assassinate Morales. “There was no intent of assassination, never, absolutely not,” he said. Asked why they bought in foreigners, he replied: “They were brought to Santa Cruz by some people probably to try to create a group of mercenaries to defend Santa Cruz.” Then he added that the cell was “probably created to justify political repression”. He would not offer a guess on who bought the mercenaries in. The US, he added, merely “promote seminars about democracy and freedom”.

The massacre that wasn’t

In May 2008 political turmoil rocked Bolivia and threatened civil war. Santa Cruz held an autonomy referendum, which the government claimed was a move to secession by the eastern province. Rubén Costas, the governor of Santa Cruz, had said in the run-up that the vote – which was not legally sanctioned by the National Electoral Court or recognized by the OAS – would “give birth to a new republic”. (This is the same governor whom terror suspect Mario Tadic told authorities had met with the terror cell’s leader three times and vaguely discussed “organizing something”.) As things hurtled out of control with mass protests and violence, President Morales refrained from annulling the plebiscites which took place in other departments and called a recall referendum on his own mandate. He won resoundingly, with two- thirds of the national vote. At this point, desperate and bewildered, the opposition went on strike, and sent out the UJC (the far-right youth group) to attack government buildings and local indigenous people. The defeat at the polls led the opposition to unilaterally declare “autonomy” in four of the country’s eastern provinces. One of the platforms of the autonomy movement was the rejection of central government control over profits from the country’s natural gas reserves concentrated in the region. In the Bolivian context, therefore, the term was used as a euphemism for increased control over taxation, police and public works. If autonomy was granted in the form Santa Cruz wanted, Morales’ extensive reforms would be impossible – which was obviously the aim of the request.

The strategy of the autonomy movement was to take complete control of the media luna, provoke a national crisis to destabilize the government, and convince the army to remain neutral or move against Morales. The mayor of Santa Cruz, Percy Fernández, had already called on the military to overthrow Morales’ “useless government” just before the August referendum. In this heady tumult, in September 2008, 13 indigenous peasants in the Pando department of Bolivia were massacred in violence erupting across the region between pro- government and opposition forces. The atrocity remains relatively uncontroversial – unless you are the HRF, Achá, or the Bolivian opposition. A report by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) placed the blame for the killing of the peasants at the hands of people working for the local prefecture, which was led at the time by the opposition politician Leopoldo Fernández. Fernández is still in jail in La Paz, after being arrested, in the aftermath, on charges that he was involved in ordering the attack. The US embassy, in the WikiLeaks cables, noted that he was being held “under dubious legal pretext”.

The UN report unequivocally called it a “massacre of peasants” and a “grave violation of human rights”, concluding that the massacre was committed by personnel from the local road service office, members of the Pando civic committee and others linked to the prefecture. The Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) also sent a delegation to investigate, headed by Argentina’s undersecretary for human rights who concluded that the Bolivian government had acted fairly and it was the opposition that was responsible for the murders. Chilean President Michelle Bachelet called an emergency meeting in Santiago of UNASUR to discuss the Bolivian crisis. The resulting Declaration of La Moneda, signed by the 12 UNASUR governments, expressed their “full and decided support for the constitutional government of President Evo Morales”, and warned that their respective governments “will not recognize any situation that entails an attempt for a civil coup that ruptures the institutional order, or that compromises the territorial integrity of the Republic of Bolivia”. Morales, who participated in the meeting, thanked UNASUR for its support, declaring: “For the first time in South American’s history, the countries of our region are deciding how to resolve our problems without the presence of the United States.”

But men like Achá and his “affiliate” HRF saw it differently. In October, a month after the massacre, HRF dispatched their own team to Bolivia to investigate – not the massacre but the “arbitrary detention” of “opposition members and at least one journalist”. HRF’s sources in Bolivia, presumably Achá, were telling it how serious the situation was. “Preliminary research done by our staff and reports sent to us from Bolivian civil society advocates suggest that the recent arrests of journalists and members of the opposition in Bolivia are politically motivated,” said Sarah Wasserman, chief operating officer of HRF. The report from Achá, as mentioned by the US ambassador, posited that the MAS government had actually initiated the murders. And the HRF went on to link the massacre to a speech by government minister Ramón Quintana exhorting government sympathizers to take Pando governor Leopoldo Fernández “to the end of the world” and “give him an epitaph: Prefect, rest in peace and live with the worms. “The speech preceded violence that erupted on September 11, 12 and 13 in Pando, where more than 20 people were murdered for political reasons,” they noted. The report by the Bolivian “affiliate” of the HRF blames the massacre on Morales and his national executive officers. “The deterioration of the rule of law, individual rights … do not allow the existence of a democratic system,” the report concluded. “In Bolivia, with this background, it outlines the installation of a regime despotic and dictatorial presided by Evo Morales.”

To be fair, there were other NGOs which came to a similar conclusion. One was the aforementioned UnoAmerica, another “human rights” group based in Colombia, whose logo shows crosshairs in the ‘o’ in their name. It was founded in 2008 by Alejandro Peña Esclusa, who is now detained in his home country, Venezuela, for allegedly being found with detonators and 2lb of explosives in his home. The Venezuelan government claims he has close ties to the CIA, and was involved in the 2002 US-backed coup that temporarily deposed Hugo Chávez. In one video, Esclusa is seen insisting on a plan for massive protests across Venezuela, making the government unable to control it. “It is a more efficient mechanism that generates a political crisis and a crisis of instability that forces the regime to withdraw the reform,” he says. UnoAmerica became heavily involved in Bolivia after the Pando massacre, sending a team on a five-day mission to investigate what had happened. To conduct the investigation they partnered with NGOs from Argentina, Colombia, Uruguay and Venezuela (whose names read like a Who’s Who of fascists in Latin America). Taking part from Argentina was El Movimiento por la Verdadera Historia, or Movement for the True History, a group which seeks to bring to justice “subversives” working against the US-backed fascist junta that ruled from 1976 to 1983 and murdered an estimated 30,000 people. One of its Argentina delegates was Jorge Mones Ruiz, an intelligence officer of the Argentine army in Bolivia during last dictatorship. (The government also claimed that the Rózsa cell had links with fascist groups in Argentina, which go by the name of carapintadas or “painted faces”.)

The joint report concluded that “the government of President Evo Morales had planned and executed the violent acts”. It claimed it had “sufficient information to demonstrate the responsibility of the Evo Morales administration in the so called Pando Massacre”. The WikiLeaks cables revealed that the US embassy was receiving highly questionable intelligence like this from Achá and other contacts in the opposition, without applying the constant cynicism it reserved for MAS statements. In conversation with a political officer from the embassy, one contact “alleged the MAS deliberately fomented unrest in Pando in September to justify a military siege, depose Prefect Leopoldo Fernandez, and arrest opposition-aligned leaders to swing the balance of power to the MAS in the Senate”. It is not countered. Another cable noted after the September 2008 violence in Pando: “the government illegally jailed Prefect Leopoldo Fernandez and violently detained over forty more, many of them prominent political opposition members.” The UN had said that Fernández’s jailing was not illegal.

We’ll take care of him

The most active of the many US agencies working in Bolivia is USAID, the main foreign aid arm of the US government. USAID poured money into the country: between 1964 and 1979, it contributed more than $1.5 billion, trying to build a citizenry and investor climate conducive to US corporate needs. For nearly half a century it has carried out its ostensible goal of providing “economic and humanitarian assistance” – a gift “from the American people”. The agency operates around the world in a similar capacity, and invests billions of dollars annually on projects that span from “democracy promotion” to “judicial reform”.

Its operations are controversial. The Morales administration has continually said that it uses its money to push the strategic goals of the US government under the cloak of “development”, claims denied by the US government. The Bolivian government also derides the lack of transparency, in comparison with EU aid money, for its programs. Mark Feierstein, USAID assistant administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean, put its raison d’être bluntly in December 2010 when he said: “USAID’s programs are not charity … they are not only from the

American people, as the agency’s motto says, they are for the American people.” As an aside, Mr Feierstein was a key campaign consultant to the former president Lozada (Goni) who fled to the US to avoid facing trial for the massacre of protesters in La Paz. There is now an attempt to prosecute him under the Aliens Tort Statute for his role in the murders. (Feierstein has never expressed regret about the campaign; in fact, the same firm did polling for Morales’ opponent, Manfred Reyes Villa, in 2009.)

Like other methods and agencies used to control democracies in Latin America and around the world, it is hard to pin down USAID. But on-the-ground interviews, documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and the WikiLeaks cables have made it possible to unearth the strategies this agency uses to keep its stranglehold on Bolivia, at the same time providing a template for how it is used across the region to undermine left-wing democratic governments. There is no doubt how USAID personnel felt about Morales before he came into power, and one young American student heard first-hand their plans for him. In the summer of 2005, he found himself in La Paz learning Spanish on a break from university when the powder keg of political resistance in the city blew up. President Carlos Mesa – who had taken over from Goni in 2003 after the massacre of protesters in La Paz – had just stepped down. The student decided to go on a bike trip. “Basically I went down the ‘Death Road’, the world’s most dangerous road, with some other gringos,” he said, not wanting to be named. “There were some folks from the US embassy and USAID on the trip. I remember them having a discussion on the road down to [the city of ] Coroico, talking about not wanting Evo to get into power. They said something along the lines of, ‘We can’t let Evo get into power’.”

In fact, the officials went further. “There were two things that were said, one was ‘We can’t let Evo get into power’, and then something along the lines of, it struck me, it was harsher than that, it was something along the lines of, ‘We’ll have to take care of him’. It was ambiguous enough that it could be interpreted that we have to take him out, which I don’t think is what they meant. But when they said it I thought, ‘Whoa, I can’t believe they are saying this, they don’t even know me’.” The conversation continued as the group descended the mountain. “I’m assuming they thought I was sympathetic,” he said. “This was right in the middle of the protests and the president resigning, so a lot of the tourists had fled Bolivia, so perhaps they thought I was there because I was working for some sympathetic capacity, maybe working for an international corporation, or related to the embassy or something. It shocked me at the time. One, it seemed weird to have this conversation in public, because not everybody is sympathetic. And two it seemed like they were meddling in democracy, people that shouldn’t be involved in those things, the US embassy and USAID shouldn’t have anything to do with voting a president into power or not.”

But involved they were and would remain as Morales eventually did take power.

Much important work has been carried out on this topic by the investigative journalist Jeremy Bigwood in the period before MAS came to power, but his Freedom of Information Act requests stopped being answered when he asked for information about projects after the election of 2005. What Bigwood unearthed from before 2005 supports the testimony of the American student. Early on, the MAS party was fingered as a problem for the US that had to be dealt with. In a declassified July 2002 letter from the US embassy, a planned USAID political party reform project was outlined which aimed to “help build moderate, pro- democracy political parties that can serve as a counterweight to the radical [MAS]”. The next section, presumably more open on details, was redacted. A series of emails from USAID functionaries in Bolivia also detailed attempts to form relationships between the US government and indigenous groups in the coca growing region of the Chapare (the sector from which Morales emerged) and the eastern departments, aiming, as Bigwood explained, to “create a common USAID-guided front against … the MAS”. A few years into the MAS government, USAID made itself so unpopular in the Chapare region that its local leaders in 2008 suspended all projects funded by the agency. They said they would replace the funding with money from Chávez’s Venezuela. In Pando, the mayors signed a declaration in 2008 also expelling USAID. “No foreign program, least of all those from USAID, will solve our problems of poverty, physical integration, family prosperity and human development while we ourselves don’t decide the future,” it said.

I managed to procure documents that relate to the operations of projects since 2005, and they show a similar effort to weaken the power and popularity of the MAS government. The USAID tactic is not the overthrow of the government, but the slow transformation of Bolivian society from its participatory democracy to the type of democracy it had before: controlled by the US and good for investors. The Bolivian example is important because it provides a template of how USAID tries to control Latin American democracies that have “got out of control” and make them work “for the American people”, or American business interests.

Of course, USAID pitches itself as something completely different. In one cable from La Paz, the ambassador wrote: “We will continue to counter misunderstandings about USAID’s transparency and apolitical nature with reality.” But the reality is that the agency is not transparent or apolitical. And its own internal documents reveal as much. USAID maintains it is transparent with the money it invests in the country, but the Bolivian government claims large sums are being handed out without its knowledge, in contravention of usual aid etiquette. In the WikiLeaks cables, Morales tells the US he wants to start an “open registry to monitor aid”, but it was not supported by the US. The Bolivian government’s estimate that 70 percent of aid money is unaccounted for appears overstated, but there is clear evidence that money was being spent without the knowledge of the government.

After one spate of criticism of USAID programs by Morales, the US ambassador noted that the country “cannot afford to risk USD120 million in assistance” from the agency (it works out as about $12 for every Bolivian). In another, it is noted: “we’re spending about $90 million annually to further social and economic inclusion of Bolivia’s historically marginalized indigenous groups and to support democratic institutions and processes, including decentralized governance.” But an American journalist living in La Paz was present at an emergency meeting called by the US embassy to explain USAID’s activities to foreign journalists, after another round of criticism. She was given a breakdown of spending by USAID. “This information was given to the small group of reporters gathered to use as background in stories,” she told me. It outlined $16.8 million to USAID health programs, $19.2 million to integrated alternative development (alternative to coca production), $15.3 million to environmental and economic development programs, and $22 million to counter-narcotics. It added up to $73.3 million. But the ambassador had said in the cable that $120 million was invested in Bolivia per year. Where was the other $50 million going?

Internal evaluation documents give an indication of why some projects are best kept secret. I procured a host of documents on USAID “democracy promotion” programs in Bolivia in the period after the Morales government was elected. In one, outlining the goals and success of its “administration of justice” programs which have run in the country for 17 years – “among the largest in Latin America” – the group was explicit about where its money was going. “USAID/ Bolivia programs include support to promote decentralization and municipal strengthening, support to Congress and political parties,” it noted. There is no mention of which political parties it is “supporting” but this is candid language that the group and the US embassy have never used in public. (Morales has said that one mayor told him that USAID offered him $15,000 to $25,000 to oppose the president.) Decentralization in this context is also a euphemism for strengthening the opposition. One of USAID’s central functions in Bolivia, ramped up since 2005, has been moving power away from central government, an effort which clearly chimes with the interests of the opposition in the east.

The justice project was conceived by USAID and Bolivian officials before the 2005 election that brought Evo Morales to power, and coordinators admit that “the personnel changes at the higher echelons” of the government “completely changed the atmosphere” in which it worked. The project hoped to open a training school for public defenders, but in mid-2007 it was suspended, “a prime example of the project being ‘overtaken by events’ that were completely outside the control of … USAID,” the evaluation noted. Internally, USAID was very critical of the Morales government on the subject, commenting that the Bar Associations of Bolivia have been “significantly weakened in the past few years” by the government’s policies. As is customary in projects of this kind, USAID paid subcontractors to carry out their functions, enhancing the already intricate web of institutions and clouding accountability. This project was run by Checchi and Company Consulting, set up in 1973 by economist and Democratic donor Vincent Checchi, which then brought on board the State University of New York and Partners of the Americas. One of the main ways USAID exerts influence – in this justice program but also through its other activities – is through training programs. These programs school young Bolivians in the “American way”.

In Sucre, I spoke to Ramiro Velasquez, an administrator in the local government offices who has worked for a USAID-funded program in the city. He said it was set up by a consultancy firm, funded by USAID, which has a subsidiary called Fortalecimiento Identidad de Democracia, or FIDEM. “They were looking for Bolivian operators in every department to do their work,” he said. “FIDEM was looking for an NGO to do the work and they would look for operators. They were in La Paz, Oruro, Potosi, and Sucre.” Mr Velasquez was asked to be an operator and told they wanted him to run courses on “democracy and participation”, a program eventually shut down by the Morales government. “This project was aimed at young people,” he said. “So to get young people, you had to get into universities and social movements and state institutions, even the church.” In the end 600 young people signed up. The courses took on two phases with the first workshops an opportunity to select around 20 young people to move on to La Paz for the second phase, carried out by FIDEM and another NGO. It was called “leadership training”, ostensibly to create a new generation of Bolivian leaders. But they had to have the right opinions. “They were teaching about democracy but not the type of democracy Evo and Bolivians have,” he said. “They were teaching them about representative democracy not participatory democracy … It was clearly to create leaders for the opposition.”

The cables from La Paz support such a conclusion. One visiting official went to a “civic education project funded by USAID through the NGO FIDEM and implemented by the Santa Cruz binational center”. Its aim was to grow a “civic responsibility” arm in addition to its educational and cultural activities. “The project was reaching 21,000 (out of 150,000) residents in the marginalized neighbourhood ‘Plan 3000’ which is widely thought to be a MAS stronghold,” it added, as if to explain why it was a good thing. The local residents were “enthusiastic” about the initiative, it noted. The same cable registered that Santa Cruz residents were “determined as much as possible to halt democratic back-sliding. Their main request to us is to report accurately to Washington and the international community what is really happening in Bolivia.” Vice President García Linera repeatedly told the US embassy he opposed democracy programs like FIDEM’s, because they strive to “win the hearts and minds”, presenting a vision of democracy that differs from the government’s. It was true. FIDEM works in eight of the nine departments in Bolivia (three of which are governed by democratically elected MAS prefects) providing the kind of state-building training and technical assistance that USAID and other donors provide worldwide. The work – regional development planning, service delivery, financial planning and more – is technical and non-political. Its focus on departmental authorities was planned to weaken MAS, as was admitted in the cables: “MAS’s goals [is] strengthening municipal governments to the detriment of departmental governments, thus weakening one of the MAS’s main sources of opposition.”

Also in Sucre, I talked to the MAS mayor, Verónica Berrios Vergara, who has been under concerted attack since taking her position in 2008. The city had been the venue of intense violent unrest in 2007 when the constituent assembly, given the responsibility of writing a new constitution, was placed there. In 2008, an opposition candidate was voted into the position of mayor in Sucre, but was disqualified because he was under a criminal charge. Ms Vergara took his place on a decision of the municipal council, causing an outbreak of violence and unrest. “Vested interests were behind the anger of the opposition and that led to us living the most difficult moment in Sucre in many years,” she told me. She said various explosives were thrown at the mayor’s headquarters and the dissidents tried to kill her on a number of occasions. “One of the questions we asked ourselves at the time is where these students got the money from, because they had the money to buy lots of explosives. They don’t even usually have enough for rent and food, where did they get the money for them from?” She began to cry as she recounted her experiences at the sharp end of the turmoil in Bolivia. “I do fear that these groups are still waiting in the wings and at any point they could come out and do something to me,” she said. “This is really about racism and also that this local government and national government are threatening business interests.” She believed that USAID was behind the funding to some of these groups: “The fact that the Rózsa affair was taking place at the same time and there were question marks over USAID’s work and suggestions they were trying to overthrow the government leads me to question where the money was coming from.” At the time it sparked violence in the streets of the city, which Ms Vergara thinks USAID was behind. “They are in union with the opposition and media to stand in the way of the government’s development plans in the country.”

Building democracy an investor-friendly business climate

USAID had another reason to dislike President Morales and his government: they weren’t good for business. The investment climate in Bolivia, which had been open for business to US transnationals for decades, was turning into a more hostile place. Their fears were shared by their natural allies among the oligarchy of European descent in the east of Bolivia. Both were increasingly scared of the economic

program of the Morales government, which has provided a model for developing countries around the world: achieving high growth, as well as reductions in poverty, while part-nationalizing key industries. The Bolivian government, even when composed of ruthless dictators, maintained an investor-friendly business climate, which saw US mining companies, such as Coeur d’Alene Mines Corp, take advantage of the vast natural resources in the country as the Spanish had done before them. Bolivia’s major exports to the United States are tin, gold, jewellery and wood products. For a long time, foreign investors were accorded national treatment, and foreign owners of companies enjoyed virtually no restriction. Foreign direct investment (FDI) in Bolivia grew to $7 billion in stock during 1996–2002, nearly all of which went to the business interests in the east.

Concern about nationalization crops up frequently in the cables from La Paz. “There is … rampant speculation about President Morales’ traditional May 1st speech, in which he is expected by many to announce nationalization of companies based in Santa Cruz, potentially including Cotas or food industries,” one reads. “If the latter, many expect Branko Marinkovic’s cooking oil and other companies to be taken in the name of ‘food security’.” The cables from La Paz do not pull punches when outlining their opposition to the economic thinking of the MAS government. One advisor to Morales, an economics professor is, one cable notes, “steeped in out- dated socialist economic theories and has yet to accept the practical realities of a globalized economy”. It adds that he “may be beginning to understand the real impact of free trade on job creation”, but, unforgivably, “he appears to believe that markets in Venezuela and China serve as alternatives to US markets. He has told Bolivian exporters to seek markets outside the United States, unconvinced that the US is crucial to their trade.” It notes that he recently returned from Venezuela after negotiating an agreement to buy Bolivian soy. “Additionally, he has regularly antagonized other businesses, telling them that the President’s Dignity Tariff, a new lower price meant to provide cheap electricity to Bolivians is a done deal, remarking that the private sector should either get on board or suffer.”

USAID had a plan to deal with this. One of the most important components of the justice project is “promotion of legal security”, through which “it was hoped that the business and investment climate in Bolivia would be improved”. The principal donor for this purpose was USAID and the project was budgeted $4.8 million over five years. It chimed with the sentiment in cables from La Paz, one of which noted, the “key areas of concern in Bolivia currently are democracy, narcotics, and protection for US investments”(my emphasis). The justice project sought “reforms in the commercial and administrative law areas” as well as “business organization assistance and training”. For this purpose, USAID funding would help develop a civil, commercial and administrative law curriculum for law schools in Bolivia. In a sign of the penetration of USAID into the highest echelons of the justice system, USAID and the Bolivian Supreme Court jointly published a document called Civil and Commercial Justice in Bolivia: Diagnosis and Recommendations for Change, which urged the creation of a specialized commercial law jurisdiction. It would “enhance the investment climate of Bolivia”, while the “establishment of a good business climate is essential to attracting investment” and will “maintain and improve its competitiveness”. It noted: “This component was important to the overall success of the … project due to the fact that it enlisted enthusiastic support from many private sector actors, while also furthering the goal of improving the investment and business climate in Bolivia.” The agency worked with its “partner organization”, the National Chamber of Commerce, in order to replicate and strengthen arbitration centers through local chambers of commerce (big donors to civic committees). “If Bolivia wants to attract foreign investment … then it will need legal security for investors,” it noted. “Should there be an opportunity to continue the work in this area, it would be of high importance for the development of Bolivia.” Their natural allies in this task were organizations like CAINCO, a business confederation in Santa Cruz. In the aftermath of the Rózsa shoot-out, another suspect, Alejandro Melgar, who was a key figure in CAINCO, fled the country. Eduardo Paz, the president of CAINCO, was also an investor in the Santa Cruz civic committee. One cable noted that “The main impact [of nationalization] has been to halt new investment in the [energy] sector, which Bolivia needs to meet domestic demand and fulfil contractual obligations to Brazil and Argentina.” It added that “[as] a political measure, however, the ‘nationalization’ remains wildly popular.” It was also successful. In June 2011, Standard & Poor’s, the rating agency, raised Bolivia’s credit ratings by one notch, praising President Evo Morales’ “prudent” macroeconomic policies which allowed for a steady decline in the country’s debt ratios.

The truth was that the US embassy was fearful for US mining investments, despite high-level Bolivian officials giving “repeated assurances that the Morales administration will respect existing US mining interests”.

Threats that the Bolivian government would nationalize the mining industry – including taking over a smelter owned by Swiss company Glencore (which had been sold by ex-president Goni) – scared them. “We continue to urge the [Government of Bolivia] to respect existing mining concessions and to limit tax and royalty hikes,” one cable noted. In other words, create a good “business climate” at the expense of the population. The US embassy viewed the Morales administration as contrary to its interests. “Strengthening and supporting democracy in Bolivia is our mission’s primary concern,” notes another cable. But in the next line it says: “Although the ruling MAS party and President Evo Morales were elected with a clear majority in fair and open elections, their actions since assuming power have often displayed anti-democratic tendencies.” Elsewhere the cables note the “overwhelming victory” of MAS in elections. Despite this, the US called Morales a “leader with strong anti-democratic tendencies” who “manipulates the media”. His closest advisors were compared to “back alley thugs”.

In fact, the democratic credentials and popular mandate of the MAS government are among the most stellar in the world. First elected to the presidency in December 2005 by 54 percent of the popular vote, nearly double the 29 percent of his nearest rival, Morales was re-elected in December 2009 by 67 percent of the public vote, more than double the percentage won by his nearest opponent, Manfred Reyes Villa. In between these landslides, Morales won the recall referendum called in the face of the “autonomy movement” in August 2008 with 67 percent of the public voting for him to be returned. Just five months later, in January 2009, Morales won the constitutional referendum with 61 percent voting in favor, to 39 percent against. In 2014, he won yet another landslide. But the embassy was disparaging of these achievements, saying Morales was “like a struggling student in the areas of economics and international relations decision-making”. It also noted his apparent desire to become a dictator: “[As] an admirer of Cuban President Fidel Castro and Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, Morales probably is drawn by the longevity of their time in power and seeks to emulate their ‘success’.” It was rubbish. The referendum in 2009 stipulated a two- term limit for the presidency. On the occasion of a foreign dignitary visiting, the ambassador pushed him “to encourage Morales to follow a democratic path”, alongside, of course, pushing him “to respect US mining interests to take advantage of free trade”.

The cables are full of fear about US investments. “One US investment which is vulnerable is San Cristobal mine, which is 65 percent owned by Apex Silver,” said one cable. “San Cristobal would be particularly hard-hit by a bill currently in Congress, which would increase mining taxes. Although the Bolivian government claims to want a fifty-fifty split of profits, the proposed tax increases actually result in, on average, a 60 percent government take of profits.” Although fantastically rich in silver and other mineral wealth, in the past the Bolivian people had never benefitted and stayed poor.

Trading bribes

The US was also using trade deals as leverage in trying to get MAS to change its economic outlook. In September 2008, President Bush suspended the crucial trade preferences that Bolivia enjoyed – alongside Colombia, Ecuador and Peru – under the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA). The country has lost millions of dollars in exports because of this punitive action. The ostensible reason was Bolivia’s uncooperative attitude to coca eradication in the country, but political and economic motives were thought to be highly relevant. A Reuters article written a few weeks afterward noted that “the decision came one day after five leading US business groups urged the Bush administration and Congress to consider ending trade benefits for both Bolivia and Ecuador because of what they described as inadequate protections for foreign investors in both countries”. The next month, in November, President Morales announced that the DEA would be expelled from the country. For decades, hundreds of DEA agents swarmed the northern Pando and Beni regions, destroying coca crops and, in the process, becoming implicated in massacres of the indigenous cocaleros. Largely given a free rein to carry out military operations or eradication by successive governments eager to please their masters, the former cocalero Morales wasn’t so easy to convince. He charged that the DEA was carrying out “political espionage”, and “financing criminal groups so that they could act against authorities, even the president”.

The goal of the DEA, one cable noted, “is to provide assistance to achieve US goals while keeping the [government of Bolivia] out in front”. In 2008, Morales suspended DEA operations in Bolivia and expelled its 37 agents in the country. He named Steven Faucette, the regional agent of the DEA in Santa Cruz, as a spy, saying that he had made trips to cities in the media luna provinces of Beni and Pando with the objective of financing the civic committees which were committed to carrying out a “civic coup”. The US was also using its aid as leverage to keep the DEA in Bolivia. “The Ambassador suggested that if eradication is to be stopped and USG involvement in the Chapare ended … we could begin shutting off our multi-million dollar assistance programs now,” one cable noted. Many had long said that the DEA was acting as a front for the CIA in Bolivia. (The agency refused my request for information through the Freedom of Information Act, as did the National Security Agency.) The cables are full of criticism of Morales for failing to heed the US’s call for areas it specified to be cleared of coca. It also called the EU effort “relatively modest and narrowly-focused”.

But the US preoccupation with eradication in Bolivia, evidenced in the cables, is strange. According to one cable, the DEA estimated that “less than one percent of cocaine seized in the US can be chemically traced back to Bolivia”. One percent. The US was also alone in blocking a UN resolution on making the coca leaf sacred in 2011. The tension surfaced even though the Morales government was being largely compliant. The cables present successes like 133 factories being raided in El Alto during the first 10 months of 2008. During the first full year of Morales’s tenure, the amount of coca grown in Bolivia increased around 5 percent. In Colombia, the US ally, it jumped 27 percent in the same period, according to UN statistics.

The opposition I talked to, interestingly, were all in support of the DEA. The spokesperson for the SCCC said that during his time as a journalist working on the topic of narco-trafficking, he saw the DEA and the US embassy dealing with the issue properly: “They were teaching us about how the drugs workers work, how they buy drugs, it helped us.” Another vital US agency which works in Bolivia is the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), created by President Ronald Reagan in 1983 to “promote democracy”, but with a history of doing the opposite. In Bolivia it has focused on potentially recalcitrant indigenous areas, promoting the “American way” to the young. I obtained the proposals for various Bolivian projects granted money by the NED. The tactic of “training civil society” to gain a stranglehold on communities around Bolivia was exactly the same as that used by USAID projects. One project, Observancia, which ran from 2008 to 2009 and cost $54,664, was typical. It worked in eight municipalities in the country and helped in the “training of municipal functionaries and civil society”. The aim was to create future “municipal candidates” who would be “inserted into government programmes”. Another project, from 2006 to 2007 and costing $48,000, focused on Uriondo, Tarija, which sits in the media luna opposition stronghold. The grant was given at a politically tumultuous time. The report mentioned that the area of Tarija has the largest hydrocarbon deposits in the country, and the project wants “to increase the capacity” and “strengthen local government” of Uriondo, particularly by improving how the media communicates with the locals. Other projects look to “encourage political citizenship among young people”.

In one project in Totora, Cochabamba, the proposal notes that the population are mostly Quechua speaking and a lot more “politicized” than in Uriondo, adding that “there exists … an obstinate opposition to what they term as ‘neoliberal’, and they reject any advances from such parties”. Finally, it noted that the people of Totora organize themselves through a model of “corporativism” – the imposition of “a logic of the majoritarianism”, which rejects a form of democracy respectful of any differences. “This prompts us to consider that in the future we should include democratic values, in all sectors of society, not just as a citizen’s exercise when voting for their electoral representatives, but also with the logical respect that democracy has in other contemporary global societies,” the proposal noted. But the fact that the people of Totora organize themselves into collectives and make decisions collectively is common among indigenous groups throughout the country. The organization writing the proposal, however, concluded that this is in fact undemocratic and that they should introduce programs that demonstrate how undemocratic this form of democracy is compared with “other global societies”.

Another project called for better election monitoring. It suggested “revising the referendum votes for 2008 and 2009, where, in some regions, participation is registered at 100 percent and where the vote in favor of President Morales is of a similar percentage, something which does not have antecedents”. This accusation is questionable because in many departments people vote collectively – a tradition within many indigenous  groups.

One project awarded $36,450 to the Bolivian National Press Association. Its ostensible aim was to defend freedom of expression “through the supervision and documentation of violations and threats against journalists” and “improve the professionalism and impartiality of Bolivian journalists”. However, its focus is trained on the government, in keeping with US embassy fears about Venezuelan influence. “The [National Press Association of Bolivia] denounces that the action the government of Morales has taken, something which has never happened under a democratic government, total control of the National Company of Bolivian Television (ENTB), when he integrated the directors with state ministers.” In another project, in Totora, it was noted that they were “expecting – in the coming months – the installation of a community radio transmitter, financed by the Venezuelan government, which forms part of a communications network which that regime has been promoting”. A later section called 2008 “the worst year for freedom of expression since the return to democracy” with “one dead and over a hundred attacks”. The Santa Cruz UJC and its allies committed a number of these attacks. In one case: “A police officer sprayed pepper spray at a journalist who approached the Vice President of the Santa Cruz Youth Union.” The NED criticized Evo Morales for denouncing La Razon newspaper, even though coverage of the president Morales in that newspaper has been overtly racist for years, with racist caricatures and racist commentary.

Very measured

As in smaller countries in the region, such as Haiti, the US embassy in Bolivia wielded huge power through the second half of the 20th century, often more than the sovereign government itself. The US embassy in La Paz is the second largest in Latin America (slightly

smaller than in Brazil), despite the country having a population of just 9 million people. Through the last 50 years, the US had supported coups to get “their” dictators in place (Hugo Banzer), lent public relations specialists to get “their” presidents in place when democracy returned (Goni), and sent their brightest economists to “restructure” the economy in their image (Jeffrey Sachs). Now, the US provides sanctuary for “their” presidents wanted for crimes against humanity (Goni, again). But such a situation could give rise to complacency. And the election of the democratic socialist government of MAS in Bolivia marked the first time the country threatened to break free of US control. As such, relationships with ambassadors from the US became increasingly strained as the power dynamic switched around, and the sovereign government issued orders to the embassy, not the other way around. Maria Beatriz Souviron, Bolivian ambassador to the UK, told me: “The US ambassador before Morales had a lot of influence over the politics in our country, even pushing to take domestic decisions at some points.” She added: “We want some sovereignty in our country and to make our own decisions. And of course the former ambassador [Goldberg] was involved with the opposition.”

The MAS government accused ambassador Philip Goldberg of “subversive actions” which included a “disinformation campaign” in the lead-up to the recall referendum, as he tried to unite the opposition. In late 2007, the US embassy began moving openly to meet with the right-wing opposition in the media luna. Ambassador Goldberg was photographed in Santa Cruz with a leading business magnate who backed the autonomy movement, and a well-known Colombian narco-trafficker who had been detained by the local police. Morales, in revealing the photo, said the trafficker was linked to right-wing paramilitary organizations in Colombia. In response, the US embassy asserted that it couldn’t vet everyone who appeared in a photo with the ambassador. Goldberg was expelled because of his meetings with opposition figures at the most on-edge period of the battle with the MAS government. In 2008, he was photographed having a secret meeting with opposition governor Rubén Costas. The US embassy liked Costas. In one cable it was noted: “Costas’ willingness to work with the United States would make him a solid democratic partner.” It also praised his “politically savvy use of the media to advance the interests of the media luna”.

This government anger at US embassy interference culminated in September 2009 when ambassador Goldberg was expelled from the country. He has still not been replaced, the US embassy having to make do with the diplomatic downgrade of a chargé d’affaires. The US retaliated by expelling the Bolivian ambassador to Washington. “The US embassy is historically used to calling the shots in Bolivia, violating our sovereignty, treating us like a banana republic,” said Gustavo Guzman, the ambassador who was expelled from Washington. Goldberg had an interesting history, which made him a curious appointment by President George W. Bush in October 2006. Between 1994 and 1996 he had served as State Department desk officer for Bosnia and as special assistant to the late Richard Holbrooke, who had been instrumental in brokering the Dayton Accords and then the NATO military campaign against Serbia in 1999. From 2004 to 2006, Goldberg served as chief of mission in Pristina, Kosovo. In other words, he was used to dealing with countries that were breaking up into their constituent parts.

The leaders of the Santa Cruz Civic Committee certainly liked him. “My overall impression of Goldberg is that he was very measured politically,” said its vice president. “Compared to the two ambassadors that preceded. They were very openly political, they got involved a great deal, and compared to them Goldberg was measured.”

The US embassy had been overtly hostile to Morales from the start, and the previous two ambassadors had openly tried to halt his rise to power. In 2002, when Morales narrowly lost his first presidential bid, US ambassador Manuel Rocha, the first Bush appointment, openly campaigned against him, threatening: “If you elect those who want Bolivia to become a major cocaine exporter again, this will endanger the future of US assistance to Bolivia.” In 2003, the second Bush appointment, David N. Greenlee, was put in place, and he had a long history with Bolivia. He served in the Peace Corps in Bolivia, 1965–67, and met his wife in the country. Later he served as a political officer at the US embassy in La Paz, 1977–79, dealing with issues, one think-tank noted, such as communism, military coups and Operation Condor, the continent-wide terror network set up by General Pinochet with the help of the US government. He returned as deputy chief of mission, 1987–89. When back as ambassador, Greenlee openly tried to scupper MAS’s ascent. In March 2003, for example, he sent a letter to Carlos Mesa, then president, alleging, falsely, that MAS was planning a coup in the summer. The MAS government hoped that things would change with President Obama’s election, but MAS officials say it has been no different. In fact, President Obama is now thought to have deployed special operations forces to Bolivia, while he supported the illegitimate post-coup election in Honduras. “President Obama lied to Latin America when he told us in Trinidad and Tobago that there are not senior and junior partners,” said President Morales in 2009.

While in La Paz I arranged an interview with the US chargé d’affaires, John S. Creamer, who has served in embassies in Nicaragua, Argentina and Colombia. I was not allowed to record the interview, but took notes. “The Bush administration took a heavy toll on perceptions of the US, that’s an empirical fact,” he said. He denied knowing of the various foundations – HRF and UnoAmerica – but is “sceptical” they were involved in the Rózsa plot. It became clear later that the US embassy is aware of these groups, and is being briefed by them. Mr Creamer told me there was “growing opposition” from within MAS against the leadership, an interesting observation, as it is a strategy that the government itself is increasingly wary of. “Evo is now scared that the new tactic is the opposition infiltrating the government and MAS, in order to take power from within,” Mr Mendoza, the Sucre senator, had told me. The embassy is obviously still in close contact with the radical elements in the east, as Mr Creamer defends the violence of the UJC and other radical opposition elements, arguing self-defense. “It’s natural to defend yourself,” he said, as we finish.

The international community have also been accused of supporting the break-up of the country. I talked to the British ambassador, Nigel Baker, in La Paz, who seemed to agree with the autonomists. “I think the long-term destiny for Bolivia … is some form of federalist structure,” he said. “The topography of the country, the different character of different peoples in different parts of the country, different economic structures, all work in favor in Bolivia of greater autonomy.” He thought the US had entirely benign intentions: “I think historical record will show that the US was operating correctly in Bolivia and trying to work with all political groups, people of all political colors, to work with and strengthen Bolivian democracy.” The WikiLeaks cables reveal that opposition politicians were openly approaching the US embassy for support in elections. One opposition politician “stands out as a potential national opposition leader,” one cable noted, before adding that in a meeting with embassy officers he had “privately expressed his interest in obtaining US support to run for the presidency”.

One the major concerns for the US after Morales came to power was Bolivia moving out of its traditional sphere of influence and making alliances and economic deals with other countries: thumbing its nose at its traditional patron. Among the people consulted by USAID for one its projects was Eduardo Rodríguez Veltzé, a former president of Bolivia who controversially decommissioned the country’s only air-defense system, purchased from China, putting Bolivia under the basic military control of the US. It was people like this the US was used to dealing with. But Morales no longer countenanced such servility. At the same time, China embraced the MAS government openly (largely because of the lithium reserves, no doubt), and did not seem as intent to undermine the democratically elected government as the US was. They also provided an alternative source of investment, worrying US planners. And it wasn’t just China. In 2008, it was announced that Bolivia had signed a deal with state-owned Russian gas company Gazprom to explore and produce natural gas in the country. State-owned oil and gas company, YPFB, which was nationalized by the MAS government, signed the deal to exploit South America’s second-largest reserves, concentrated in the southeast.

Bolivia also announced more military purchases from China and Russia, after the US blocked Bolivian purchases of Czech aircraft. Most worryingly for the US, Venezuela and Cuba were also increasing their presence, a fear constantly discussed in the cables. One cable from La Paz noted: “Cuban and Venezuelan advice, interference, and assistance continue to be a serious concern.” The concern is listed as “Cuban doctors and newly inaugurated hospitals bring medical care to isolated communities”, while Venezuela provided micro-credit financing to small businesses. Unlike USAID, of course, “Venezuelan funding is pouring into the country with no transparency or accountability, further damaging the democratic process.” Venezuelan funding for the media was a particular “issue of concern”, which, we have seen, was being fought as a proxy war through the NED’s programs. One cable worried “that media will be sold without public knowledge, changing the opinion-leader landscape in the country”, i.e. the anti-Morales bias. The cable even noted that the main newspaper, La Razon, has a “generally anti- [government of Bolivia] stance”.

In February 2008, a story broke about a Fulbright scholar in Bolivia who had been asked to spy on Cubans and Venezuelans in the country. John Alexander van Schaick said that he was told by regional security officer Vincent Cooper at the US embassy “to provide the names, addresses and activities of any Venezuelan or Cuban doctors or field workers” he came across while he was in Bolivia.7 His account was supported by similar testimony from Peace Corps members and staff who were all told by Mr Cooper to gather information on Cuban and Venezuelan nationals. Three days after the story broke, it was announced that Mr Cooper would not be returning to Bolivia. Morales called it the “expulsion” of a “man who conducted North American espionage”, an accusation with some justice. Many believed it was the tip of the iceberg. “We had a mutual friend, and [van Schaick] approached me in December 2007,” Jean Friedman-Rudovsky, the American journalist living in La Paz who broke the story, told me. “It took a couple months to get a hold on the Peace Corps angle, I had heard lots of rumors, but hadn’t been able to substantiate them. The Peace Corps duty director went on record at the time saying Vincent Cooper came and gave these inappropriate instructions to the group.”

The volunteers were in a moral quandary about what to do. “Some kids were worried about the message coming from the embassy, one girl was planning on living with a Cuban family; she wondered if she would have to collect information on them,” said Friedman-Rudovsky. The director and the Peace Corps staff complained to the US embassy, remonstrating that they couldn’t act like an intelligence service for the US government. Four months later, however, van Schaick received the same instructions. “In general, not much has changed in terms of US-Bolivia since Obama came into power,” said Friedman-Rudovsky. The ambassador never admitted it had happened; he merely commented that if these instructions had been given, it went against US policy. But it was the first ironclad proof of the US using its agencies to gather information in the country. “Every time Morales speaks on US-Bolivian relations in terms of US meddling in Bolivian affairs, he refers to this story, it’s the only story with definitive proof of spying,” said Friedman-Rudovsky. In the aftermath, the Bolivian foreign minister asked the US to establish exchange programs because the current US programs “are not transparent and we are suspicious when scholarship students are asked to spy on us”. The US did not comply.

Another controversy erupted in 2008 when a police unit called the Special Operations Command (COPES) was implicated in a domestic surveillance scandal after it was revealed that the unit had been used to collect intelligence on areas outside its remit of narco-trafficking. The unit was funded by the US, and was ultimately answerable to the US embassy. The idea that no one there knew what was going on is hard to countenance. It was disbanded soon after.

There had been a long lineage for this kind of subterfuge. In 1997 testimony to Congress, James Milford, deputy administrator of the DEA, said: “The Intelligence and Special Operations Group (GIOE) is one of Bolivia’s most successful drug enforcement programs. It was developed four years ago as a result of cooperation between DEA and the Bolivian National Police [and was] responsible for handling sensitive intelligence and conducting the most important complex criminal investigations in Bolivia.”

The US had long-established law enforcement agencies in Bolivia operating under the guise of drug enforcement; these agencies could be used for different purposes, and no one could actually verify whether they were gathering intelligence. Later, President Morales alleged that the CIA had tried to infiltrate state-run oil firm YPFB through marketing director Rodrigo Carrasco, who had attended a number of “training courses” in the US, which involved intelligence, security and politics. Carrasco had been a member of COPES. In the aftermath, the US embassy still complained that the “threat to expel the CIA from Bolivia means that any one of us can be (mis)identified as a spy and kicked out should we do – or be falsely accused of doing – anything that displeases Evo”. Spying was definitely taking place on a large scale. All through the cables there are allusions to “sensitive reporting” which is a euphemism for spying. One cable noted that a MAS official whom “many political analysts” consider “a radical” is “railroading controversial legislative measures”, before adding: “Sensitive reporting indicates that Ramirez may be very vulnerable on corruption and human smuggling charges.”

Being a softy

When in Sucre, I talked to Enrique Cortes, a professor at one of the universities in the city and a specialist in US-Bolivian relations. “Bolivia is still dependent,” he said. “This position of dependency was from the beginnings of when the nation was created, we were always dependent on an international monetary system lately led by the US.” He added: “There was a triangular relationship between the state, oligarchs and transnational organizations and these oligarchs responded to international money. When they lose power they use force to stop history from developing. Within that fits Rózsa-Flores and the Pando massacre, and Leopoldo.” The move to democracy, he said, may not be permanent, and could be scuppered. “There was the fascist process, dictatorship, but it’s not over. With Carter began the phase of controllable democracies, but now we think a new phase has opened. And this new phase is characterized by vital resources, and wanting control over these vital resources. So that’s the central conflict with the US.” He thought that the US could still put a brake on the process initiated by MAS to greater independence. “A coup is not the only way to put brakes on this. History shows there are other strategies, such as penetrating the popular organizations, and social movements using agencies like USAID.” But coups have been the traditional US tactic in the country.

Declassified documents released in 2008 exposed US financial and political support for the military coup led by right-wing general Hugo Banzer in 1971, who ruled until 1978 (before making a comeback, democratically elected this time, from 1997 to 2001). The State Department at the time denied supporting the three-day coup that left 110 dead and hundreds more wounded. Banzer’s dictatorship was a nightmare for organized labor and anyone who disagreed with his restructuring of the economy in the interests of foreign capital. He arrested 14,000 Bolivians without due process, and 8,000 more were tortured. Some 200 people were thought to have disappeared. Banzer had been trained at the notorious School of the Americas in Panama (Fort Gulick) and at Fort Hood in Texas, before becoming a military attaché in Washington. The declassified documents show that the Nixon administration had signed off $410,000 to be made available for politicians and military officers willing to take out the left-leaning dictator Juan José Torres. At a meeting in July 1971, the 40 Committee – chaired by the then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and overseeing covert operations around the world – discussion focused on giving this money to opposition figures who, the understanding was, would undertake a coup. Under-Secretary of State Alexis Johnson said: “What we are actually organizing is a coup in itself, isn’t it?” The plan was approved and the same day that the coup began in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, a National Security Council staffer reported to Kissinger that the CIA had transferred money to two high-ranking members of the opposition.

A month earlier, Nixon and Kissinger had discussed the possibilities for dealing with the Bolivian leader who was leaning too far left.

Kissinger: We are having a major problem in Bolivia, too. And –

Nixon: I got that. Connally mentioned that. What do you want to do about that?

Kissinger: I’ve told [CIA Deputy Director of Plans, Thomas] Karamessines to crank up an operation, post-haste. Even the Ambassador there, who’s been a softy, is now saying that we must start playing with the military there or the thing is going to go down the drain.

Nixon: Yeah.

Kissinger: That’s due in on Monday.

Nixon: What does Karamessines think we need? A coup?

Kissinger: We’ll see what we can, whether – in what context. They’re going to squeeze us out in another two months. They’ve already gotten rid of the Peace Corps, which is an asset, but now they want to get rid of [US Information Agency] and military people. And I don’t know whether we can even think of a coup, but we have to find out what the lay of the land is there.

Fast-forward 40 years and not much had changed. The WikiLeaks cables reveal that as the political turmoil was peaking, the US embassy was contemplating the eventuality of a military coup. One noted that “there are strong indications the military is split and could be reticent to follow orders”. Another complained that: “A strong commitment to institutionalism would require a rock-solid constitutional argument before commanders would participate in any action that could be considered ‘political’.” There is no doubt that these feelings were being communicated from within the military to the US embassy. “[Armed Forces Commander General Wilfredo] Vargas had been, publicly and privately, a supporter of US-Bolivian military relations,” one cable noted. “Although he continues to cooperate enthusiastically with us at a working level, even giving awards to three [Military Group] officers December 13 his public comments in the last few months have irritated Bolivian military officers and raised eyebrows within the Embassy.” (The Military Group is part of the US Department of Defense.) But there were reasons for optimism. “Evo does not have a network of personal friends within the military (although his Presidency Minister Juan Quintana does),” one cable noted. “[T]he military is leery of taking on any role considered remotely political. The military fears above all a repeat of the bloody military- civilian conflicts in El Alto in 2003, which brought down the Goni government.” The Goni government – supported by the US, where he is now in exile.

Finally, we are told that Commander Vargas is too unreliable to count on. “Vargas remains an enigma,” the cable noted. “Some commanders suspected, at least before his December 8 comments, that he might be sympathetic to a coup. He is widely characterized as an ‘opportunist’”. The cable added wryly: “We cannot expect him to stand behind his assurances.”

In a piece of bare-faced historical revisionism, USAID said that between 1985 and 2003 “fundamental economic and political rules of the game were liberalized”, adding, “organizations with a pluralistic view of democracy grew and flourished – especially in response to the availability of donor assistance”. It noted that, “Corporatist civil society organizations dominated citizen participation in the public sphere between 1952 and 1985”, which was the moment when the Bolivian government “began to change the direction of Bolivia’s economic policies and democratic practices”. Soon, as the fairytale went, “Pluralistic civil society then emerged, and was active – especially at the level of communities.” What that period, in fact, describes is the “Shock Doctrining” of the Bolivian economy and wider society. President Víctor Paz Estenssoro, who had been a supporter of US- backed dictator Hugo Banzer, ruled from 1985 to 1989 and instituted a neoliberal recipe to help put the staggering economy back on its feet. He repressed labor unions, sacked 30,000 miners, and privatized most of the state-owned companies. The broken society he and his successor Goni created would provide fertile ground for the Morales administration to grow in.

As its framework for the definition of civil society, USAID uses the work of Larry Diamond, a professor at Stanford University and fellow at the Hoover Institution where he coordinates the project on Democracy in Iran. He was a senior advisor on governance to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq and the founding co-editor of the National Endowment for Democracy’s Journal of Democracy. He has worked for the State Department, World Bank and USAID. In other words, the perfect intellectual to design democracy in Bolivia.

US weapons and military had been found in Bolivia. In June 2007, Donna Thi Dinh, a 20-year-old American woman, was detained at La Paz airport after arriving on a flight from Miami. The authorities found 500 rounds of .45-caliber ammunition in her luggage. Ms Thi had initially claimed to customs that she was carrying cheese. She was met at the airport by the wife of a military liaison at the US embassy in La Paz. US ambassador Philip Goldberg said that the bullets were for training and sport shooting and she did not realize that she had to declare them. This might be true, but at the very least it shows the impunity with which Americans felt they could act in Bolivia. Bolivia’s director of migration, Magaly Zegarra, noted: “the fact that a North American citizen, related to the embassy, is carrying ammunition on a North American aircraft coming from Miami, a city where terrorists from all over Latin America are protected by the government, especially their teacher, as [Luis] Posada is called by the terrorists, and make a mockery of all [justice] mechanisms, is questionable.” In another incident, in March 2006, Triston Jay Amero, a 25-year-old from California, set off 300 kilos of dynamite at two hotels in La Paz. He was carrying 15 different identity documents. Two years later, security services uncovered the presence of two fake American journalists photographing presidential vehicles.

The US military itself was also using Bolivia as a base. In June 2010, it was revealed that the Obama administration was expanding the role of US special operations forces around the world in a “secret war” to combat al-Qaeda, with the Washington Post noting that they were placed in 60 to 75 countries, with about 4,000 personnel available in countries aside from Iraq and Afghanistan. Jeremy Scahill reported in The Nation, based on “well-placed special operations sources”, that Bolivia was one of those countries. The role of the joint special operations command forces was to launch “pre-emptive or retaliatory strikes”, but this was ambiguous. “While some of the special forces missions are centered around training of allied forces, often that line is blurred. In some cases, ‘training’ is used as a cover for unilateral, direct action,” Scahill wrote. A special forces source told him: “It’s often done under the auspices of training so that they can go anywhere. It’s brilliant. It is essentially what we did in the 60s,” adding, “Remember the ‘training mission’ in Vietnam? That’s how it morphs.” US armed forces did occasionally pop up in Bolivia. In 2008, just weeks before the raid on Hotel Las Americas, Iraq war veteran Lieutenant Commander Gregory Michel was arrested after he pulled a gun on a prostitute in Santa Cruz. The US embassy managed to secure his release on grounds of “diplomatic immunity”. The WikiLeaks cables also show that C-130s and helicopters owned by the Narcotics Affairs Section (NAS) at the US Embassy were being used to transport “eradicators and troops”. Elsewhere, the embassy noted allegations that the DEA, US military and Bolivian national police headed Bolivian anti-narcotics efforts “from a US military base” in the Cochabamba department. In reference to this, the cable noted: “The US supports Bolivian anti-narcotics efforts at the Chimore Airport and has offices there, but there are no US military bases per se in Bolivia.” Per se. The WikiLeaks cables reveal an embassy concerned about renewing “mil- mil” (military to military) cooperation and establishing a “Status of Forces” agreement. But the Bolivian government was reticent about signing up – also refusing to ratify an “Article 98” which excuses US nationals from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, a common demand made by the US, a rogue nation intent on not abiding by international law.

But, as the US knows, Bolivia is still captive to the American military. A cable noted: “Bolivia has not spent any money on ammunition in two years, and the capacity to quickly move troops remains in doubt.”

Saying thank you

In early 2006, a cable from La Paz noted “the billions of US dollars of assistance in the past few decades”, and said that the ambassador observed that the US government “would sometimes appreciate a good word or thanks” from President Morales. To this day, the Morales government and his party, MAS, have not “thanked” the US for its support, because since 2005, and before, that support has been designed to finish them, and by extension democracy, in Bolivia. In many ways, Bolivia is the most democratic country in the world now. When you walk around the country you sense the involvement of the citizenry in the politics of their local community as well as on a national level, in a way that is markedly absent in the US or UK. There is a simple formula for US foreign policy in Latin America and beyond: support democracy if the people vote the right way. If they don’t, and the political party threatens to upset the “natural” order of things and with it the business interests of America and other foreign companies, then a program of subversion and destabilization gets under way. This investigation is focused on Bolivia in the specifics, but the general patterns have been replicated from Venezuela to Ecuador, from Brazil to Peru.

Another cable noted: “Evo Morales’ election in December 2005 was a political earthquake in Bolivia, sweeping aside political expectations that have defined Bolivian politics for generations and at the same time breaking open fissures and offering up new possibilities.” It is these new possibilities that scare the US government, the threat of the “virus of a good example”, a government that can provide for its citizens while growing the economy. Even Bolivia’s admirable lead on climate change is dismissed by the US embassy as a “vehicle for raising [Morales’s] and Bolivia’s international political stature”. The US is slowly losing the ownership it has had over Bolivian society for decades. For the first time

in living memory, the Bolivian people are deciding their own destiny according to their needs, ideas and hopes – not those of the US. For this reason, war has been declared on Bolivian democracy, alongside any other democracy that does not see its raison d’être as supporting US interests to the detriment of its own people. But it was not just the indigenous people of Latin America who were proving a problem for the racketeers. When the financial crisis hit, its own indigenous population stopped being so easy to exploit as well. The racket abroad meets the racket at home.v

[themissingmarvel]

Hardly Starstruck [Part 1]

A/N: I’ve never done a celebrityxreader before. So please be gentle! No hate to any celebs in here. I love ‘em all. Also this will be a series. So be patient! :)

Synopsis: Working a con can be stressful, but you’ve done it a while. You’ve seen enough celebrities to be starstruck-proof. Until the big day at San Diego Comicon when the higher-ups tell you Tom Hiddleston’s PR rep is sick. You’re covering the next four days and helping out doing whatever it is that Tom needs done. And while you can’t deny the obvious attraction, you’re determined not to let it cloud your judgment and to ensure you do your job well. But the man is smitten. And determined.

Pairing: Tom Hiddleston x Reader

Warnings: None

Word Count: 2.4k 

It was the Wednesday before the con opened. San Diego ComiCon to be exact. You’d been volunteering at it for long enough that you were no longer just a volunteer. They’d hired you on as a special guest coordinator long ago, once you got over being so star-struck. After being hugged by Jensen Ackles, Chris Evans, Benedict Cumberbatch… well, you started getting used to it. They were good folks, to be sure, and you loved your job, but you’d become one of the few who was able to sit in a room for longer than ten minutes without completely losing it.

Thursday night was always a fun night. You’d wake up early, get yourself dressed, and head to the con to make sure it was prepped for preview night. It meant going to bed early Wednesday and missing out on some of the parties, but it wasn’t a big deal. You tended to be a part of the rest of the parties throughout the week. With the newest Marvel movie coming out, another Avengers flick, you knew that this would be chaos.

The hotel was night enough, donning your usual baggy pajama pants and tank top as you readied yourself for bed, your routine interrupted as the phone rang on the table, charging next to about twelve other portable battery chargers (such was life.) Glancing down, you recongized the name, “Hey, Emma. Enjoying the- wait, what? Slow down a sec. Hold on.” Emma Hughes was one of the heads of the PR staff for Tom Hiddleston, one of the bigger names you were tasked with ensuring wasn’t tackled by mobs of fans. She was good. They all were. You had to be to work with folks like the stars they did.

On the other end there was frantic yelling, “Y/N! Listen, I know this is last minute, I know that. And I am so sorry in advance. But… shit. Listen, Tom’s con rep, Mark? He’s sick. Like, he can’t get to the airport kind of sick. I’d normally never ask this-”

You waved your hand, though she couldn’t see it, “No. Nope. No way, Emma. I’ve got the rest of the show to run at this point, I can be focused on Tom. I’ve got the entire Marvel crew to watch over, not to mention running point with the rest of the staff!” There was a towel wrapped around your head, wet hair inside it as you felt yourself unplug the phone and nervously pace.

Emma pleaded, “I’m begging you, Y/N. I don’t know the staff the way you do, and right now Tom’s insisting that it be you. He says he doesn’t trust anyone he hasn’t met before.”

Your eyes rolled, dramatically so, keeping the sigh that you wanted to let out internal. Emma was just following orders. But what she was asking of you wasn’t just to keep an eye on him, was she? Squinting, you stared at the door before you, “Are you asking me to be his personal PR rep while he’s here?”

There was a soft pause, “I already talked to the leads of the convention. They’re ready to cover what you’d normally be doing. They’re on board with you being his guide through this. Honestly, Y/N, it’ll be easy. You’ve met Tom before, a few times, and he trusts you. Could be worse. Could be following around Robert,” there was a smirk on the line that you knew too well.

Shaking your head you shrugged, “Fine. Am I meeting him in the morning at the main invite? Or do I have to cart his luggage around the airport,” you mused, already beginning to adjust the items you had packed away to fit this new role.

“Oh, he’s actually in your hotel, perfectly enough. I’ll text you his room number and extension. Just meet him at his room around 9am. You know Tom, he’ll be punctual about it. Just… no starstruck stuff.” A flush crossed your cheeks, one that you were so very glad Emma couldn’t see.

“Rude! I’m never starstruck. And around Tom? Please. Not my type. I’ll be fine, thanks,” you weren’t quite sure right then who you were trying to convince.

“Right, handsome men aren’t your type. I’ll keep that in mind. I’ll send you his schedule and everything in some PDFs to your email and the main account. Familiarize yourself with what you can, but he’s a pretty self-sufficient guy. Just keeping everything in check and getting him places in one piece would be nice,” she droned on.

“Emma! I’ve done this for years. I know the drill. Send me what I need and I’ll make sure he’s taken care of. Promise. Cross my heart. Won’t make any Loki comments, either.” You grinned widely.

Once the two of you had hung up a slew of files came to your phone in almost no time. You were glad the con had provided you with the phone the size of a tablet, give the information. But you were realizing, as you readied yourself for bed, that this was not going to be an easy gig. No, Tom Hiddleston had been one of the celebrities that you’d avoided because of that just… unfairly gorgeous man. More than that, he was charming, funny, sweet, and genuinely fun to be around. You’d avoided him because you knew there was no use getting starstruck around a guy who’d never notice a convention staff member. Certainly not you.

As you lay your head down, though, the thought repeated until you fell asleep, If he doesn’t notice staff, why would he ask for and remember you?

_______

Punctual as he was, 9 in the morning found you dressed with comfort and style outside his door. You were wearing the clothes that you’d always wear, a pair of tattered blue jeans and a low-cut black top clinging to your form. This wasn’t for his benefit, but it was for yours. It was easy to manuever in. And the bag slung around your shoulder held all you needed (including emergency supplies.)

Knocking, you did realize your makeup and hair had been done just a little more than you might have normally. You’d told yourself it was because you’d be in the spotlight more, but that wasn’t it. What did surprise you, however, was Tom opening the door wide, his eyes bright with a smile on his face, “Y/N! Great to see you, beautiful. Please, come in, security was just finishing some of the briefing on the day.” He stepped aside, finishing doing the gunmetal grey tie around his neck with a strange finesse only he could manage.

“Oh, Emma emailed me the security briefings. I just wanted to make sure you’re good with the meet-and-greet with all the A-List around noon, which gives you an hour or so to check out the main theaters. I mean, clearly not enough time to explore all of the con, but it’ll give you a sense of the main-”

He cut you off with a wink and a grin, “Always down to business. Come, sit down and have a cup of coffee while the rest of the group worries themselves with technicalities,” he motioned you through the incredibly elaborate and large penthouse suite. It was hard not to look overwhelmed as you took it in. You’d never had a role quite like this, working directly with a celebrity, but always in the background or from above.

You were surprised as he pulled out the chair for you by a table larger than your own dining room table, waiting until you sat to push the chair in gently, “I’m not too concerned about getting to the main hall early, Y/N. Rather, I’d prefer to chat with you, first. Get to know you better. Sound fair?” He was walking towards the kitchen area, grabbing what looked to be a French press already made, pouring two cups.

Behind you there were the usual suspects working out logistics, locked in their world. You looked at Tom, almost nervously, “I guess so. I mean, I’d really like to talk about the plans for the meet-”

There he went. Interrupting you again, “Cream or sugar? It’s quite potent. Brought the coffee from London. Never the same out in the states.” He eyed the bag and you bit down your brief annoyance.

“Cream. Dash of sugar. Please. So like I was saying, the expectation is to chat it up with some of the other ‘superhero’ franchise folks-”

“I suspected you liked your coffee sweeter, though I’m not sure why. Perhaps you’re sweet enough without the sugar,” he smirked as he waltzed closer, moving with grace and ease as you attempted to hide the blush when he placed the mug down before you.

Shaking your head you eyed him, “Mr. Hiddleston, respectfully-”

“Tom, please, Y/N.” He crossed his legs and leaned back, taking a sip of his piping coffee.

“Tom, I’d really like to go over the details for the day. It’s important you know all this so that when we need to bolt from one hall to the next, you’re ready,” your eyes were pleading, but you knew really you were trying to be distracted. Getting to know Tom was a mildly terrifying idea. He had asked for you, you, without even knowing much more than your name and title.

A gentle smile settled on his lips, “Just, please, do me this request and enjoy the coffee for a minute or five. I promise the entirety of Comicon won’t collapse in that time because I’ve insisted on having coffee with a beautiful woman,” he raised an eyebrow, clearly enjoying watching the flustered look on your face.

You attempted to hide it, lifting the mug and taking a sip, your face changing as it caught you off guard, “Damn, you weren’t kidding about the taste. This is potent. But good-potent.” You hadn’t quite realized your swear, nor was it at the top of your ‘things to be concerned about’ list. Rather, enjoying the robust flavor you let the man talk.

“So you’ve been doing this a while. Emma tells me you’ve been part of conventions for some time,” he looked over, taking a sip as well as he waited.

“Been attending forever. Anime cons when I was a kid, got into the other cons as I got older. Broke as hell in college so I decided to volunteer, and viola. Long story short, here I am. Got good at what I did so they decided to keep me. So I get stuck babysitting difficult children like you,” you grinned at him over the coffee, deciding you were getting more comfortable around him now. He seemed like the type who could take it well.

And he did. A laugh escaped his lips as he grinned widely, “Difficult! Darling, I can recite my entire schedule and timing of each location better than you can. Even the parties I’m set to attend this evening. I’m simply trying to put you at ease. Though, I’m concerned I’ll have to be a bit more careful. Seems things are a bit more… distracting for me, this time around.”

He let the words sit in the air with an odd comfort, leaving you to sip the coffee before he quickly began to discuss his own thoughts on the scheduling. He hadn’t wanted to cause you any grief. Quite the contrary. Tom wouldn’t tell you as he discussed the panels he’d be at the next few days, but Mark was fine. In fact, Mark was sitting on a beach in Aruba after having been bribed to do so by Tom. There was no way that Tom would tell you he’d spend months orchestrating the ability to get some time alone with you.

It wasn’t easy for a celebrity, which you understood on a real personal level. Finding time to spend with someone and doing it without raising suspicions was always hard. But he’d managed it. And of course you’d never tell Tom as you sat across and watched his plan to once more appear in his Loki attire, drinking your coffee as he read you the schedule off his tablet, that you were smitten for him. It didn’t feel superficial, either. Which was arguably what frustrated you. This man was taking time, time that he was supposed to spend going down hallways and strutting around for the cameras, with you. He’d slide in a personal question here or there, and you’d ask one in return. In the span of only a half-hour, while the team convened, you and Tom had gone over his weekend that already felt too short.

Realizing the time, the coffee now coursing through you, you almost leapt up, “Oh! Mr. Hi- I mean, Tom, we’ve got to get going. Traffic will be a nightmare unless we head downstairs now, we’ve at least got to get you there in time to smile and wave at all the people you already know,” you grinned.

He followed, no putting up a fight this time, your sudden take-charge attitude coming forward as you lead the group down the hall and out to where the limo was waiting. But as the rest of the crew filed into their cars, you heading for the team at the front, you were surprised as Tom gently took your hand and smiled, “I’d prefer you ride with me, Y/N. You know, in case anything comes up while we’re on the ride there. This limo seems far too large to be in here alone. How about it?”

The smile he gave melted away nervousness that had been eating at you. There was a new kind of anxiety rising now as you slid into the limousine you were almost never allowed into. You wanted to be able to do your job, and to do it well, but now? Sitting in the back of a limo headed to the main hall of the convention center, you weren’t quite sure how that might pan out.

(To be tagged, just let me know! Or not tagged. It’s all good! New territory for me

@skymoonandstardust @with-the-words-all-wrong @little-red-83 )

[technuter]

Park Place Technologies Establishes First Office in India

Park Place Technologies announced the opening of a new office in Hyderabad, India. The office in Hyderabad will enhance the company’s ability to deliver its award-winning data center hardware maintenance and full suite of managed services to customers in India. The 24/7 Hyderabad facility will feature 2,500 total square feet of office space. The new office space includes a cafeteria, high-tech training center, spacious conference rooms, and a client lounge area. Employees will have access to a gym and swimming pool for health and wellness. Special features include a high-tech amphitheater to host company events; the space can comfortably accommodate more than 150 audience members. Park Place currently supports more than 400 local and international ‘blue chip’ clients in India. Park Place has strongly connected with customers with its First-Time Fix™ Guarantee. Under the program, if a return trip is needed to correct the same issue on the same device serial number within five days, clients will be credited for one month of maintenance and ParkView Hardware Monitoring on that device. In addition, Park Place has recently trained and invested in a class of a dozen in-country business development associates. Training consists of rigorous simulations, tests, and customizations of proprietary strategies. Chris Adams, President and CEO of Park Place Technologies, said, “As Park Place Technologies invests in its global team, support network and supply chain to serve customers, we are emphasizing India as an important and growing region. We respect the importance of localized service and the customer experience advantage of being based in-region with our clients. The IT sector is closing on being 10 percent of India’s GDP; as an employer and world force for innovation, India has limitless potential, and Park Place will play an active role in that growth.” Located within a half-hour drive to the Hyderabad International Airport, the office is located next to Microsoft, Google and SalesForce. Park Place’s investment in India will provide regional clients with access to industry-leading IT services, including next-gen hardware maintenance for storage, servers and networking hardware, a suite of automated tools and managed services, and a superior customer experience underpinned by our First-Time Fix Guarantee. “Hyderabad has emerged as the most dynamic city in terms of embracing technology for economic growth and attracted large tech giants and e-commerce players, with less traffic for the people to commute from one place to other. Hyderabad is a city with a promising future for IT growth,” Adams said. “This is our first footprint in terms of having a physical office; we have plans of expanding our presence in other cities in India, by hiring more resources from different verticals such as logistics, administration, and engineering.” In recent years, Park Place has opened new and redesigned facilities across the globe including its renovated headquarters in Cleveland, a 58,000-square-foot operations center near Boston, and offices in Houston, London, Singapore, Cork, Buenos Aries, and Kuala Lumpur. The new offices are a small part of Park Place’s growth. The company has made 18 acquisitions over the last five years. Most recently, Park Place acquired Curvature, Inc., creating the world’s largest third-party maintenance provider and Congruity360 which was a strategic asset acquisition adding Data Migration capabilities to Park Place’s robust Professional Services business unit. Read the full article

[vanguardwest]

Same Day International logistics Provider in London

We have a team of experienced professionals who know how to get the job done right. And we use the latest technology to make sure that your goods are delivered promptly and efficiently. So if you need Same Day International logistics Provider in London , don't hesitate to contact us. We'll be happy to provide you with a free consultation and tailor a solution that meets your specific needs.

Call Us- 44 07950476339

[7hrrecuitmentuk]

Shipping Recruitment Agency in London, UK

The term ‘shipping,’ meaning the act of sending goods from one place to another, especially by ship. The shipping process follows the manufacture and the packing of goods and it is control by a shipping process follows the manufacture and the packing of goods and it is control by a shipping or logistics company. Shipping internationally can be complicated and sometimes confusing. With many obstacles to overcome and hoops to step through along the way, working with a qualified freight forwarder is the best way to ensure the shipping process is as smooth as possible. If you are looking to understand the shipping process step by step, following this guide will help to ensure your goods are shipped properly, efficiently and without hassle. The transfer of the goods from the shipper’s premises to the forwarder’s origin warehouse is called export haulage. It is typically by means of truck or a combination of truck and train, and typically takes from a few hours to weeks, depending on distance and geography. The responsibility for the arranging and paying of the export haulage depends on the agreement is that the consignee. If the agreement is that the consignee has responsibility for the shipment right from the shipper’s premises, it is the consignee’s responsibility to arrange export haulage. If the agreement is that the consignee takes responsibility anytime later in the shipping process, the arrangement for export haulage is the responsibility of the shipper. Origin handling comprises a number of activities performed by the freight forwarder or his agent. It starts with cargo receiving where the cargo is unloaded from the truck it arrives on and put in a staging area where it is counted and inspected. Shipping Recruitment Agency in London can help in this regard. The cargo is validated against the booking details and the forwarder’s cargo receipt is issued to the shipper documenting that the cargo has been received for shipping. The shipping line charges the ocean freight and relevant surcharges directly to the freight forwarder. The freight forwarder then breaks up the cost and charge freight and surcharges in relevant proportions to customers with cargo in the container. When assessing a freight rate from a forwarder, it is a good idea to ensure that all surcharges and extra costs are included. The freight rates you find from freight forwarders on Transporteca will always include all surcharges. Best Shipping Recruitment Agency in London and Top Shipping Recruitment Agency in London give clear idea about the industry. There is a vast scope in shipping profession. All courses under this is very much demanding and in trend. You can make your career in this field if you are interest in travelling world tour & want to gain knowledge of various places and cultures. After completing your degree, you can join government/private shipping companies and various port agencies in India or in abroad. Shipping industries are one of the best sectors to make your career. Careers at point include passenger and cargo loading, unloading and distribution and port security. This includes such positions as longshoreman, truck and ship loaders, transportation manager, shipping broker, cargo and freight agent, marine engineer, chartering manager, and fleet engineer. A shipping broker position, for instance, will keep you on your edge. To be successful, you must be able to correctly assess current market conditions and predict the future of supply and demand for your company’s cargo.  Crossover positions Crossover positions are for those who love the field of international shipping, however prefer not to spend time on the seas or at port; but instead with the many resource services that interact with international shipping companies on a daily basis. Careers like shipping and receiving clerk, accountant, public relations specialist, maritime lawyer, marine biologist, and human resources specialist are always available for them. Shipping Recruitment Agency in UK and Best Shipping Recruitment Agency in UK guide the job seekers in many ways. The simplest definition of recruitment is the process of identifying, interviewing and hiring employees for jobs. The reality is much more complex the recruitment process involves many moving parts, and there are many forms depending on the company’s needs and resources. Large organizations, the typically employ recruiters within their HR department. In small-to medium-sized organizations, the hiring manager that will directly oversee the new employee may take on recruiting responsibilities. Many companies hire third-party staffing agencies to make hires or use recruitment process outsourcing, which brings in outside recruitment experts to serve as strategic consulting partners. No matter goad with recruitment is to hire great talent. let‘s break down a few different types of recruitment. Recruitment is the first step in order to achieve highly qualified employees for the organization. The more successful an organization’s recruitment strategy, the strong the applicants pool, thus, the stronger the resulting hired employees. There are a wide variety of recruitment strategies which include advertisements on newspapers and job websites such as SEEK and Indeed. Another recruitment strategy that is used in organizations is recruiting internal applicants for jobs. Selection is the second major step required in the staffing process. The goal of any selection systems is to identify which applicants have the knowledge, skills, abilities and other important factors that will be beneficial and suitable to the organization on order to succeed within the job role. Selection tools used to assess candidates have improved onto more comprehensive systems such as interviews, work samples, application forms, written psychometric instruments and many more. Top Shipping Recruitment Agency in UK helps to find a suitable talent. They are proud to work a broad range of businesses across a number of sub sectors within the maritime industry. They supply talented professionals to their customers who work in multiple disciplines, covering technical shipping, commercial shipping, marine engineering, marine surveying and all seagoing roles, offshore, passenger and deep sea. They are compliant under the accredited as a recruitment and placement agency and abiding by the set standards that ensure comprehensive protection of the rights of seafarers worldwide. London Shipping Recruitment Agency and Shipping Industry Recruitment take care of their process very well. Some of shipping jobs in UK are: MSSP-Shipping- Receive, count and verity all incoming parcels and deliveries, logging all packages and bulk shipments into the packages tracking system and distributing mail across the site using a scan and sign system with training, using the X-Ray machine to scan all incoming mail, processing, sorting, and staging packages for delivery, recording shipment data, including weight, charges, and space availability, managing same day shipments to ensure they are delivered within the expected time. Shipping Coordinator- Create, issue and actively maintain supplier purchase orders for direct customer shipments, provide internal& external stakeholders with necessary reports to enable proactive management of customer shipping expectations, address logistics/supply issues effectively and in a timely manner, provide support to Sales organization concerning RMA and credit note enquiries, develop constructive and cooperative relationships with key business stakeholders. Shipping Industry Recruitment Agencies in London and Shipping Industry Recruitment Agencies in UK follow their standard process very strictly.

[xtruss]

The Main Lesson From Afghanistan Is That The ‘War On Terror’ Does Not Work

US allies in the fight, the warlords and corrupt officials, would go on to undermine the legitimacy of the Afghan government

— Mary Kaldor | Guardian USA | August 25, 2021

‘If we want to help ordinary Afghans, we should neither do a deal with the Taliban nor start a war against them.’ Crowds outside the airport in Kabul. Photograph: Asvaka News/Reuters

I opposed the initial invasion of Afghanistan on the grounds that terrorism is a heinous crime but not a war, and that we needed to use the techniques of policing and intelligence, while tackling the underlying causes of terrorism, rather than military methods to deal with the problem.

Many of us said at the time that the attacks of 9/11 should have been viewed as a crime against humanity, not as an attack by a foreign state. The terrorists should have been designated as criminals not enemies. As the distinguished war historian Michael Howard said, the phrase “war on terror” accorded the “terrorists a status they seek and do not deserve”.

After the invasion, I favoured a strategy of human security, stabilising Afghanistan, and protecting individual Afghans and their families. President Biden called this “nation building” and said it should never have been undertaken. This was the approach of the UN in Afghanistan and, while it is possible to argue that nation-building efforts are often too top down and technical, and need to include civil society and local initiatives, these are not the reasons that nation building was so inadequate in Afghanistan.

Indeed there were considerable gains in women’s rights and education as well as democratic consciousness, as exemplified by the recent protests in Jalalabad. The fundamental reason was that the security of Afghans was continually undermined by the way that the US prioritised counter-terror operations, by which it meant military targeting of the Taliban and al-Qaida, and more recently, Islamic State.

Actually, there was no insurgency until five years after the invasion. The insurgency began for two main reasons. First, night raids, drone attacks and bombing produced a counterreaction. Second, the US allies in the counter-terror endeavour were the so-called warlords, many of the same people or their children that the CIA recruited to fight the Soviets in the 1980s. It was the continued presence of these criminalised and predatory warlords within the Afghan government that explains its systemic corruption and lack of legitimacy. Civil society groups were vocal and persistent in their demands for justice and an end to corruption. But their demands were ignored.

Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, had the temerity to blame the Afghan security forces for not defending their country despite all the money the US has provided. In fact, many of them have died in defence of their country. But much of the trillions of dollars spent on equipping and training the security forces went into the pockets of the US allies in the “war on terror” – the Afghan warlords and corrupt officials.

Moreover, private security contractors used by the US government suddenly withdrew, taking with them the logistical infrastructure needed by the security forces. Above all, the decision to withdraw, taken by the Trump administration and upheld by the Biden administration without conditions, had led to peace talks with the Taliban that excluded the government and civil society and greatly empowered the former. For many in the security forces, the hasty withdrawal appeared to signal that the US had changed sides and was now supporting the Taliban, and this was what undermined the will to fight.

Any illusion that the Taliban are somehow “different” – despite the assassinations of intellectuals and the horrendous treatment of women – should be disabused. The Taliban government must not be recognised. If sanctions are applied, they should be targeted so as not to cause yet more suffering to ordinary Afghans. What is likely to happen is yet more violence as factions emerge within the Taliban coalition and compete for dwindling state resources and control of criminal activities. Al-Qaida, Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP), the Haqqani network, not to mention different ethnic militias, are all part of the Taliban coalition.

If we want to help ordinary Afghans, we should neither do a deal with the Taliban nor start a war against them – continued counter-terror air operations, as suggested by Biden, will merely shore up support for the Taliban. Rather, we should undertake a humanitarian intervention in order to establish safe havens and humanitarian corridors to help those who need to flee and to deliver aid. This is not the same as war even though military personnel could be used – the aim would be to protect people rather than kill enemies.

The airport should come under international control (the UN or the International Red Cross) and safe corridors should be established to reach it; it is incredible that the chaos at the airport continues after several days. The UN could also establish protected sites for civilians and safe land corridors to other countries could be established, for example from Mazar-i-Sharif to Uzbekistan, or Herat to Iran. Consideration should be given to the establishment of a safe haven in the Panshir valley, the only part of Afghanistan not yet overrun by the Taliban. At the same time, visas should be given to all Afghan refugees, just as the UK is doing for Hong Kong residents fleeing authoritarianism.

The main lesson from the Afghan experience is that the “war on terror” does not work. Twenty years after the invasion, extremist Islamists are celebrating their victory. It is true, as Biden said, that the US conducts counter-terror operations in multiple places; the consequence has been the spread of extremist Islamism not just in Afghanistan and the Middle East but in large parts of Africa. If we take the danger seriously, then we need a different human security approach. One that combines policing and intelligence with tackling injustice, establishing legitimate political authority, and that aims to marginalise and arrest terrorists rather than turn them into martyrs.

— Mary Kaldor is a professor of global governance and director of the conflict and civil society research unit at London School of Economics

[cliftonsteen]

Coffee News Recap, 13 Aug: Arabica prices projected to rise 13% by end of 2021, BOP 2021 announces winners & other stories

Every Friday, Perfect Daily Grind rounds up the top coffee industry news of the week. Here are this week’s stories.

Mon, 9 Aug – illycaffè announces Farm-to-Table Scholarship with The Culinary Institute of America. The programme will support those taking food business management and applied food studies degrees. Two to four scholarships will be given to eligible students.

Mon, 9 Aug – Royal Coffee to host hybrid palate development class in September. On 23 September, Royal Coffee will hold a combined virtual and in-person tasting event on spices and floral notes. Remote attendees can order tasting kits, while fully vaccinated attendees can purchase limited in-person tickets. Registration closes on 7 September.

Mon, 9 Aug – Chobani’s I Dream of Creamer campaign announces winning flavour. “Sizzlin’ Brown Sugar” received the highest number of votes. The new coffee creamer will be available in US stores nationwide.

Mon, 9 Aug – Arabica prices expected to increase by 13% by end of 2021 due to Brazil frost. Reuters predicts ICE arabica prices will reach US 198.50 cents/lb by the end of the year. Brazil’s 2022/23 harvest is anticipated to decrease by around 5 million bags due to extreme weather.

Mon, 9 Aug – Best of Panama 2021 competition announces winners. The Nuguo fermented coffee from Café Gallardo placed first in the natural Geisha category, achieving 94.75 points. The highest scoring coffee in the washed Geisha category was from Itza Priscila Sittón Vega de Amar, receiving 93.50 points. The BoP auction will be held on 22 September.

Mon, 9 Aug – Nestlé and JDE partner for recycling collection service with Oxford City Council. As part of Nestlé and JDE’s Podback service, Oxford residents can recycle plastic and aluminium capsules using designated curbside collection bags. Once collected, recycling services will separate the coffee grounds from the packaging.

Mon, 9 Aug – Fellow releases Shimmy Coffee Sieve. The sieve includes metal filters under 200 microns to remove microfines. The Shimmy Coffee Sieve’s design was inspired by cocktail shakers.

Mon, 9 Aug – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report claims average global temperatures will increase by 1.5°C within 20 years. The report states human activity is “unequivocally to blame” for climate change, and that rapid and immediate action to reduce carbon emissions is necessary to prevent further temperature increases. Less developed regions, such as coffee-growing countries, are expected to be more heavily impacted by climate change. The UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) will be held in November.

Mon, 9 Aug – New tree species named after Puro Fairtrade coffee. Puro tree (Sciadophyllum Purocafeanum) was discovered in Ecuador in 2019. It is now the third tree species named after Puro Fairtrade coffee, following the Puro frog and Puro orchid. Puro Fairtrade coffee focuses on sourcing beans from environmentally sustainable initiatives.

Mon, 9 Aug – Clever Bean Coffee Company launches Kickstarter for Clever Cold Brewer. The brewing device includes a finer filter and a larger brewing chamber. The Utah company also offers a subscription service of pre-ground coffee sachets.

Tues, 10 Aug – Tiny Capital announces AeroPress investment. The Canadian holding company will support AeroPress’ product development. Alan Adler, the founder of AeroPress, will retain ownership of the company.

Tue, 10 Aug – Swiss Water releases 2021 second quarter financial results. Revenue increased by 9% to US $28.8 million compared to the same period last year. Sales volumes of Swiss Water’s decaffeinated coffee rose by 74% in Europe, compared to the first half of 2020.

Tue, 10 Aug – SOHO Coffee Co. develops online coffee product range. The UK company now sells three new single origin coffees and brewing products via its online shop. The coffee and food-to-go chain also offers a subscription service.

Tue, 10 Aug – Cauldryn launches Cauldryn Coffee Pro insulated flask. The thermal flask can be set to a customisable temperature range using an app. The 10-hour battery can also boil water.

Tue, 10 Aug – Sigep event to return in-person in January 2022. The B2B Italian coffee and dessert event will be held from 22 to 26 January in Rimini. The event will include a three-day “Digital Agenda” for one-to-one networking.

Tue, 10 Aug – Sucafina reports pallet costs have increased by over 100% since January 2021. Increases in wood prices in Antwerp have led to rising prices for coffee pallets. Sucafina also states similar price increases may occur in Dubai.

Tue, 10 Aug – London chain AMT Coffee plans rebrand under Change Please. AMT operates 50 outlets in service stations and hospitals throughout the UK. The company’s new partnership with social enterprise Change Please aims to double the number of locations by 2024.

Tue, 10 Aug – Gong cha to open Covent Garden location. The Taiwan bubble tea company operates over 1,500 stores in 21 countries. The new London location will include 40 different options for customising drinks.

Wed, 11 Aug – COE El Salvador 2021 auction results announced. Buyers included those from the US, Japan, China, Thailand, and Saudi Arabia. The highest scoring coffee (a semi-washed Pacamara) was purchased for US $70/lb by Big Face Coffee – led by NBA player Jimmy Butler.

Wed, 11 Aug – Euromonitor International report finds sales of soy milk are declining. The growth of almond, oat, coconut, and pea milks have led to a drop in soy milk sales. Euromonitor also predicts lab-grown dairy milk may become more popular in the next five years.

Wed, 11 Aug – Cecafé announces Brazil’s July 2021 exports decreased by almost 13%. Shipments fell to over 2.8 million bags, which is a 12.8% decrease on the July 2020 figures. Cecafé says that increasing freight prices and a lack of container space are to blame.

Wed, 11 Aug – Dunkin’ releases new autumn menu items. The Pumpkin Cream Cold Brew and Pumpkin Spice Signature Latte will be available on 18 August. The brand is also launching a “100% Guatemalan Coffee” as part of its single-origin Limited Batch Series.

Wed, 11 Aug – Caravela Coffee achieves carbon neutral operations. The company has become the world’s first green coffee trader to achieve the Carbon Neutral Silver Standard certification. The certification was granted by One Carbon World, a partner of the UN’s Climate Neutral Now initiative. By 2025, the company aims to certify every kilogram of coffee produced as carbon neutral.

Wed, 11 Aug – Cropster Hub rebrands as “V-Hub” after Vollers Group purchase. The commodity logistics group purchased Cropster to develop its functionalities and enhance logistics and delivery services.

Thu, 12 Aug – REBBL launches “STACKED COFFEE” RTD line. The oat milk coffee product range comes in Café Mocha, Vanilla Latte, Hazelnut Latte, and Straight Black flavours. The RTD products also include reishi and lion’s mane mushroom extracts.

Thu, 12 Aug – Brazilian government to provide R$1.2 billion (US $225 million) emergency credit line. Smallholder farmers will be able to access funds using agricultural insurance. Procafé will conduct a survey to assess the level of support required. Earlier estimates report 21.2% of 800,000 hectares of arabica may have been damaged.

Thu, 12 Aug – Tony’s Coffee releases single-use Coffee Brew Bags. The nitrogen-flushed coffee bags have a steep time of 4 to 6 minutes. The packaging is also compostable.

Thu, 12 Aug – Café Grumpy launches US subscription service. The Brooklyn roaster will now provide weekly, fortnightly, or monthly coffee and cold brew subscriptions – with nationwide delivery.

Thu, 12 Aug – ICO report finds July 2021 coffee prices hit highest levels since November 2014 after Brazil frost. Between 20 and 26 July, daily arabica prices increased by 25.4%, from US 165.65 cents/lb to US 207.8 cents/lb. The average price for Brazilian naturals increased by 8.4% to US 160.62 cents/lb – the highest monthly average since January 2015.

Fri, 13 Aug – Oatly to open third US production facility in 2023. The proposed 280,000 sq ft facility in Fort Worth, Texas will produce around 150 million litres of oat milk. The company plans to open nine global factories by 2023.

Fri, 13 Aug – Genuine Origin and Coffee Coalition for Racial Equity to host booth at Specialty Expo. Green coffee traders Genuine Origin will sponsor the booth, while the non-profit CCRE will select six black-owned businesses to exhibit at the expo’s Roaster Village.

Fri, 13 Aug – Bellwether Coffee releases 2020 sustainability report. The roasting solutions company states revenue grew over 100% as installations of its roasters doubled compared to 2019. Bellwether was able to reduce CO2 emissions by 896,096 lbs (406,462 kg) throughout the year, and sustainably sourced over 390,000 lbs (176,901 kg) of coffee.

Here are a few news stories from previous weeks that you might find interesting. Take a look.

Wed, 4 Aug – Starbucks Korea partners with MINI Korea for new campaign. New beverages include Zest Green Blended, Ruby Red Chilling Ice Tea, and Rooftop Grey Latte. The partnership will include MINI+Starbucks brewing cars – serving coffee and other beverages from the Starbucks Korea menu.

Thu, 5 Aug – JDE Peet’s publishes 2021 first half financial results. Sales increased by 4.2% compared to the same period in 2020, fuelled by the at-home market. Peet’s also launched its first range of flavoured K-Cup capsules, including Caramel Brûlée, Vanilla Cinnamon, and Hazelnut Mocha.

Thu, 5 Aug – Panera Bread, Caribou Coffee, and Einstein Bros Bagels form Panera Brands. CEO of Panera Bread, Niren Chaudhary, has been appointed as the Group CEO of Panera Brands. The three companies combined operate some 4,000 locations across 10 countries.

Thu, 5 Aug – Café Santo Domingo expands distribution in US. Dominican company Industrias Banilejas and US company Goya Foods signed an agreement for the distribution of Café Santo Domingo products in the northeastern US. Café Santo Domingo is considered to be one of the Dominican Republic’s largest coffee distributors.

Fri, 6 Aug – Ecommerce brand Meritage Coffee debuts on US market. The organic coffee company is selling four blends: Founder’s Reserve, New York Blend, Breakfast Blend, and Espresso Roast. Meritage also offers a subscription service.

Fri, 6 Aug – TORR Industries launches three new cold brew systems. The Brew50, TwinBrew, and Quadbrew are designed to accommodate small, medium, and large-sized coffee businesses, respectively. TORR claims the machines can extract batches of cold brew in under 2 hours.

Fri, 6 Aug – Coffee startup Morning closes series A funding round. The Singapore capsule machine company received US $1.27 million in its funding round from technology firm Razer. Investments will be used to fulfil back orders and international market expansion.

Fri, 6 Aug – Global coffee creamer market to increase by US $2.51 billion by 2025. Demand for plant-based creamers is expected to be significant. The North American market will contribute to 32% of market growth during the period.

Fri, 6 Aug – Fairtrade Fortnight begins to promote Fairtrade products. The annual campaign runs from 6 to 19 August, and encourages retailers to raise consumer awareness of the Fairtrade brand. Gender equity, environmentally sustainable practices, and ending child slavery are focuses of the campaign, including in coffee supply chains.

Fri, 6 Aug – Farmer Brothers appoints Waheed Zaman to its board of directors. Zaman has previously served as Senior Vice President and Chief Corporate Strategy & Administrative Officer at the Hershey Company. He will now serve on Farmer Brothers board’s audit committee.

Sun, 8 Aug – Starbucks launches two new Pumpkin Spice retail products. The Pumpkin Spice Non-Dairy Creamer is made with almond milk, oat milk, coconut oil, and pea protein. The Pumpkin Spice Cold Brew Concentrate includes arabica coffee with pumpkin, cinnamon, and nutmeg flavours. Both products will be available in US supermarkets.

Sign up to our weekly coffee news recap to get a summary of all the biggest stories in the sector, delivered straight to your inbox every Monday.

Want to keep up with current affairs in the coffee industry? Check out last week’s stories.

Photo credits: Fernando Pocasangre

The post Coffee News Recap, 13 Aug: Arabica prices projected to rise 13% by end of 2021, BOP 2021 announces winners & other stories appeared first on Perfect Daily Grind.

Coffee News Recap, 13 Aug: Arabica prices projected to rise 13% by end of 2021, BOP 2021 announces winners & other stories published first on https://espressoexpertweb.weebly.com/

[opticien2-0]

Made looks to raise £100m through stockmarket flotation for international expansion

Made.com showcases its designs in locations from dedicated showrooms to its customers' homes. Image courtesy of Made

Made today said it would expect to raise about £100m to expand beyond its existing International markets if it goes ahead with a potential stockmarket flotation. At the same time it plans to invest in shorter lead times for deliveries while boosting awareness of its brand.

  Currently, Made – which describes itself as the only pureplay digital native furniture and homewares brand operating at scale – makes 52% of its sales in the UK, and 48% in seven markets in continental Europe, led by France and Germany. In 2020 it reported losses before tax, interest and one-off costs (adjusted EBITDA) of £5.1m on gross sales of £315m.

  In the three months to March 2021, it made adjusted EBITDA of £1.8m on gross sales of £109.5m. Its ambition is to reach £1.2bn in turnover by the end of 2025. Half of sales in the UK came from repeat orders in the first quarter of this year.

Made now says it plans to follow the International journey taken by digitally native fashion businesses by starting to ship to new international markets. It will work with international shipping providers while using its existing European logistics infrastructure.

  Made also aims to become the ‘go-to destination’ for design-led homewares, and says it will continue to invest in operations with the emphasis on reducing lead times for delivery to customers. As of 2020, it has 1.1m active customers and says its products resonate strongly with younger shoppers who prioritise design, sustainability and are used to buying via digital – and will soon reach the prime age for home shopping.

  Philippe Chainieux, chief executive of Made, says: “Made.com has been revolutionising the home and living sector for the last eleven years. Founded in the UK, it is now the leading digitally native lifestyle brand in a sector that is shifting steadily online. The business is powered by a technology platform that connects independent designers and makers, allowing us to develop our exclusive product offering.

  “The business is fast growing and we have demonstrated the capacity of our brand and customer proposition to travel well. Around half of our sales are outside of the UK and we are aiming to be the leading home destination in Europe for the digital native."

  Made, founded in 2010 with an ambition to connect furniture designers directly with customers, is ranked Top350 in RXUK Top500 research and sells online and via seven showrooms, with flagship branches in London and Paris. It currently works with more than 150 designers, artists and collaborators produce designs, with an average of nine new collections launched each week.

  Made has previously said that the Covid-19 pandemic brought homewares customers online in months – rather than the predicted four to five years, with Black Friday 2020 the busiest day in its history. Demand for home working furniture rose at the same time. In December it marked £1bn in sales since launch by giving its 650 staff a stake in the business, with share options to be shared equally - outside senior management - over the coming three years.

[newstfionline]

Brexit Plans Raise Fears of Food Shortages and Jammed Ports

By Stephen Castle, NY Times, July 30, 2018

LONDON--Trucks parked along freeways or stuck in gridlocked ports. Food disappearing from supermarket shelves and stocks of medicines under strain. The military on standby, ready to step in to avert crisis.

For a British public that has often tuned out from the mind-numbing complexities of Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union, recent government statements, amplified by raucous newspaper headlines, have finally become comprehensible--and alarming.

For days, talk has swirled about government preparations for a disruptive departure from the European Union without any agreement--a scenario that could mean new border checks, log-jammed ports, marooned trucks, and food, drugs and other essential supplies drying up.

The speculation was prompted by a government promise to prepare for all eventualities, including the extreme one of a “no deal” departure from the European Union, or Brexit. But even before the first of around 70 official “no deal” warning documents for businesses and consumers was published, they had--through the filter of the British news media--started to sound ominously reminiscent of rationing and other preparations during World War II.

On Monday, the government insisted that it had “no plans” to involve the army and was backpedaling over the timing of the 70 warning notices. They were originally scheduled to appear regularly throughout the summer, something that would have generated maximum publicity. Now, the documents are expected in August and early September, probably in two batches.

Already, however, efforts to prepare for the possibility of a “no-deal” Brexit have backfired by drawing attention to the extreme consequences Britain might face, and to the fact that it might not be able to do much to mitigate them.

And they have angered the very people they were meant to please: hard-line supporters of Brexit who had been pressing the government to make “no deal” preparations so the country could threaten to walk away from negotiations with the European Union.

“It has not been a tremendous success, and I don’t know what the hell the thinking is,” said Anand Menon, a professor of European politics and foreign affairs at King’s College London.

“This started off as a way to placate the Brexiteers,” he said, “and then it turned into something that the Brexiteers hate because the contingency planning sounds so awful.”

Now, with opinion surveys suggesting that worries about chaos are rippling through to the public, Brexit supporters have renewed their denunciations of “project fear”--a term they used successfully in the 2016 Brexit referendum campaign.

They have only themselves to blame. For months they urged the government to prepare for a no-deal scenario to strengthen its negotiating position with the European Union, and Prime Minister Theresa May ultimately relented.

Things started to look shaky when the new Brexit secretary, Dominic Raab, a leading proponent of withdrawal, held a meeting with business leaders. He was reportedly told by Doug Gurr, a senior executive at Amazon, that there could be “civil unrest” within two weeks if Britain quit the bloc with no deal.

Last week Mr. Raab said he would ensure “adequate food supplies” in the event of a “no deal” Brexit, but suggested that this would be the responsibility of the food industry as it would “be wrong to describe it as the government doing the stockpiling.”

If he expected retailers and suppliers to begin quietly stocking up on essential goods, he seems not to have spoken first to key figures.

“Stockpiling of food is not a practical response to a no-deal on Brexit and industry has not been approached by Government to begin planning for this,” the British Retail Consortium, which represents many retail firms, said in a curt statement.

“Retailers do not have the facilities to house stockpiled goods and in the case of fresh produce, it is simply not possible to do so,” it added.

Others complained that the government looked incompetent and naïve. “The idea of stockpiling and storage is a red herring,” said Shane Brennan, the chief executive of the Food Storage and Distribution Federation, a trade lobby group.

“Food supply systems don’t work like that,” he added. “Food is kept moving. It’s out of the ground and to the point of sale as quickly as possible. The idea of stockpiling it suggests a lack of understanding about how things work.”

Britain is vulnerable because it sources 30 percent of its food from the European Union plus a further 11 percent through trade deals negotiated by the bloc, according to Feeding Britain: Food Security After Brexit, a report by the Center for Food Policy.

Contracts for food supplies are typically set 12 months ahead, with food arriving via a complex logistics system that runs on a just-in-time basis and often provides three to five days’ supply, it said.

The port of Dover, through which thousands of trucks pass every day, has warned that just a two-minute delay in processing time could lead to traffic lines of 17 miles.

“If there are delays due to added inspections, you have all the Armageddon that goes with that,” said Nigel Jenney, the chief executive of the Fresh Produce Consortium, a group that represents companies in that part of the food sector. “These things are highly perishable, and they can’t sit there for days.”

In theory, both the European Union and Britain have an interest in keeping trade flowing.

The British government has negotiated a standstill transition period, during which trading ties would remain the same, from the departure date in March next year until December 2020. The catch is that this is conditional on a withdrawal agreement that still has to be finalized.

Robert Hardy, the commercial director of Oakland International, a logistics and distribution specialist, dismissed some of the more dire scenarios and argued that the British authorities would waive the need for trucks to be stopped at key ports like Dover.

Customs formalities could be performed later in the process, something permitted under existing rules, Mr. Hardy said.

“For imports I don’t see any major changes,” he said.

That said, he acknowledged that there could be big problems for exporters if--as is likely--officials in France were to impose new checks. Others point out that trucks delivering supplies to Britain would have difficulties getting home, thereby disrupting the supply chain and affecting imports.

Ian Wright, the director general of the Food and Drink Federation, which represents food and nonalcoholic drinks manufacturers, said the group was investigating strategies to limit the impact of a no-deal Brexit.

But the scope for stockpiling is limited by the cost, the availability of storage space and by the fact that fresh food spoils quickly.