Day: June 19, 2024

The Business Roundtable is an association of more than 200 CEOs of America’s biggest corporations, their most powerful voice in Washington.;

Last Wednesday, its chair, Joshua Bolten, told reporters that his group planned to drop “eight figures” while “putting its full weight behind protecting and strengthening tax reform.”

Translated: It’s going to pour money into Trump’s campaign to ensure that Trump’s 2017 tax cuts — most of which benefit big corporations and the rich — don’t expire in 2025, as scheduled.;

On Thursday, Trump met at the Business Roundtable’s Washington headquarters with over 80 CEOs, including Apple’s Tim Cook, JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon, and Walmart’s Doug McMillon.

Trump;reportedly;promised the CEOs he’d cut corporate taxes even further and curtail business regulations if elected president.

Trump’s 2017 tax cuts reduced the rate of corporate income taxes from 35 percent to 21 percent. That has cost the nation;$1.3 trillion. Those tax cuts, along with the tax cuts put in place by George W. Bush, are the;primary reason;the national debt is rising as a percentage of the economy.

What have corporations done with the money they’ve saved? They haven’t invested it or used it to raise wages. Nothing has trickled down to average workers.

A large portion has gone into stock buybacks. The year after the tax cut went into effect, corporations bought back a record;$1 trillion;of their shares of stock. Buybacks raise stock prices — and, not incidentally, CEO compensation, which is largely in shares of stock.;

Making Trump’s 2017 tax cuts permanent — as the Business Roundtable seeks — will cost;$4 trillion;over the next 10 years, $400 billion per year — and cause the debt to soar.

Yet the CEOs that Trump met with last week have been thriving under;Biden.

Corporate profits are way up. Stocks are at near-record levels. Inflation has plummeted. Industries like energy that appeared to be at risk from Biden’s policies are doing well.

So why are these CEOs attracted to Trump, whose antics are likely to destabilize the economy?

Is it mere ideology?

Kathy Wylde, president and CEO of the Partnership for New York City (a nonprofit that represents the city’s top business leaders);relates;that Republican billionaires have told her “the threat to capitalism from the Democrats is more concerning than the threat to democracy from Trump.”

In my experience, CEOs of large corporations are more practical than ideological. They’re coming around to Trump because they want even more tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks — which means even more money in their own pockets.

**

The Business Roundtable’s motto — “More than Leaders. Leadership” — suggests a purpose higher than making its CEOs and corporations richer.

In August 2019, the Roundtable issued a highly publicized statement expressing “a fundamental commitment to;all;of our stakeholders [emphasis in original],” including a commitment to compensating all workers “fairly and providing important benefits,” as well as “supporting the communities in which we work,” and protecting the environment “by embracing sustainable practices across our businesses.”

Signed by 181 CEOs of major American corporations, the statement concluded that “each of our stakeholders is essential” and committed “to deliver value to all of them.”

The statement got a lot of favorable press. But it was rubbish. At the time, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were gaining traction in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries with their criticisms of corporate America, and the CEOs of the Roundtable were worried. They needed cover.

Then, after the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, many of these CEOs announced they wouldn’t provide campaign funds to Republican members of Congress who refused to certify the 2020 election.

Now, they’re lining up to fund Trump, because they and their corporations want another giant tax cut and rollbacks of regulations.

If the Business Roundtable’s CEOs were honestly committed to all their stakeholders, they wouldn’t seek massive tax cuts.

If they cared about preserving American democracy, they wouldn’t support Trump or any Republican.

The greedy cynicism of America’s corporate elite is now on full display.

• This article was published at Robert Reich’s Substack

The poignant lead of Dawn’s June 17 editorial calling on Muslims wrapping up Haj rituals and celebrating Eid ul Zuha as well as “all people of conscience” to “remember the brutalised inhabitants of Palestine in these times of festivity”;is heartrending and compels one to introspect.;

The fact that anyone and everyone who matters in Pakistan has been expressing unconditional solidarity with the people of Gaza and newspapers have been continuously highlighting the piteous condition of Gaza’s unfortunate inhabitants upon whom a bloody war has been thrust is indeed praiseworthy. However, this impassioned display of concern and solidarity has one glaring drawback- it’s extremely selective and the stoic silence of Pakistani;;leaders,;media,;the clergy and civil society members on the plight of brutalised Muslims living elsewhere is deafening!

There is no outrage against the patently blasphemous so-called ‘sinicisation’ of Islam in China and Beijing’s institutionalised religious persecution of Xinjiang’s Uyghur Muslims. Apologists could cite lack of credible information for this omission. However, the truth is that despite being aware of the atrocities being committed on indigenous Muslims of Xinjiang, Islamabad [which tires to project itself as a messiah of downtrodden Muslims the world over], is so dependent on Beijing that it is scared to stand up for securing the religious rights of Uyghur Muslims.

Pakistan waxes eloquent on implicit adherence to Islamic principles and extols the virtues of the ummah, an Islamic concept that binds the whole community of Muslims worldwide together by ties of religion. So, it’s really shocking when not a tear is shed, nor a word of sympathy expressed for the brutalised people of Balochistan and Sindh who have been forced to protest against the enforced disappearance of their near and dear ones on a day when they should have been celebrating Eid. That Pakistani media chose to completely black-out this news is, to;say the least, deplorable.;

Nevertheless, it would be incorrect to say that no one in Pakistan cares for the marginalised people of Balochistan and Sindh provinces. However, since highlighting their plight would invariably expose the gross wrongdoings and illegal actions of the perpetrators [which is the Pakistan army and its intelligence agency Inter Services Intelligence or ISI], the media, organisations, groups and individuals tend to avoid running the risk of antagonising the ‘establishment’ by writing or speaking on the issue of enforced disappearances and thereby inviting its menacing wrath!

As they say, “discretion is the better part of valour”!

In Balochistan, the Eid day protest against enforced disappearances was held by Voice for Baloch Missing Persons [VBMP], a Quetta based non-governmental organisation formed in 2009 that represents family members of thousands of people who have been subjected to enforced disappearance in Pakistan’s Balochistan province. This NGO has been pressing for a political solution to end the ongoing insurgency in Balochistan rather than using brute military force, but hasn’t met with any success.

VBMP co-founder Mama Qadir Baloch in a touching video statement on the Eid day protest said, “For the past 15 years, the atrocities committed by the Army and intelligence agencies of Pakistan;have led the Baloch [people] to boycott Eid;celebrations. While Muslims across the world celebrate this occasion, the Baloch [people] mourn.“ [Emphasis added]. So, while the war ravaged Muslims in Gaza definitely deserve sympathy, don’t the Baloch people [who too are Muslims] too merit compassionate dealing?

Mama Qadir isn’t an opportunist. He is a well-grounded person whose words come straight from his heart since he knows exactly what families of those subjected to enforced disappearances go through since he has himself experienced this agony. His own son was forcibly abducted in broad daylight by intelligence operatives in February 2009, and remained missing for two years and nine months. Qadir also knows what a father feels when the bullet riddled dead body of his son bearing signs of severe torture is found dumped by the roadside.;

Similarly, in Sindh province too, Missing Persons Families, Voice for Missing Persons of Sindh, Sindh Sabha and national workers of Sindudesh Movement organised protests on Eid day against enforced disappearances orchestrated by the Pakistan army and other intelligence and law enforcement agencies. However, despite the fact that this was for the second consecutive year that such a protest was organised coinciding with Eid celebrations, this event too went mostly unreported.

Pakistan has been unable to arrest the despicable trend of enforced disappearances since these occur on explicit orders of the army which being law unto itself is answerable to no one. And a two star Pakistan army General’s candid public admission that “We don’t want any person to go missing but where there is a war, you have to do a number of [undesirable] things. It is said that everything is fair in love and war. War occurs to be ruthless” [Emphasis added] provides irrefutable proof of Rawalpindi’s complicity in enforced disappearances.

So, while reading Pakistan army’s media wing Inter Services Public Relations [ISPR] recent statement that Pakistan army Gen Syed Asim Munir “condemned India’s ongoing oppression and brutalities against Kashmiris,”one is tempted to;;ask him to set his own house in order by putting an end to enforced disappearances rather than shedding crocodile tears on imaginary oppression of Kashmiris.;

As the wise have said, “charity begins at home!”

Tailpiece: Asian Human Rights Commission [AHRC] August 29, 2014 statement [Document ID ARHC-STM-167-2014] issued;to mark the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances reads, “The government [of Pakistan] as well as the judiciary has today fully realized the prevalence of enforced disappearances – being perpetrated by the military and the intelligence services; that these agencies of the government are abducting hundreds, if not thousands of people from different parts of the country make them disappear, in particular from Balochistan where it is done in staggering numbers.” [Emphasis added].

To remedy this sorry state of affairs AHRC had urged “both the parliament and the judiciary of Pakistan to take charge of the defence forces and make them answerable to the people of Pakistan.” Unfortunately, even though ten years have since elapsed, the menace of enforced disappearances in Pakistan persists, because with Rawalpindi manipulating both the parliament and judiciary expecting them “take charge of the defence forces,” and making Rawalpindi;“answerable;to the people of Pakistan” is nothing but a perverse joke!

May God give people of Pakistan to accept things they cannot change!

The evolving relationship between Iran and the Taliban holds significant implications for the Afghan peace process, influencing the regional dynamics and shaping the future stability of Afghanistan. Historically, Iran and the Taliban have been adversaries due to their deep-seated ideological and sectarian differences. The Sunni Taliban and the Shia-dominated Iranian regime clashed vehemently during the Taliban’s rule in Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001, with tensions peaking after the killing of nine Iranian diplomats in Mazar-i-Sharif in 1998. However, recent geopolitical shifts and pragmatic considerations have led to a thaw in their relations, presenting both challenges and opportunities for the peace process in Afghanistan.

Iran’s strategic interests in Afghanistan are multifaceted, driven by security, political, and economic concerns. Sharing a long border with Afghanistan, Iran is directly affected by its neighbor’s stability. The spillover effects of Afghan instability, including drug trafficking, refugee flows, and cross-border militancy, pose direct threats to Iran. To mitigate these threats, Iran has increasingly engaged with various Afghan factions, including the Taliban, to influence outcomes in Afghanistan in its favor. This pragmatic approach marks a significant shift from its previous outright hostility towards the Taliban.

Over the past decade, the relationship between Iran and the Taliban has evolved, influenced by the withdrawal of U.S. forces and the changing geopolitical landscape. Iran has provided sanctuary, financial support, and military training to Taliban factions, viewing them as a counterbalance to the U.S. presence in the region and a tool to exert influence in Afghanistan. This support was part of a broader strategy to ensure that post-U.S. Afghanistan would not become a hub for anti-Iranian activities and to maintain leverage over the political landscape in Kabul.

Iran’s engagement with the Taliban also stems from its desire to counter the influence of other regional players, particularly Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Both these countries have historically supported the Taliban, and Iran seeks to ensure that its own interests are not sidelined in a Taliban-dominated Afghanistan. By cultivating ties with the Taliban, Iran aims to secure its economic interests, including trade routes and resource access, and to protect the Shia Hazara community in Afghanistan from potential persecution by Sunni extremist groups.

The impact of the Iran-Taliban relationship on the Afghan peace process is complex and multifaceted. On one hand, Iran’s influence over the Taliban can be leveraged to push the group towards negotiations and compromise. Iran has expressed support for an inclusive political settlement in Afghanistan that accommodates all ethnic and political factions. By encouraging the Taliban to engage in dialogue and participate in a broad-based government, Iran can play a constructive role in fostering stability in Afghanistan.

However, the Iran-Taliban relationship also poses significant challenges to the peace process. Iran’s support for the Taliban could embolden the group and enable it to adopt a more intransigent stance in negotiations, complicating efforts to reach a political settlement. The Taliban’s enhanced military capabilities, bolstered by Iranian support, could lead to increased violence and instability, undermining the peace process. Additionally, Iran’s involvement in Afghanistan’s internal affairs could provoke backlash from other regional and international actors, further complicating the geopolitical landscape.

Iran’s role in the Afghan peace process is further complicated by its relations with other key stakeholders, including the Afghan government, the United States, and regional powers such as China, Russia, and India. Iran has maintained a cautious and balanced approach, engaging with the Afghan government while also building ties with the Taliban. This dual strategy aims to ensure that Iran retains influence regardless of the outcome of the peace process. However, this approach also risks alienating both the Afghan government and other international actors, who may view Iran’s support for the Taliban with suspicion.

The United States’ withdrawal from Afghanistan has created a power vacuum that regional actors, including Iran, are eager to fill. Iran’s involvement in the Afghan peace process reflects its broader regional strategy to counter U.S. influence and assert its own geopolitical ambitions. The U.S. has been critical of Iran’s support for the Taliban, viewing it as a destabilizing factor. However, any sustainable peace in Afghanistan will likely require the involvement and cooperation of all regional stakeholders, including Iran. Engaging Iran constructively in the peace process could help mitigate its support for the Taliban and align its interests with broader international efforts to stabilize Afghanistan.

The future of the Iran-Taliban relationship and its impact on the Afghan peace process will depend on several factors, including the evolving dynamics within Afghanistan, the regional geopolitical environment, and the policies of key international actors. Iran’s ability to influence the Taliban and shape outcomes in Afghanistan will hinge on its capacity to balance its strategic interests with the need for stability and peace. Similarly, the Taliban’s willingness to engage in genuine dialogue and compromise will be crucial for the success of the peace process.

In conclusion, the Iran-Taliban relationship presents both opportunities and challenges for the Afghan peace process. Iran’s engagement with the Taliban reflects its pragmatic approach to securing its strategic interests in a volatile region. While Iran’s influence over the Taliban could potentially be leveraged to encourage dialogue and foster stability, it also risks emboldening the group and complicating efforts to achieve a political settlement. A nuanced and inclusive approach that involves all regional stakeholders, including Iran, will be essential for advancing the Afghan peace process and achieving long-term stability in Afghanistan. The interplay between regional dynamics and international diplomacy will be crucial in shaping the future of Afghanistan and the broader geopolitical landscape.