From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sun Feb 1 04:14:50 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 20:14:50 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Toronto stood up to bottled water industry Message-ID: <4985842A.1000800@ashisuto.co.jp> by Tony Clarke TheStar.com (December 11 2008) Toronto's decision last week to ban the sale and distribution of bottled water on city premises was a watershed moment for water justice advocates the world over. What was truly significant about Toronto's action was not that it banned an environmentally destructive product, but that it included a commitment to ensuring access to tap water in all city facilities. Toronto is now the largest city in the world to pass such far-reaching regulations controlling the distribution of bottled water on municipal property and promoting the use of publicly delivered tap water. Other Canadian and American municipalities have enacted policies encouraging the consumption of tap water and limiting the distribution of bottled water using taxpayer money, but none as large as Toronto has taken such a comprehensive approach. Toronto's action is in many ways the result of a diverse North American public campaign that has successfully raised awareness about bottled water as an unnecessary and wasteful product when the majority of people in Canada and the United States have access to clean drinking water from the tap. In Canada, this campaign gained significant exposure in early 2005 when the Polaris Institute published Inside the Bottle: an Expos? of the Bottled Water Industry, which provided an overview of the ten key problems with bottled water. Over the nearly four years since, a popular movement to challenge the bottled water industry has emerged at an astonishing pace - as schools and universities, restaurants, hospitals, faith-based organizations, unions and municipalities have decided to turn on the tap and kick out the bottle. As is often the case, Toronto's initiative had its own elected champions steering it forward. City Councillor Glen De Baeremaeker and Mayor David Miller had the progressive vision to include bottled water in their goal of keeping unnecessary packaging out of city landfills. Their efforts were coupled with a concerted grassroots push by Ontario-based activists, public interest organizations, community and student groups, labour unions and environmental networks. In the days leading up to the Toronto vote, city councillors faced a barrage of lobbying from the bottled water industry. These frantic attempts to defeat the resolution continued over the two days of debates when the industry brought a battery of lobbyists, corporate executives and industry associations into the council chamber to influence the vote. Representatives from the Canadian Bottled Water Association, Refreshments Canada and Nestl? Waters, along with their hired lobbyists from the Sussex Strategy Group and Argyle Communications, intensively lobbied councillors during the entire six-hour debate. However, their high-priced strategy ultimately failed to influence elected officials, who voted with a two-thirds majority to ban bottled water and reinvest in the public delivery of drinking water. For many, Toronto has now become the champion of the "Back to the Tap" municipal movement in Canada. To date, this movement has already seen seventeen municipalities from five provinces ban the bottle. With 45 others indicating an interest to follow suit, Toronto's leadership will no doubt inspire more municipalities to stand up and speak out in support of public water. To further enable this municipal movement, Toronto City Council also passed a motion to circulate its resolutions and amended staff report to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Regional Public Works Commissioners of Ontario. Increasingly across Canada, municipal leaders are showing that there is a strong political will for reinvestments in public water services. However, access to municipal drinking water is dwindling with new buildings constructed without water fountains and older ones decommissioning existing fountains. Now is the time to issue strong calls to all levels of government for greater public access to free potable water and a wholesale reinvestment in water infrastructure and services It's becoming clear that the recent love affair with bottled water has reached its limits. Bottled water's fifteen minutes are up, the marketing scam is out of the closet and the tap is back. The simple fact is that there is no "green" solution to bottled water. While it might serve a function during natural disasters or other contingencies, it is no alternative to the tap. Toronto has made the right choice to support public water infrastructure and to increase city residents' access to clean, convenient and environmentally sound drinking water - the only question now is which municipality or province will be next. _____ Tony Clarke is the executive director of the Polaris Institute in Ottawa and author of the book, Inside the Bottle. www.insidethebottle.org http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/551909 TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From realiteee1 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 1 07:35:05 2009 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 06:35:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Sign-on letter to stop $50B in nuclear pork In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <968959.30472.qm@web111509.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Nuclear Information and Resource Service? LET'S STOP THE NUCLEAR PORK IN THE STIMULUS PACKAGE! January 30, 2009 Dear Friend, As you probably know by now, the economic stimulus package approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee includes up to $50 Billion in new taxpayer loan guarantees that can be used for construction of new nuclear reactors and "clean coal" plants (an oxymoron if there ever was one...). We need to tell the Senate that we're not willing to risk our money on nuclear power, that we don't want more radioactive waste in our communities, and that we do want Congress to support safer, cleaner and cheaper energy resources like solar, wind and energy efficiency. WITH YOUR HELP, WE CAN WIN THIS BATTLE! Organizations: Please sign on to the grassroots sign-on letter by clicking here. Please sign by 5 pm on Tuesday, February 4, 2009. http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5502/t/4100/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=232 Individuals: While the sign-on letter is for organizations only, if you have not already done so, please e-mail your Senators by clicking here. http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5502/t/4100/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=993 Ask your friends and colleagues to send a letter as well. And please follow up your e-mails with phone calls to your Senators at 202-224-3121. Everyone: Please forward this e-mail widely--send to all your lists and contacts. We've already generated more than 2200 letters to the Senate in the past 24 hours! Let's keep it up! We will keep you informed about what happens with this issue and any further actions you can take. Thanks for all you do, Michael Mariotte Executive Director Nuclear Information and Resource Service www.nirs.org, nirsnet at nirs.org ------------------------------------------------------------ And please make a small donation to help us pay for this work. Every contribution is tax-deductible, and every contribution, no matter the size, is gratefully appreciated. Please donate here. From realiteee1 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 1 07:41:30 2009 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 06:41:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] SOA 6 Sentenced: Jail / Nonviolent Act to Close SOA/WHINSEC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <655161.81971.qm@web111505.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> "SOA 6" Sentenced to Prison for Nonviolent Direct Action to Close the SOA/ WHINSEC North and South, the People Say, Close the SOA! Donate http://www.soaw.org/site/article.php?id=129 ? "SOA 6" Sentenced to Federal Prison for Nonviolent Direct Action to Close the SOA/ WHINSEC Today, on January 26, six human rights advocates appeared in a federal courthouse in Georgia. The "SOA 6," ranging in age from 21 to 68, were found "guilty" of carrying the protest against the School of the Americas (SOA/WHINSEC) onto the Fort Benning military base. The six were among the thousands who gathered on November 22 and 23, 2008 outside the gates of Fort Benning, Georgia to demand a change in U.S. policy towards Latin America and the closure of the SOA/WHINSEC. The "SOA 6" spoke out clearly and powerful in court today. They made a compelling case for the closure of the school and creation of a culture of justice and peace, where there is no place for the SOA mindset that promotes military "solutions" to social and economic problems. The six spent the weekend preparing for their trials with a team of lawyers, legal workers and volunteers, and today they stood up for all of us working for a more just world. The "SOA 6": Father Luis Barrios, 56, from North Bergen, NJ, was sentenced to 2 months in federal prison and a $250 fine Theresa Cusimano, 40, Denver, Colorado, found guilty and awaiting sentencing Kristin Holm, from Chicago, Illinois, was sentenced to 2 months in federal prison and a $250 fine Sr. Diane Pinchot, OSU, 63, from Cleveland, Ohio, was sentenced to 2 months in federal prison Al Simmons, 64, from Richmond, Virginia, was sentenced to 2 months in federal prison Louis Wolf, 68, from Washington, DC, found guilty and awaiting sentencing Support the "SOA 6" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fr. Luis Barrios Father Luis Barrios is the Chairperson of the Department of Latin American & Latina/o Studies at John Jay College of Criminal Justice-City University of New York and a Board Certified Forensic Examiner with the American College of Forensic Examiners. He is also an Associate Priest at St. Mary's Episcopal Church, Manhattan, New York City. Fr. Barrios, as well is a Board Member of Interreligious Foundation for Community Organizing-Pastor for Peace. Professor Barrios is a columnist with El Diario La Prensa and has been honored with the Media Award-2006-GLAAD as an Outstanding Spanish Language Newspaper Columnist and was nominated again in the year 2008. He teaches courses on gangs, criminal justice, cultural criminology, forensic psychology, US foreign policy in Latin America, Puerto Rican Studies, race and ethnicity, and Latina/os Studies. Click here to read Fr. Luis Barrios' trial statement -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Theresa Cusimano Theresa M. Cusimano, J.D., served as a public interest advocate for twenty years. Her Italian/Irish passion for social justice has led her to work with: the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops on immigration and refugee issues, the federal Department of Education on the Americans with Disabilities Act and more recently with Colorado Campus Compact to support college campus engagement in community problem solving. Cusimano was born in New York, raised outside of Philadelphia and has the joy of living in the Rocky Mountain state of Colorado. She is both honored and extremely humbled to have participated in nonviolent civil disobedience with her five co-defendants who together, face trial on Monday, January 26th. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kristin Holm On November 23rd, 2008, Kristin Holm, a first year student at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago (LSTC), along with five others, entered the base of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation's (WHINSEC). Kristin is the third seminary student from Chicago to stand trial for civil disobedience at the WHINSEC vigil in the past five years. The others are Elizabeth Deligio, CTU, 2005; and Le Anne Clausen, CTS, 2008. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sister Diane Therese Pinchot, OSF Born and raised in Cleveland Ohio, second oldest of six children, Diane Pinchot entered the Ursuline Sisters of Cleveland after graduating from Villa Angela High School in 1963. She graduated from Ursuline College with a BA in Art Education in 1968 and has been teaching since. Her assignments have included Saint Ann's School in Cleveland Heights, Lake Catholic High School in Mentor, Beaumont School in Cleveland Heights and, for the last 26 years, Ursuline College in Pepper Pike. After completing several degrees -- an MALS at Wesleyan University in Conn. concentrating in metals and a terminal degree an MFA in Ceramic Sculpture in 1990 at Ohio University -- the Diocesan Cleveland Mission Team in El Salvador in 1992 asked her to come and help design and build an altar on the spot where the Churchwomen were found in a shallow grave after they were raped and killed. This significant action slowly changed Diane's life and over time the Central American martyrs, especially Dorothy Kazel, a member of the Ursuline community, inspired her to become more active in social justice groups within the community and other national organizations. Her artwork has also reflected this transformation, becoming more narrative and engaging the viewer to question the meaning behind the form. She has exhibited her work internationally, nationally and regionally and has come to realize the sacred connection of justice and art making especially when it is grounded in Peace and Love. Click here to read Sister Diane Therese Pinchot's trial statement. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Al Simmons I' m a 64 year old pre-school teacher who retired last year. I was a teacher and director in pre-school programs in Richmond, VA. I have been married for 32 years to Marcia Deckinson. We enjoy birding, camping, scrabble, reading, silliness and each other. I'm a Vietnam Veteran from 1968 and it was then that'd realized there had to be a better way. The past forthy years I've been involved in peace, social and economic justice, gay rights, woman's rights and death penalty issues. As I had said often to my four year olds in pre-school "Don't hurt- use words". I have been saying that, in various ways, to my government for many years. Read Al Simmons' bio information -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Louis Wolf Born October 31, 1940 in Dresher, Pennsylvania (then some 30 miles outside of Philadelphia), and grew up on a farm there. Attended Goddard College in Vermont (1958-63), graduated BA in 1963. Spent one year (1961) in Denmark in work-study program. Job Training Officer (1964) with Flanner House, Indianapolis. Alternative service as a conscientious objector to military service in Laos (1964-67) building wells, water-seal latrines, and a school. Did postgraduate studies (1967-72) at the University of the Philippines, College of Agriculture. Freelance correspondent in the Philippines.(1969-72) with Dispatch News Service International and American Report. Freelance writer and researcher in London (1972-77) with Transnational Research Associates International. Co-founder and research director (1978-2005) of CovertAction Information Bulletin renamed CovertAction Quarterly, Washington, DC. Staff member (2007-present), Rock Creek Free Press, Bethesda, MD. Co-editor of two books, "Dirty Work: The CIA in Western Europe" (1978) and "Dirty Work II: The CIA in Africa" (1980). Have traveled throughout the Third World. Read Luis trial statement ?Converge on Washington, DC in February 2009 Make Your Voice Heard: Ensure True Change in Latin America Policy Join grassroots activists and organizers for a series of events calling for a new Latin America policy and opposing militarization. SOA Watch is working with other Latin America Solidarity and social justice groups on a series of events from February 15-17, 2009 to push the U.S. Congress and the White House to close the School of the Americas and to bring real change to U.S. Latin America policy. Schedule of Events Saturday, February 14 7pm Meet and Greet at the SOA Watch office Sunday, February 15 9am - 4:30pm SOA Watch Encuentro / Strategy Meeting dinner break 4:30pm - 6:00pm 6:00pm - 9:00pm Anti-Militarization Program organized in cooperation with the Latin America Solidarity Coalition (LASC) and the North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA) Monday, February 16 9:00am - 11:00am Grassroots Lobby Training 1:00pm - 4:00pm Arts and Action Workshop Lobby Visits and Street Theater on Capitol Hill Tuesday, February 17 Lobbying on Capitol Hill Click Here to Register for the February 15-17 Events -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Winter/ Spring 2009 Issue of ?Presente! Out Now: ? We appreciate your interest! Contact us. Our mailing address is: SOA Watch, PO Box 4566, Washington, D.C. 20017, USA Our telephone: (202) 234 3440 Donate to Support the Campaign to Shut Down the SOA/WHINSEC? From realiteee1 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 1 07:42:42 2009 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 06:42:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Sign Urgent Online Petition: Hands Off Peltier! Release Him! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <983366.17228.qm@web111516.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Sign Urgent Online Petition: Hands Off Leonard Peltier! Release Him Now! Leonard Peltier Petition Let President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, the Federal Prison system, Congress and the media know you HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE SAFETY AND WELLBEING OF LEONARD PELTIER, and you WANT HIM RELEASED! Internationally known Native American political prisoner Leonard Peltier has been victimized and brutalized since being transferred to U.S. Penitentiary Canaan in Pennsylvania on January 14.? Shortly after arrival he was jumped and brutally beaten by gang members, none of whom he knew. He was subsequently put in solitary confinement in the hole and on restricted meals, endangering his diabetic condition, and is being allowed only one telephone call per month. He is being prevented from meeting face-to-face with his lawyers. Please submit the Hands Off Leonard Peltier - Release Him Now! ONLINE PETITION at http://www.iacenter.org/native/leonardpeltierpetition to let President Obama, Attorney General Holden, the Federal Prison System, the warden at Canaan penitentiary, congressional leaders and the media know YOU WILL HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR LEONARD'S SAFETY AND WELL-BEING and you demand his release. The text of the online petition is as follows: To: President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, U.S. Penitentiary-Canaan Warden Ronnie R. Holt, Federal Bureau of Prisons Northeast Regional Director D. Scott Dodrill, U.S. Prisons Director Harley G. Lappin cc: The Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Leaders, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the American Civil Liberties Union and members of the national media SAFETY, HUMANE TREATMENT AND RELEASE FOR LEONARD PELTIER NOW! It has come to my attention that internationally known Native American political prisoner Leonard Peltier, prisoner #89637-132, has been victimized and brutalized since being transferred to U.S. Penitentiary Canaan in Pennsylvania on January 14. Shortly after arrival he was jumped and brutally beaten by gang members, none of whom he knew. He was subsequently put in solitary confinement in the hole and on restricted meals, endangering his diabetic condition, and is being allowed only one telephone call per month. He is being prevented from meeting face-to-face with his lawyers. I hold the warden and the prison system responsible for Leonard Peltier's safety, wellbeing and humane treatment. Leonard Peltier is an internationally known Indigenous activist and has become a global symbol of US injustice and prison abuse. Imprisoned in the late 1970s for allegedly murdering two FBI agents, Peltier has never been given a fair trial. Federal authorities have quashed or destroyed thousands of pages of evidence that might have freed Peltier decades ago. The Leonard Peltier Defense Offense Committee points out that "Amnesty International considers Leonard Peltier to be a political prisoner whose avenues of redress have long been exhausted....Amnesty International recognizes that a retrial is no longer a feasible option and believes that Leonard Peltier should be immediately and unconditionally released." The LPDOC adds that "Documents show that although the prosecution and government pointed the finger at Peltier for shooting FBI agents at close range during the trial in 1976, for three years the prosecution withheld critical ballistic test results proving that the fatal bullets could not have come from the gun tied to Leonard Peltier. This trial also denied evidence of self defense." The LPDOC further notes that "The U.S. Prosecutor, during subsequent oral arguments, stated: 'We can't prove who shot those agents' and the Eighth Circuit found that "There is a possibility that the jury would have acquitted Leonard Peltier had the records and data improperly withheld from the defense been available to him in order to better exploit and reinforce the inconsistencies casting strong doubts upon the government's case." Judge Heaney who authored the denial, now supports Mr. Peltier's release, stating that the FBI used improper tactics to gain Mr. Peltier's conviction. Now 64 years old, Peltier is suffering from diabetes and a series of other serious ailments brought on by his decades in prison. He has great- grandchildren he has never seen. The gross miscarriage of justice in the case of Leonard Peltier has gone on long enough. He should be released immediately. Since he is a member of a sovereign Native nation, I ask that President Obama work "nation to nation" with the Turtle Mountain Chippewa to bring Peltier home to North Dakota. Furthermore, Peltier has been a model prisoner for decades. He is long overdue for parole, but the FBI is improperly intervening to prevent his release. At a time when the government is seeking to restore its international reputation by moving to close down the prison at Guantanamo, Leonard Peltier has been languishing unjustly in the U.S. prison system for decades longer than the Guantanamo prison has existed. Release Leonard Peltier now! Sincerely, (Your signature will be appended here based on the contact information you enter online. You will also have the opportunity to edit or personalize the text) Please Let President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, U.S. Penitentiary-Canaan Warden Ronnie R. Holt, Federal Bureau of Prisons Northeast Regional Director D. Scott Dodrill, U.S. Prisons Director Harley G. Lappin, the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Leaders, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the American Civil Liberties Union and members of the national media know you HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE SAFETY AND WELLBEING OF LEONARD PELTIER! YOUR EMERGENCY ACTION IS NEEDED NOW! Please submit the Hands Off Leonard Peltier - Release Him Now! ONLINE PETITION at http://www.iacenter.org/native/leonardpeltierpetition NOW! For more information on Leonard Peltier, go to http://www.whoisleonardpeltier.info International Action Center c/o Solidarity Center 55 W 17th St #5C New York, NY 10011 www.iacenter.org actioncenter at action-mail.org Anyone can subscribe. Send an email request to Action.News-subscribe at organizerweb.com Subscribing can also be done on the Web at http://www.organizerweb.com/mailman/listinfo/action.news From hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org Sun Feb 1 09:51:54 2009 From: hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org (Hunter Gray) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 09:51:54 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Re The sovereignty of the Indian nations is a critical Native value [continuation] Message-ID: <002701c9848d$6435ea80$0400a8c0@computer> NOTE BY HUNTER BEAR: FEBRUARY 1 2009 Yesterday, I posted my piece "The sovereignty of the Indian nations in a critical Native value." It went initially to both the Marxist and the Redbadbear list -- and I then sent it to a few others. My always good friend, Sam Friedman, responded -- as always sharply in thought and well expressed, I responded etc. I think it's well worth posting Sam's comments and mine on the other lists which received my initial post. [As a personal aside, I should add that, the other day [King Day], I spoke to a group here in Idaho on the Southern Movement -- with some inclusion of the Native dimension -- and I did so for three straight hours [including good questions.] Not bad for someone whose second grade teachers tried to railroad him into an institution for mentally challenged people simply because I never talked. More to the point, that stint and a number of other things are indicative of the fact that my now almost six year struggle with systemic lupus sees my now outrunning That. I mention this because most on all of these lists are aware of this long fight. H. SAM FRIEDMAN: Hunter and I have discussed this issue before on these lists, and I am well aware of his far superior depth of understanding of Native tribes and cultures. There seems to me to be a weakness in Hunter's argument--albeit a weakness that might not seem to be of enormous immediate relevance--although one can hope. Hunter's argument here is that the tribe is sovereign, and thus that US labor laws should not apply. Now in the USA or other countries, one of the implications of national sovereignty (in theory--though not in practice) is that svereignty means that if the workers of the country rise up and overthrow its government and economic system, they have the right to do so. (Of course, this right will be challenged by international attacks, as happened in Hungary in 1956 and would have happened in France in 1968 if the movement there had gone further--but, in theory, these can be condemned in Hunter's approach as violations fo sovereignty.) However, in the current legal environment as the US government sees it, and most if not all tribes accept, the US government is the ultimate sovereign with the "responsibility" to maintain "order." What this means in practice is that if the workers or others in a tribe rise up to overthrow the tribal authorities due to the way their social order mistreats poor and worker tribal members, US forces (FBI or National Guard, probably) will intervene to maintain the power of the employers and others. Thus, from the viewpoint of the workers and of poor members of the tribe, it seems to me that Hunter's approach here is in danger of meaning that the approach he supports takes away any support local workers get from outside labor victories yet reduce their actual power due to the existence of a legal order in which the ultimate sovereignty is that of the USA. I offer these thoughts in order to learn from the ensuing discussion. best sam HUNTER GRAY: To come to the point, Sam, you're trying to use a European [and I include the United States in that context] urban/industrial theoretical approach -- in your case, Marxism -- as your primary analytical measure of Native tribal sociology. And that will never work -- because there is a deep Grand Canyon of socio-cultural difference between those two basic worlds . From the vantage point of Indian tribal nations [each with its own distinctive culture but with many similarities], the United States [and Canada] are literally other countries. [Certainly there has been some acculturation in many Native settings vis-a-vis American culture, but there has Not been any assimilation by any stretch.] Native American tribal nations and at least almost all of the people therein have certainly never accepted the United States government as the "ultimate sovereign." A Native tribe is a Nation and it's also, in many respects, One Big Family where many are related, some way, by blood or by marriage. [There are social mechanisms, such as clan systems, which exist, among other reasons, to prevent incest.] The basic economic ethos of any Native tribal society is fundamentally communalistic -- and, despite some material inequities, essentially classless [certainly very much so, compared to the United States or comparable countries.] The basic social ethos is that of tribal [mutual] responsibility: the group has an obligation to the individual as the individual does to the group. If there should be a conflict, the tribe prevails but there are also clearly defined areas of individual and family autonomy into which the tribe cannot intrude. It's worth mentioning that the tribal ideal with respect to a good leader is one who serves his or her community rather than serving one's self. Again, efforts to gauge and predict any Native tribal sociology by any European measure makes no sense. These are two entirely different dimensions. Perhaps, as you suggest, the workers in what's called the United States will, some way and some time, revolt. [Maybe they won't.] But whatever they may do or don't do in that regard, it'll be on the other side of the deep socio-cultural canyon from all of the quite distinctive Native tribal nations. Best, Hunter [Hunter Bear] SAM FRIEDMAN: I deeply appreciate this aspect of your analysis, Hunter, and I am sure that there is much truth to it. But I am not totally convinced for two reasons. First, to the extent that casinos or other large-scale employment comes into a native community, this tends to change relationships over time. The communal gets strained when some folks are working long hours for little pay and others are getting lots of money for doing nothing but accepting kickbacks, for example. So although I am sure that what you are saying reflects a lot of native life, I am not sure that it is not changing. The other reason is that we have all heard the same arguments before--which does not mean that they are incorrect in this instance. But I remember all the discussion of communal and tribal solidarity in many parts of Africa as being much like what you are saying, and thus of African socialism as the answer to capitalism, "Communism," and Marxist approaches. Again, I would say that the last 50 to 60 years have shown that that view did not hold up for Africa very long. On the other hand, in the US and parts of Canada, many tribes have been fairly resistant so far. The question I am raising is, in part, whether that will continue to be so. HUNTER GRAY: Thanks for your response, Sam. Tribalism, of course, has very deep and very resilient roots -- and the loyalties of tribal people to their tribal nations runs very deep and enduringly. I think this is globally true of the "Fourth World" -- the tribal world. In this instance, I'm speaking only of our Native American situation. I understand that this is essentially true in Siberia and "both Mongolias"-- the old "Soviet" Mongolia and that in the bailiwick of China. I think it's pretty true of Africa as well -- though History there, and especially the colonial dimension, has been different than that of the Western Hemisphere. But I have never been able to visit those places and my knowledge is admittedly limited. Our Thomas of course is married to Mimie [Yirengah] Chilinda of Zambia [you met them both when you were here in 2005]. Although Mimie's father, Amos, is a university trained mining engineer, he and his family speak frequently of their tribal roots and connections. The "indigenous" tribally based populations in many parts of the world -- including much of this Hemisphere -- are often much, much larger numbers-wise than they are in the United States or Canada. The reasons are many, including hundreds of years of genocide in America north of Mexico. One of the most striking dimensions in the Native situation -- usually surprising to non-Indians -- is the fact that, despite literally centuries of occupation by Europeans and Euro-Americans, the primary commitment of a Native person is to his or her tribal nation and its culture. This holds very true whether we're talking of, say, a relatively small reservation in northern Maine or a comparable reserve in southeastern Canada -- where Natives have been "involved" with the Euros since the 1600s -- or the Hopis and Navajos in the Southwest. It holds right here in this Idaho setting where the Shoshone/Bannock reservation physically adjoins Pocatello. It also holds true, as far as that goes, for "urban Natives" -- of whom there are now many, but who very much indeed retain their primary tribal loyalties and commitment in the midst of such places as Minneapolis and Winnipeg or the even tougher urban crucible of Chicago. As I say, there has often been Native acculturation vis-a-vis United States and Canadian culture -- but there has not been assimilation. This holds true for reservation/reserve situations and the urban setting. And the socio-cultural divide is deep. About five years ago, drawing from an interesting little survey our Chicago-based Native American Community Organizational Training Center conducted in that metro area in the 1970s, I posted a short piece which is now on our website: How Each Side Sees The Other Side: Native Views and Anglo Business Views. It's well worth a look. http://hunterbear.org/how_each_side_sees_the_other_sid.htm Coming back to unions, it's much easier for unions to enter and work in a reservation setting if the context involves "outside" corporations -- e.g., Peabody Coal on the Navajo reservation [and the United Mine Workers.] But most "business" on reservations is tribally owned -- again, the very communalistic context. This holds very true for the casinos which employ both Indian and often non-Indian workers. Even here, of course, it could be possible for unions to eventually play a helpful role -- If the unions follow some of the suggestions that I made in my basic piece on all of this: e.g., unions have to take the time to learn at least the basics of the respective tribal culture involved, need to hire tribal people as meaningful staff, need to talk honestly with tribal leaders and tribal people in general, need to move slowly and sensitively, and not prattle about "Federal labor laws and regs." Individual Native persons have played significant roles in essentially non-Native social justice endeavors in "mainline America" or "mainline Canada" -- and many other Hemispheric settings. And, to some extent, the reverse has been the case. But I have to say, in all candor, that only relatively few non-Indians have supported -- in a culturally sensitive fashion -- Native causes. As you know, Sam, I have personally worked in these situations for my entire life. I like to think of my "Culture Hero" and ggg/grandfather, John Gray [Ignace Hatchiorauquasha], leader of the mostly Mohawk [but with some St Francis Abenaki] band of fur hunters in this general part of the Rockies during the earlier part of the 19th Century: "His unusual ability to deal with the whites enhanced his stature as an Iroquois chief. . .he stood out as a gifted leader of his people, understanding and following their ways in a manner that would have been difficult for a white man. . . he not only explored the wilderness. . .he also helped to bridge the cultural gap between Indians and whites during the years of the fur trade, even though much of the time the Iroquois and white trappers did not get along together at all well , and the whites often resented his position on the Indian side when there were differences in outlook. More than that, his leadership of the Iroquois out of Ogden's camp, May 24, 1825, contributed substantially to the Hudson's Bay Company adoption of competitive pricing that limited the expansion of the St. Louis fur trade in the Oregon country." [Merle Wells, Idaho State Historical Society, on John Gray] http://www.hunterbear.org/GRAY%20LANDS%20AND%20GRAY%20GHOSTS.htm Anyway, all best, Sam -- on a cold morning. Solidarity, Hunter Gray [Hunter Bear] HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk Protected by Na?shdo?i?ba?i? and Ohkwari' Check out our Hunterbear website Directory http://hunterbear.org/directory.htm [The site is dedicated to our one-half Bobcat, Cloudy Gray: http://hunterbear.org/cloudy_gray.htm I have always lived and worked in the Borderlands. In our Gray Hole, the ghosts often dance in the junipers and sage, on the game trails, in the tributary canyons with the thick red maples, and on the high windy ridges -- and they dance from within the very essence of our own inner being. They do this especially when the bright night moon shines down on the clean white snow that covers the valley and its surroundings. Then it is as bright as day -- but in an always soft and mysterious and remembering way. [Hunter Bear] From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Feb 1 13:48:43 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 12:48:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] What If Israel Were in Your Neighborhood? In-Reply-To: <375693913.523871233168869368.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <883125345.2358651233521323836.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber01272009.html CounterPunch January 27, 2009 The Imbalance of Terror What If Israel Were in Your Neighborhood? By Russell Mokhiber I left Washington last week when many of friends and family members were coming here to celebrate the inauguration of our first African-American President. My eleven year-old son asked me ? why turn your back on Obama? I threw back at him Martin Luther King ? It's not the color of his skin, it's the content of his character. What does it say about Obama's character that he sides with the Israeli slaughter machine against those that it slaughters? What does it say about the character of his "progressive" supporters, who cry for joy at his inauguration, but say not a peep about the slaughter machine and its victims? (See, for example, former AIPAC staffer and "progressive Democratic" columnist David Sirota, who broke down and cried watching Obama's inauguration, but has not written one word about the slaughter in Gaza.) Earlier this month, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) took out full page ads in major newspapers around the country. The ad was titled: What if Hamas Was in Your Neighborhood? The ad showed missiles reigning down on Phoenix, or Boston, or Washington, D.C. "Imagine if Hamas terrorists were targeting you and your family," the ad read. "No country would allow such danger on its border, and neither will Israel. That's why Israel is fighting back." In response, the American Arab Anti-Defamation Committee (ADC) last week put up an ad on its web site titled ? What If Israel Were in Your Neighborhood? (Link to ad at: http://www.adc.org/PDF/gazaposter.pdf ) Answer? Death and Destruction with American built F-16 fighter jets and Apache helicopters. Yes, when Hamas launches rockets that kill innocent civilians, it engages in war crimes. But Hamas has no Army, no Navy, no Air Force. The slaughter machine has a modern military with hundreds of nuclear weapons and U.S. supplied F-16s and Apache helicopters. So, there is a balance of terror. And the Palestinian bodies tip the scales in the slaughter machine's favor. Since the first rocket was launched into Israel in 2002 up until the December 17, 2008 invasion of Gaza, the Israel body count was maybe two dozen. The Palestinian body count was 2,700. That would be about 100 to one. Since the invasion, the Israeli body count is 14. The Palestinian body count was more than 1,400. That would be about 100 to one. As the ADC ad puts it: "Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip cannot be justified by self-defense. An armed attack that is not justified by self-defense is a war of aggression. Under the Nuremberg Principles affirmed by U.N. Resolution 95, aggression is a crime against peace. Prosecute Israel for War Crimes." So, here's one concrete thing you can do to counter the slaughter machine's propaganda. If you are interested in placing the "What If Israel Were in Your Neighborhood?" ad in your local newspaper, contact ADC's Nabil Mohammad at organizing at adc.org . Turn the tide of terror. Russell Mokhiber edits the Corporate Crime Reporter. From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Feb 1 13:47:52 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 12:47:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Hamas must be brought into peace process, says Tony Blair In-Reply-To: <2020182933.1893101233431654835.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <505873533.2358491233521272489.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5621184.ece The Times January 31, 2009 Hamas must be brought into peace process, says Tony Blair Philip Webster, Political Editor Hamas must somehow be brought into the Middle East peace process because the policy of isolating Gaza in the quest for a settlement will not work, Tony Blair has told The Times. The former prime minister implicitly criticises the strategy followed by the Bush Administration and Israel of focusing all peace and reconstruction efforts on the West Bank. ?It was half of what we needed,? he said. In an interview with Ginny Dougary in the Saturday Magazine, Mr Blair says that the strategy of ?pushing Gaza aside? and trying to create a Palestinian state on the West Bank ?was never going to work and will never work?. He hints in references to how peace was eventually achieved in Northern Ireland that the time may be approaching to talk to Hamas ... ?My basic predisposition is that in a situation like this you talk to everybody.? He suggests that the policy was behind last month's ferocious reopening of hostilities between Israel and Hamas in Gaza that were believed to have left more than 1,000 people dead. Mr Blair, speaking after talks with the new US envoy George Mitchell, says that Gaza will not be pushed aside because there are 1.25 million people there who want a Palestinian state. Mr Blair, the Middle East envoy for the Quartet group of the US, UN, Russia and the European Union, clearly believes that the Obama Administration is committed to a fresh effort to secure peace and appears to have been waiting for the change of government to make his strongest criticism so far of the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Asked if he was surprised by the devastating events over Christmas, when Israel responded to Hamas rocket attacks by bombing targets in Gaza, he says that he was not. ?I have been saying for some time that what was needed was a completely different strategy,? he said. ?Yes, we do need to show through the change we are making on the West Bank that the Palestinian state could be a reality. The trouble is that if you simply try to push Gaza to one side then eventually what happens is the situation becomes so serious that it erupts and you deliver into the hands of the mass the power to erupt at any point in time.? Thought to be privately critical of the failure of the former US administration to give a full commitment to the peace process, Mr Blair says that the appointment of Mr Mitchell, with whom he worked on the Northern Ireland peace process, indicated a ?real commitment? by America. Hinting at a change of tack he says that with Mr Mitchell as a full-time envoy there will be a better chance of a strategy in Gaza ?that offers people the possiblity of rejoining the West Bank on the right terms?. Mr Blair also received a warm endorsement yesterday for his Middle East work from Bill Clinton, the former US President. He says that Mr Blair and Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, ?will work well together? towards achieving a lasting pieace. Mr Clinton says of Mr Blair: ?He has done really important work as Middle East envoy under particularly difficult circumstances. I have always admired Tony's willingness to wade into troubled waters and make tough decisions, as he did in helping to end 30 years of sectarian violence and broker a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. He is demonstrating that same dedication and intensity to promoting economic opportunity and political resolution in the Middle East, knowing from experience that the concrete benefits can play a crucial role in making a just and lasting peace possible. As Hillary begins her work as US Secretary of State, I know she and Tony will work well together toward that end.? Asked whether he had changed his view about talking to Hamas since the Palestinian elections, Mr Blair replies that his ?basic predisposition is that in a situation like this you talk to everybody?. However, he repeated the Quartet position that there can be no talks, official or unofficial, with Hamas until they renounce violence and recognise Israel. Mr Blair then says that there is a distinction between the difficulty of negotiating with Hamas as part of a peace process if they would not accept one of the states in the two-state solution, and ?talking to Hamas as the de facto power in Gaza?. He declines to answer whether he has talked to Hamas unofficially, although his staff later insists that he has not, and that all contacts have been via Egyptian diplomats. Under intense questioning later he replies: ?I do think it is important that we find a way of bringing Hamas into this process, but it can only be done if Hamas are prepared to do it on the right terms.? Pressed to go further Mr Blair says that he has to be careful how he expresses things because ?if you do this in the wrong way it can destabilise the very people in Palestine who have been working all through for the moderate cause?. He added: ?We do have to find a way of making sure that the choice is put before Hamas and the people of Gaza in a clear, understandable, unambiguous way, for them to choose their future. You have to find a way of communicating that choice to them in their terms. Now exactly what way you choose at the moment, that is an open question.? Diplomats will point out that Mr Blair fully signed up to the Annapolis accord which envisaged the creation of a Palestinain state by the end of 2008 whether Gaza was part of it or not. Even though sceptics said that the goal was unrealistic, Mr Blair insisted that a deal could be done by the end of last year. From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Feb 1 13:49:15 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 12:49:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Wanted: Ehud Barak -- for war crimes and crimes against humanity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <935395241.2358741233521355329.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Wanted: Ehud Barak -- for war crimes and crimes against humanity http://www.wanted.org.il/ehud_barak_en.htm From deanosor at mailup.net Sun Feb 1 14:25:52 2009 From: deanosor at mailup.net (dean tuckerman) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 13:25:52 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Any Federal prisoner could now work for the military Message-ID: <96FAF4D2-A3EA-461B-94D5-55A680391D93@mailup.net> A prisoner draft? Slavery? NAZI-like work camps? All of the above? You decide. Here's the new law: http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r210_35.pdf From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Feb 1 15:23:25 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 14:23:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] =?utf-8?q?=22Zionism_doesn=27t_define_Jews_-_it_divides_us?= =?utf-8?b?LCIgIEJ5IEdBQk9SIE1BVMOp?= In-Reply-To: <49861D49.5000003@edcorrigan.ca> Message-ID: <138062207.2371841233527005731.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/TGAM/20021212/COMATE/Comment/comment/comment_temp/1/2/2/ Globe and Mail December 12, 2002 ? Page A23 Zionism doesn't define Jews - it divides us By GABOR MAT? Given its horrific 20th-century connotations, anti-Semitism is a serious charge. It was levelled against critics of Israel on this page recently by three people who have demonstrated a strong lifelong commitment to humanitarian values. Lawyer Clayton Ruby, labour leader Jeff Rose and physician Philip Berger wrote that they feel "anti-Semitism has emerged as a powerful force" among some left-wing opponents of Israeli policy. As a Jew and a former member of a Zionist youth movement, I understand the affinity the three writers have for Israel. I can also see why the blindly murderous attitudes and actions of some in the Palestinian resistance trigger a powerfully defensive emotional response in the Jewish community. But the flaw in their argument is rooted in a confounding of Jewish identity with the Jewish state. They write of an "artificial distinction between Israel and Zionism, on one hand, and Jewish identity on the other." The modern identification of Jews and Israel emerged largely as a reaction to the Nazi genocide. Although it may represent the majority view today, it should be not taken for granted. Historically, it never has been. It is unlikely to persist. From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Feb 1 16:05:18 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 15:05:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Belgium imposes military sanctions on Israel/ Israel fears wave of war crimes lawsuits over Gaza offensive In-Reply-To: <57f08f9a0901311950p48904adfl82fe1b98dc6fa732@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <152517483.2376991233529518211.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060366.html w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m 01/02/2009 Belgium to stop exporting 'arms that bolster the IDF' to Israel By Cnaan Liphshiz Belgium's government has agreed to ban the export to Israel of weapons that "strengthen it militarily," a Belgian minister said on Thursday . A Brussels-based research group accused Israel of enlisting child soldiers. The Belgian daily De Morgen quotes Minister Patricia Ceysens from the Flemish regional government as saying: "There's a consensus [among ministers] not to approve exports that would strengthen Israel's military capacity." Ceysens said this after a discussion on policy regarding weapons exports to Israel following the operation in Gaza. A final resolution has not been passed yet, but Belgian Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht already said recently that "given the current circumstances, weapons cannot be shipped from Belgium to Israel." According to a recently-released report by the European Institute for Research and Information on Peace and Security on Belgian arms exports to the Jewish state, Israel is the fourth largest importer of Belgian arms in the Middle East. In 2007, Belgium sold Israel weapons (mostly light firearms) to the tune of $5,409,223, according to the report. The report, which accuses Israel of human rights violations, also says that Belgium's major weapons clients in the Middle East are Saudi Arabia (69 percent), Jordan (17 percent) and the United Arab Emirates (4.2 percent). The 15-page report does not deal with human rights violation in those countries. Quoting a 2003 amendment to Belgian law which forbids the sale of weapons to armies with child soldiers, the report says that Israel "accepts and arms underage volunteers." Further on, the report mentions "use of underage Palestinians as informants and sometimes human shields." The Israeli Defense Forces' Gadna program runs a one-week military training session on a base as part of the curriculum at most Israeli high schools. The army accepts volunteers from the age of 17 into non-combat posts. Meanwhile, 13 Belgian politicians, authors and scholars released a statement that calls for a more evenhanded approach to Israel. The letter mentions Amnesty International's calls last month to investigate Israel's actions in Gaza and to impose an international weapons embargo on Israel. -------------- http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/1056677.html Israel fears wave of war crimes lawsuits over Gaza offensive By Aluf Benn Israel is preparing for a wave of lawsuits by pro-Palestinian organizations overseas against Israelis involved in the Gaza fighting, claiming they were responsible for war crimes due to the harsh results stemming from the IDF's actions against Palestinian civilians and their property. Senior Israeli ministers have expressed serious fears during the past few days about the possibility that Israel will be pressed to agree to an international investigation of the losses among non-combatants during Operation Cast Lead; or alternately, that Israelis will be faced with personal suits, such as happened to Israeli officers who were accused of war crimes in Britain for their actions during the second intifada. "When the scale of the damage in Gaza becomes clear, I will no longer take a vacation in Amsterdam, only at the international court in The Hague," said one minister. It was not clear whether he was trying to make a joke or not. Another minister said that in contrast to the situation that existed following Operation Defensive Shield in the West Bank seven years ago, this time attacked by Israel is under total Palestinian control. Hence, foreign journalists who enter the Gaza Strip to report on the aftermath of Operation Cast Lead will not be accompanied by Israeli officials or spokesmen, as they were in the West Bank in 2002. The defense establishment has started to collect material in advance of the expected legal claims, and has prepared its defense regarding the private houses the Israel Defense Forces attacked in Gaza. The evidence includes material about where weapons were stockpiled, and sites from which Hamas was firing rockets. Social Affairs Minister Isaac Herzog (Labor), who is coordinating the humanitarian aid to Gaza, will also coordinate Israel's public relations efforts against the accusations of war crimes. The main danger is expected to come from lawsuits brought by individuals and organizations, rather than governmental attempts to undertake official investigations. Senior officials expect that the visits of European leaders in Jerusalem this week, and statements by them that presented Israel's offensive as part of a justified war on terror, will aid Israel in future legal battles. Israel will emphasize that it acted in self-defense in Gaza and expended great efforts in warning residents that their homes were about to be targeted and ordering them to vacate them. Israel used text messages, dropped flyers from the air and made a quarter of a million telephone calls to warn Gaza residents, as well as taking over and broadcasting warnings on Palestinian radio stations. Its defense will also provide evidence of how Hamas turned houses, schools, mosques and welfare institutions into weapons warehouses and booby-trapped them, explaining that they were attacked because they were legitimate military targets. __._,_.___ From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Feb 1 16:23:21 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 15:23:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Call for arrest of 15 Israeli leaders suspected of war crimes in Gaza In-Reply-To: <8CCFA2BC-96CF-44B5-A345-E0BDCB93AED4@telus.net> Message-ID: <2030158382.2379451233530601787.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.redress.cc/global/hokok20090126 Call for arrest of 15 Israeli leaders suspected of war crimes in Gaza Public asked for information on travel plans and whereabouts of top Israeli leaders By Redress Information & Analysis 26 January 2009 An international human rights organization has submitted evidence to the International Criminal Court for the arrest of top Israeli leaders for war crimes in Gaza and has called for information about the travel plans and whereabouts outside Israel of the suspects. A human rights organization has called for the arrest of a number of senior Israeli leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The International Coalition against Impunity (HOKOK), a non-governmental organization registered with the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, has submitted a ?Letter of Notification and Referral? to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court outlining the case for the arrest of 15 Israeli political and military leaders for crimes committed in Gaza in violation of the Rome Statute and the Fourth Geneva Convention. It has also issued an international appeal for information about the undermentioned war crimes suspects. Members of the public in Israel and throughout the world who have information about the travel plans or whereabouts of the undermentioned suspects when they are outside Israel should report this immediately to: The Prosecutor P.O. Box 19519 2500 Hague Netherlands Fax +31 70 515 8 555 otp.informationdesk at icc-cpi.int The Israeli war crimes suspects are: 1. Ehud Barak 2. Amir Peretz 3. Binyamin Ben Eliezer 4. Avi Dichter 5. Carmi Gillon 6. Dan Halutz 7. Doron Almog 8. Ehud Olmert 9. Eliezer Shkedy 10. Gabi Ashkenazi 11. Giora Eiland 12. Matan Vilnai 13. Moshie Bogie Yaalon 14. Shaul Mofaz 15. Tzipi Livni From fentona at shaw.ca Sun Feb 1 16:44:53 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 15:44:53 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Israel bombs Hamas targets in central Gaza Message-ID: Palestinian sources: IAF bombs Hamas targets in central Gaza By Amos Harel, Barak Ravid, Avi Issacharoff and Yanir Yagna http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060801.html Palestinian sources in the Gaza Strip said late last night that Israeli aircraft had bombed Hamas security targets in central Gaza. Rafa residents said they received phone calls from the Israel Defense Forces warning them to leave their homes immediately. The news comes as Israel's leadership warned yesterday that the response to the rocket attacks from Gaza would be fierce. The disagreements between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, on the one hand, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak over an "arrangement" with Hamas have intensified. Olmert and Livni accused Barak yesterday of acting against cabinet decisions, and aides to the prime minister said the Labor chief was "dragging his feet" on a response to the continued Qassam rocket attacks. Livni, meanwhile, warned that Barak is working on a separate, second deal, for a cease-fire with Hamas. Barak rejected all criticism, describing it as "chatter by those who have never held a weapon." Yesterday Israel suffered the heaviest barrage of rocket and mortar attacks since a unilateral cease-fire went into effect more than two weeks ago. A total of four Qassam rockets and 14 mortars hit the western Negev, causing light injuries to two Israeli soldiers and a civilian. Israel did not respond immediately to the attacks from the Gaza Strip, but defense sources said that action is expected in the near future and "everything will depend on the operational opportunity that emerges." Chief of Military Intelligence Amos Yadlin said yesterday during a cabinet briefing that the rocket and mortar attacks were being carried out by small Palestinian factions, whom he described as belonging to the loose network of "global jihadists." Military sources said the intelligence suggests that Hamas is trying to contain the attacks and is keen on bolstering the cease-fire with Israel. Nonetheless, political and military sources in Israel said that despite Hamas' efforts, the IDF would take action against the Palestinian Islamist group because Israel considers it responsible in Gaza. Rockets rain down Meanwhile, the residents of Sderot and the communities bordering Gaza are finding it difficult to accept the continued rocket fire after Operation Lead Cast and argue that the military offensive should have been allowed to continue. "This was entirely expected. If the Qassams continue to reach the communities on the Gaza border it means that the army operation was redundant, enormously damaged Israel's image internationally but did not have any results in ending the attacks on the southern communities," said one resident, Ariel Feller. This view was shared by Segev Kalimian. "We are still waiting for the second stage of Cast Lead, and the Qassam rockets and mortars continue to fall on our area. And it seems that no one in the government cares about us. They are only thinking about their elections next week and it looks like we are going to have to wait for more attacks on Ashdod and Ashkelon for someone in this country to understand that we need to continue with the [military operation]." The dispute in recent days among the country's ruling troika has divided Kadima's top two politicians, Olmert and Livni, from Labor chief Barak. The Kadima leaders support a harsher response to the rocket attacks - a "disproportional response" - while Barak argues that progress in the talks between Egypt and Hamas on a cease-fire should be given a chance. Reports have a deal being signed as early as Thursday in Cairo, and the defense minister believes that a more proportionate response to the attacks is warranted. Barak has described this as a response that will bolster Israeli deterrence and lead to a stable cease-fire, avoiding another escalation in the fighting. "We will respond responsibly and with sound judgment to what is going on in Gaza," Barak said. Barak's position, which is backed by Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, is being criticized by field officers, including some who took an active role in Operation Lead Cast. According to these officers, Israel is not keeping its promises to respond harshly against Hamas for every violation of the cease-fire. They expressed concern that the lack of a response will dissolve the military gains on the ground. "At this rate, we will need to go back in a ground operation in three or four months," one officer said. The same kind of skepticism was expressed yesterday by sources close to Livni who said that "we remember what happened during the past lull, when Barak reported to the cabinet that the agreement was inevitable, and this should not be repeated." "We are not certain that today he is actually telling us the whole truth about his talks with Egypt," one of the sources added. "We need to make a decision at the cabinet and go with that to Egypt." In parallel with talks between Egypt and Hamas, Israel is holding intensive negotiations with the Egyptians. The head of the security- political bureau at the Defense Ministry, Amos Gilad, told the chief of Egyptian intelligence, Gen. Omar Suleiman, that Israel is rejecting the Egypt-Hamas idea of a new cease-fire limited in time. The current proposal is for a cease-fire lasting between one and one and a half years. Israel is also rejecting verbal accords with Egypt on the character of the response to violations by, including attacks and arms smuggling. Livni reiterated before the cabinet that she opposed any agreement that granted Hamas legitimacy. "I have been fighting for three years that the world will not talk with Hamas. Whoever negotiates with Egypt to reach an 'arrangement' must understand that this will grant Hamas international legitimacy." From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Feb 1 16:44:05 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 15:44:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] =?utf-8?q?Ch=C3=A1vez_Welcomes_Expulsion_of_Venezuelan_Dipl?= =?utf-8?q?omats_from_Israel?= In-Reply-To: <498627F6.9040808@sfu.ca> Message-ID: <662787904.2382051233531845727.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.venezuelanalysis.com January 30th 2009 Ch?vez Welcomes Expulsion of Venezuelan Diplomats from Israel James Suggett M?rida -- Venezuelan President Hugo Ch?vez said Israel?s expulsion of Venezuela?s representative to Israel, Roland Betancourt, on Wednesday was an ?honor,? and accused the Israeli government of committing genocide against Palestinians. ?It is an honor for this socialist government and this revolutionary people to have our representatives expelled by a genocidal government such as Israel,? said Ch?vez upon his arrival in Brazil on Thursday, where he attended the World Social Forum. Ch?vez, a consistent critic of U.S. and Israeli militarism, expelled the Israeli ambassador from Caracas and formally broke off relations with Israel in early January, to protest the U.S. ally?s occupation and invasion of the Gaza Strip. On Wednesday, Lior Hayat, the Israeli foreign ministry official for Latin America, declared Betancourt and two colleagues ?persona non grata.? Venezuela-Israel relations have been strained for many years. Israel has opposed Venezuela?s growing economic and political relationship with its enemy Iran. President Ch?vez says the partnership is part of his plan to construct a ?pluri-polar world? that is not dominated by the United States and Europe. Also, Israel and Jewish organizations in the U.S. have accused both Iran and Venezuela of supporting radical Islamic groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah in Latin America and the Middle East?an accusation that Venezuela?s foreign minister vehemently denied recently. On Tuesday, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates testified before the U.S. Congress that he is ?very concerned about the level of truly subversive activities that Iran has developed in various parts of Latin America.? Venezuelan Foreign Relations Minister Nicol?s Maduro dismissed the accusations. ?We have a transparent relationship with the Arab peoples, aimed at cooperation for peace and development,? said Maduro. ?If we had official relations with these organizations, we would say it publicly.? Maduro also accused Israel and the U.S. of using such claims to justify military intervention in Palestinian territories, Venezuela, and other parts of the world. Alternative media organizations and other political groups in Venezuela, many of them supporters of the Ch?vez government, burned Israeli flags and chanted anti-Israel and anti-Jewish slogans during rallies to protest the siege of Gaza in January. Swastikas have appeared spray-painted on walls, often superimposed or equated with the Star of David or an Israeli flag, implying that Israel has committed genocide. Earlier this week, an Israeli newspaper reported that a prominent leader of the Jewish community in Venezuela, Abraham Levy Benshimol, had declared that in Venezuela, ?anti-Semitism is supported by the president, through the government and the media.? Venezuelan Foreign Relations Minister Nicol?s Maduro denied this accusation as well. ?Our government guarantees total and absolute religious freedom and non-discrimination on religious grounds. These are not problems that our society has,? Maduro said in an interview on state television. ?The newspaper in Israel that said that is shamelessly lying,? Maduro added, attributing the accusations to ?a perverse campaign by elites in the Israeli government against President Hugo Ch?vez and our country.? Maduro also said the media should not conflate criticism of the Israeli government with anti-Semitism, and reiterated the Venezuelan government?s ?call out to the Jewish people to condemn these crimes [of the Israeli state] and demand respect for the Palestinian people.? From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Feb 1 17:22:44 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 16:22:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Bad news: we're back to 1931. Good news: it's not 1933 yet In-Reply-To: <1570717900.2386991233534059289.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <557896600.2387191233534164546.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/4339501/Bad-news-were-back-to-1931.-Good-news-its-not-1933-yet.html Daily Telegraph 26 January 2009 Bad news: we're back to 1931. Good news: it's not 1933 yet Barack Obama inherits an economy already contracting at an annual rate of 6pc, much like the mid-Depression year of 1931 (-6.4pc), writes Ambrose Evans-Pritchard By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard This may beat Germany (-7pc) Japan (-12pc) and Korea (-22pc) over the fourth quarter. But that merely underlines the dangers ahead as the collapse of global trade chokes the mini-boom in US exports, setting off another stage of the crisis. The US is losing 500,000 jobs a month. Brazil lost 650,000 in December. Beijing says 10m Chinese have lost their jobs since the crunch began. Japan's exports fell 35pc last month, year-on-year. The central bank is printing money furiously, buying bonds to prevent a relapse into deflation. So yes, it is like early 1931. Citigroup and Bank of America have more or less disintegrated. JP Morgan's health is failing fast. General Motors and Chrysler survive only on life-support from the US taxpayer. But it is not yet like 1933. That second leg down was the result of "liquidation" policies by a Dickensian leadership blind to the dangers of debt deflation. By then the Gold Standard had degenerated into an instrument of torture. It forced the Fed to raise rates from 1.5pc to 3.5pc in October 1931 to stem gold loss, with predictable results for shattered banks. It is worth glancing at the front page of New York Times on Monday March 6, 1933 to see what the world looked like three days after Franklin Roosevelt moved into the White House. The newspaper splashed with the story that FDR had closed the US banking system ? invoking the Trading with Enemies Act ? and ordered the confiscation of private gold. From left to right, the headlines read: "Hitler Bloc Wins A Reich Majority, Rules Prussia"; "Japanese Push On In Fierce Fighting, China Closes Wall, Nanking Admits Defeat"; "City Scrip To Replace Currency"; "President Takes Steps Under Sweeping Law of War Time"; "Prison For Gold Hoarders". President Obama faces a happier world. The liberal economic order is still in tact, if fraying at the edges. Capital and ships move freely. North America and Europe talk the same political language. China has so far proved a dependable pillar of the international system. But then the world seemed benign enough in early 1931. It is the second phase of depression that does terrible things. Roosevelt took over a country where the economic machinery had completely broken down. The New York Stock Exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade had closed. Thirty-two states had shut their banks. Texas had restricted withdrawals to $10 a day. Few states could borrow on the bond markets. Illinois and much of the South had stopped paying teachers. Schools closed for months. An army of 25,000 famished war veterans squatting in view of Congress had been charged by troopers of the 3rd US cavalry with naked sabres ? led by a Major George Patton. Armed farmers threatening revolution had laid siege to a string or Prairie cities. A mob had stormed the Nebraska Capitol. Minnesota's governor was recruiting Communists only for the state militia. Lawyers attempting to enforce foreclosures were shot. More than 100,000 New Yorkers applied to go to the Soviet Union when Moscow advertised for 6,000 skilled workers. We forget how close America came to open revolt. Eleanor Roosevelt feared the country was beyond saving. Her husband kept the faith. He channelled the anger against Wall Street, diffusing it. "The practices of the unscrupulous money-changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion," he began his presidency. The Fed was an ideological deadweight. Bowing to pressure from Congress it began to purchase bonds in mid-1932 to boost the money supply, but then recoiled, before retreating into pitiful self-justification. A third of the rescue funds in Hoover's Reconstruction Finance Corporation had been embezzled. Today there has been no such failure of US institutional imagination, even if, as George Soros argues, the Treasury's policies have been "haphazard and capricious". The twin blasts of fiscal and monetary stimulus have been massive. In short order the Fed has slashed rates to zero. It is now conjuring money out of thin air on an industrial scale, buying $600bn of mortgage bonds to force down the cost of home loans, and propping up the commercial paper market to avoid mass corporate default. Ben Bernanke, a Depression junkie, is proceeding with a messianic sense of certainty. The wash of money should ensure that the next 18 months will not mimic the cascade of disasters from late 1931 to early 1933. It buys time. But it does not solve the deeper problem, which is that a West addicted to Ponzi credit has put off the day of reckoning with ever more extreme monetary policy with each downturn, stealing prosperity from the future. It will be an extremely delicate task to right the ship again. Central banks will have to extricate themselves from their venture into the bond markets without setting off a bond debacle in 2010 or 2011. Governments will have to map out of a path of Puritan discipline for year after year. This will be Barack Obama's grim test of statesmanship From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Feb 1 17:28:33 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 16:28:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Economic Crisis Fuels Unrest in E. Europe In-Reply-To: <1642286221.2387801233534484351.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1247102842.2387901233534513879.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/25/AR2009012502516_pf.html Washington Post January 26, 2009; A01 Economic Crisis Fuels Unrest in E. Europe Shaky Governments Face Growing Anger By Philip P. Pan Washington Post Foreign Service RIGA, Latvia -- On a frigid evening this month, more than 10,000 people gathered outside a 13th-century cathedral in this Baltic capital to protest the government's handling of Latvia's economic crisis and demand early elections. The demonstration was one of the largest here since the mass rallies against Soviet rule in the late 1980s, and a sign of both the public's frustration and its faith in the political system. But at the end of the night, as the crowd dispersed, the protest turned into a riot. Hundreds of angry young people, many drunk and recently unemployed, rampaged through the historic Old Town, smashing shop windows, throwing rocks and eggs at police, even prying cobblestones from the streets to lob at the Parliament building. Similar outbursts of civil unrest have occurred in recent weeks across the periphery of Europe, where the global financial crisis has buffeted smaller countries with fewer resources to defend their economies. Especially in Eastern Europe, the turmoil reflects surging political discontent and threatens to topple shaky governments that have been the focus of popular resentment over corruption for years. Europeans have compared the unrest to events of the 1960s and even the 1930s, when the Great Depression fueled political upheaval across the continent and gave rise to isolationism and fascism. But no ideology has tapped into public anger and challenged the basic dominance of free-market economics and democratic politics in these countries. Instead, protesters appear united primarily by dashed economic hopes and hostility against the ruling authorities. "The politicians never think about the country, about the ordinary people," said Nikolai Tikhomirov, 23, an electronics salesman who participated in the Jan. 13 protest in Riga. "They only think of themselves." Days after the riot, a demonstration by 7,000 protesters in neighboring Lithuania turned violent, leading police to respond with rubber bullets. Fifteen people were injured. Smaller protests and clashes have erupted in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Hungary, following weeks of street violence in Greece last month. On Thursday, police in Iceland used tear gas for the first time in half a century to disperse a crowd of 2,000 protesting outside Parliament in Reykjavik. The next day, Prime Minister Geir Haarde agreed to call early elections and said he would step down. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund, said the financial crisis could cause further turmoil "almost everywhere," listing Latvia, Hungary, Belarus and Ukraine as among the most vulnerable nations. "It may worsen in the coming months," he told the BBC. "The situation is really, really serious." There is particular concern about the relatively young and sometimes dysfunctional democracies that emerged after the fall of communism in Eastern Europe, where societies that endured severe hardship in the 1990s in the hope that capitalism and integration with the West would bring prosperity now face further pain. "The political systems in all these countries are fragile," said Jonathan Eyal, director of international security studies at the Royal United Services Institute, a research group in London. "There's a long history of unfulfilled promises and frustration with the political elites going back to the Communist era." Eyal warned of a revival of ethnic conflict in the region, where most countries have large minority populations, adding that tensions could rise after workers who have lost jobs in Western Europe return home. But he noted that extreme nationalist movements have won only limited support in Eastern Europe in recent years. "People here instinctively know the idea of a strongman who imposes order doesn't work," he said, arguing that the region's history with Communist rule, its integration with the European Union and its anxiety about Russia's intentions make a turn toward authoritarianism unlikely. "They have seen the past, and a return to previous populist schemes isn't very persuasive. At the end of the day, they know there's no alternative to the market economy." That assessment rings true in Latvia, where the government's approval ratings have fallen as low as 10 percent -- the worst in the European Union, and lower than at any other time in the nation's post-Soviet history -- but where people scoff when asked if they want to abandon markets and political freedoms. "If some politician said, 'Let's leave the E.U., give up democracy and free markets,' you can be sure that nobody would vote for him," said Aigars Freimanis, director of Latvia's largest polling firm. The memory of Soviet occupation makes it difficult even for mildly left-wing parties to win elections, he said. But Freimanis said public anger could bring significant political change, noting that the crisis has renewed debate on constitutional reforms, including measures to give citizens the right to dismiss Parliament and to vote for individual lawmakers instead of only political parties. "We want more democracy, not less," said Renata Kalivod, 28, a social worker who attended the protest in Riga. She said that her father, who recently lost his job, had given up on elections but that she still believed it was possible for the public to have an impact. "If I gave up, I would leave the country like other young people. But I'm still here," she said. After enjoying double-digit growth rates that were among the highest in the E.U., Latvia is now struggling to defend its currency and survive a sharp slowdown. The economy is forecast to shrink by 5 percent this year, after a 2 percent drop last year. Unemployment has doubled in the last six months to 8 percent, with the rate three times as high among young people. Forced to accept a $10.5 billion bailout from the IMF, the European Union and other sources -- including neighboring Estonia, a fact some considered humiliating -- the government has embarked on an austerity program involving 25 percent budget cuts, 15 percent wage reductions for civil servants and large-scale layoffs. Aigars Stokenbergs, an opposition leader in Parliament who quit the ruling coalition and helped organize this month's protest, said the public was as upset about corruption as economic mismanagement. The same conservative parties have dominated the government for years, he said, and many believe they serve a handful of billionaires who struck it rich in the privatization schemes of the 1990s. "People don't want this government anymore. They don't trust it," he said, criticizing Parliament for firing the nation's anti-corruption chief in June and adopting the IMF reforms in a single day without consulting unions, businesses or other groups. But Andris Berzins, a leader in the ruling coalition and former prime minister, said the public's anger is misplaced because the country's problems are rooted in decisions by previous administrations to expand spending instead of building up reserves. "The government needs to take some very serious economic reforms, but it hasn't been able to build public support for them," he said. Public anger intensified in December when the finance minister, Atis Slakteris, badly fumbled an interview on Bloomberg Television. Asked what had caused Latvia's economic crisis, he replied, "Nothing special." The words were soon emblazoned on T-shirts and shop windows as parodies proliferated on the Internet. The riots, which left about 25 people injured and resulted in 106 arrests, have unnerved people in part because Latvia has practically no history of such violence. Some are worried the crisis will exacerbate tensions between ethnic Latvians and the nation's Russian-speaking minorities, who make up more than a third of the population. President Valdis Zatlers has responded by distancing himself from the ruling coalition that elected him and essentially siding with the opposition, threatening to dismiss Parliament if it fails by March 31 to pass a set of reforms and take other specific actions to build public trust. But under Latvia's aging constitution, the president must call an unprecedented referendum to dismiss Parliament. Early elections would be held if it passed, followed by talks to form a new government. The entire process could take more than eight months, and some say such a prolonged period of political uncertainty would hinder Latvia's efforts to repair its economy, resulting in further unrest. Governments across Eastern Europe face similar uncertainty, and analysts said the timing of electoral cycles could determine which ones fall. Newly elected governments in Lithuania and Romania might survive, for example, while the Bulgarian government faces elections this summer and is in trouble. Anders Aslund, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, said it makes sense in Latvia to hold new elections because the current Parliament is "utterly discredited" and can do little for the economy in any case. "You can't have a government that has no support," he said. "It's useless." Analysts said the E.U. serves as a bulwark against radical politics in the region, but they warned of a backlash if the developed nations that dominate policymaking ignored the problems of the smaller ones. In Latvia, politicians and business leaders complain about E.U. agricultural subsidies that benefit farmers in Western Europe and trade barriers in the service sector. But they have praised the E.U.'s swift response to the country's economic crisis so far. Pavel Nazarov, 21, a physics student who participated in the rally, said he welcomed E.U. intervention for another reason. "They can keep an eye on our corrupt politicians," he said, "even when we can't." From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sun Feb 1 18:15:14 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 10:15:14 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Flow Message-ID: <49864922.3080700@ashisuto.co.jp> Who Owns the World's Water? by Jessica Mosby Culture Change (January 09 2009) After seeing the new documentary, Flow {1}, my 2009 New Year's resolution is to stop buying bottled water. Over $100 billion is spent annually on bottled water, but it would cost only $30 billion to provide clean drinking water to the entire world. Unlike tap water, bottled water is not regulated for cleanliness. And don't even get me started on the mountains of plastic bottles created by the bottled water industry. For 84 terrifying and informative minutes, filmmaker Irena Salina makes a very persuasive case for stopping the commoditization of water and ensuring that everyone has access to clean drinking water. Salina interviews an array of researchers and activists who all describe the frightening international situation: dirty water kills more people than wars, the world is quickly running out of clean water, and water has become a valuable commodity for multinational corporations to exploit for profit. Flow is currently available on DVD. The film is grounded in the question: Who owns the world's water? Without water life cannot exist. But 1.1 billion people worldwide do not have access to clean drinking water, and over five million people die annually from water-related illnesses. While Flow is a wake-up call that documents all that is wrong with the world's attitude toward water, the film also profiles a number of technologies that could dramatically improve international access to clean drinking water at a nominal cost. Those who exclusively drink bottled water may think they're safe. But according to the National Resource Defense Council Director of Advocacy, Erik Olson, water-borne chemicals can enter the body through the skin when showering. Bathing in bottled water doesn't guarantee safety either; organic chemicals, bacteria, and even arsenic were found in one-third of popular bottled-water brands. The film's most surprising revelation is that water has become a highly valuable commodity instead of a human right. Water is now the third most valuable commodity behind oil and electricity. And the film blames the World Bank for colluding with multinational for-profit water companies, which has led to the promotion of water privatization in developing counties. In Bolivia, short-lived water privatization at the insistence of the World Bank polluted rivers with blood and sewage flowing from slaughterhouses into Lake Titicaca. Though many Americans take their access to clean water for granted, many people throughout the world are not able (or do not want) to pay for privatized water {2}. Maintaining the infrastructure that brings unlimited clean water to kitchen sinks across the country is an unnoticed luxury for most Americans, though they do pay for it: either directly in monthly bills from water treatment facilities, or indirectly in taxes. Flow profiles the heartbreaking situation in South Africa where the world's poorest citizens cannot afford clean water. Instead of paying for clean water from privatized wells, many desperate South Africans are forced to drink free water from dirty stagnant rivers, even if that means contracting cholera. During an onscreen interview, Maude Barlow, author of the book Blue Covenant (2007) and co-author of Blue Gold (2002), discusses the contradiction in providing affordable clean water to people through for-profit private companies. She describes privatization as a "disaster" because multinational corporations cannot help people gain increased access to clean water while also pleasing their shareholders. Several countries have recently built enormous dams to divert and store water in an effort to resolve their water crises. According to Patrick McCully, Executive Director of International Rivers Network {3}, dams alter ecosystems while displacing thousands of people. One example cited in the film is China's Three Gorges Dam - a project also depicted in the beautiful documentary Up the Yangtze {4} - that relocated two million people as water levels rose. McCully believes that there are better ways to store water, especially for individuals; he cites the archaic practice of collecting rain water as a low-cost and effective way to ensure a steady water supply. The most inspiring interviewee in Flow is Ashok Gadgil, Senior Staff Scientist in the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and University of California, Berkeley professor, who knows the dire consequences of biologically contaminated water firsthand. While growing up in India, he lost five cousins to unhealthy drinking water. To help solve this widespread problem, Gadjil invented a water disinfector that uses UV-light to kill water-borne bacteria and viruses. This "financially viable, self-sustaining model" is maintained cooperatively in local communities - not by multinational for-profit corporations. For only $2 per person per year, over 500,000 Indians living in rural villages now have clean drinking water. Flow captures the complex nature of water supply and accessibility issues with well-researched and entertaining information. But at times there are too many people saying the same thing. The film could have benefited by focusing more on inspiring new technology, such as Gadgil's water filtration system, and creating a narrative structure, instead of a barrage of interviews. Still, everyone interviewed drives the film's message home, and by the end viewers will think twice about their current habits. When I finished watching the film, I turned on my kitchen sink in my Oakland, California apartment and filled a tall glass with fresh clean water. I had never thought twice about where this water came from, and assumed the supply was unlimited, especially when taking too many long showers. But then I remembered Barlow's prediction, "California's water supply is running out - it has about twenty years of water left in the state". Flow could not be a timelier documentary because the world is literally running out of clean water. The unanswerable question of who owns water will become irrelevant when there is not any water left to own. Links: {1} www.flowthefilm.com {2} http://thewip.net/contributors/2009/01/murky_waters_why_privatization.html {3} http://internationalrivers.org/ {4} http://thewip.net/contributors/2008/07/a_new_china_floods_the_traditi.html _____ Flow - The Women's International Perspective (WIP) http://thewip.net/contributors/2009/01/flow_who_owns_the_worlds_water.html This article is published under Title 17 USC. Section 107. See the Fair Use Notice for more information: http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=266&Itemid=26 Related Article: "Water Fight: corporate bottom line versus foes of privatization and plasticization" by Jan Lundberg, Culture Change: http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=257&Itemid=65 _____ http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=280&Itemid=1 TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Feb 1 19:22:33 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 18:22:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] The Crisis Is Global In-Reply-To: <103001c97f5f$f30f0bc0$0a9c05cf@CPQ29256262931> Message-ID: <212521432.2402991233541353474.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090202/greider The Nation January 15, 2009 The Crisis Is Global By William Greider The nation's fast-darkening circumstances define the essential dilemma of Barack Obama's presidency. His instinct is to govern by consensus, in the moderate middle ground of politics. Yet dire events are pushing the new president toward solutions more fundamental than those he had intended. The longer he resists taking more forceful action, the more likely it is that he will be overwhelmed by the gathering adversities. Three large obstacles are blocking Obama's path. The first is one of scale: his nearly $800 billion recovery package sounds huge, but it is perhaps two or three times too small to produce a turnaround. The second is that the financial system -- still dysfunctional despite the bailouts -- requires much more than fiscal stimulus and bailout: the government must nationalize and supervise the banks to ensure that they carry out the lending and investing needed for recovery. This means liquidating some famous nameplates -- led by Citigroup -- that are spiraling toward insolvency. The third is that the crisis is global: the US economy cannot return to normal unless the unbalanced world trading system is simultaneously reformed. Globalization has vastly undermined US productive strength, as trade deficits have led the nation into deepening debtor dependence. While Washington debates the terms of Obama's stimulus package, others see disappointment ahead. The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, an outpost of Keynesian thinking, expresses its doubts in emotional language that professional economists seldom use. "The prospects for the US economy have become uniquely dreadful, if not frightening," Levy analysts reported. The institute's updated strategic analysis warns that the magnitude of negative forces -- the virtual collapse of bank lending, private spending, consumer incomes and demand -- "will make it impossible for US authorities to apply a fiscal and monetary stimulus large enough to return output and unemployment to tolerable levels within the next two years." Instead, the unemployment rate is likely to rise to 10 percent by 2010. Obama's package amounts only to around 3 percent, annually, of GDP in a $13 trillion economy. Levy's analysis calculates that it would require federal deficits of 8 to 10 percent of GDP -- $2 trillion or more -- to reverse the economic contraction. And yet, the institute observed, it is inconceivable that this level "could be tolerated for purely political reasons" or that the United States could sustain the rising indebtedness without terrifying our leading creditors, like China. Stimulus alone by a single nation will not work, in other words, given the distorted economic system that Obama has inherited. The stern warning from the Levy analysts and other skeptical experts is that the United States has no choice but to undertake deeper systemic reforms right now, rather than wait for recovery. Will Obama have the nerve to tackle these fundamentals? To do so he would have to abandon some orthodox assumptions about free trade and private finance that he shares with his economic advisers. The most obvious and immediate obstacle to systemic change is the dysfunctional financial system. It remains inert and hunkered down in self-protection, despite the vast billions in public money distributed so freely, no strings attached, in the last days of the Bush administration. We will learn soon enough whether Obama intends to start over with a more forceful approach. Obama and his advisers are eager to get another $350 billion in bailout funds, but they have remained silent on whether this will finance a government takeover of the system. Without such a move, the taxpayers will essentially be financing the slow death of failed institutions while getting nothing in return. The most complex barrier to recovery is globalization and its negative impact on the economy. Given our grossly unbalanced trade, we have kept the system going by playing buyer of last resort -- absorbing mountainous trade deficits and accumulating more than $5 trillion in capital debt to pay for swollen imports, while our domestic economy steadily loses jobs and production to other nations. Renewed consumer demand at home will automatically "leak" to rival economies and trading partners by boosting their exports to the US market -- which subtracts directly from our GDP. This is the trap the lopsided trading system has created for recovery plans, and it cannot be escaped without fundamental reform. To put it crudely, Obama's stimulus program might restart factories in China while leaving US unemployment painfully high. In fact, some leakage may occur via the very banks or industrial corporations that taxpayers have generously assisted. What prevents Citigroup and General Motors from using their fresh capital to enhance overseas operations rather than investing at home? The new administration will therefore have to rethink the terms of globalization before its domestic initiatives can succeed. A global recovery compact would require extremely difficult diplomacy but could be possible because it is in everyone's self-interest. The United States could propose the outlines with one crucial condition: if the trading partners are unwilling to act jointly, Washington will have to proceed unilaterally. A grand bargain could start with US agreement to serve once again as the main engine that pulls the global economy out of the ditch. That is, the United States will have to continue as the buyer of last resort for the next few years, and China and other nations will have to bail us out with still more lending. In the short run, this would dig us into a deeper hole, but the United States could insist on a genuinely reformed system and mutually agreed return to balanced trade, once global recovery is under way. Congress can enact the terms now -- a ceiling on US trade deficits that will decline steadily to tolerable levels, as well as new rules for US multinational enterprises that redefine their obligations to the home economy. Unlike in other advanced nations, US companies get a free ride from their home government when they relocate production abroad. That has to change if the United States is to reverse its weakening world position. Tax penalties plus national economic policy can drive US multinationals to keep more of their value-added production at home. These measures can be enforced through the tax code and, if necessary, a general tariff that puts a cap on imports. Formulating these provisions now for application later, once the worst of the crisis is over, would give every player the time to adjust investment strategies gradually. President Obama and his team may at first scorn the notion of saving the world while negotiating a bailout for the United States. They will be reluctant to talk about reforming the global system by threatening to invoke emergency tariffs. But we are in uncharted waters. Impossible ideas abruptly begin to seem plausible. Six months from now, if the Obama recovery does not materialize, the president may discover he has to reinvent himself. About William Greider National affairs correspondent William Greider has been a political journalist for more than thirty-five years. A former Rolling Stone and Washington Post editor, he is the author of the national bestsellers One World, Ready or Not, Secrets of the Temple, Who Will Tell The People, The Soul of Capitalism (Simon & Schuster) and -- due out in February from Rodale -- Come Home, America. From fentona at shaw.ca Sun Feb 1 19:39:25 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 18:39:25 -0800 Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?Afghans_want_=91foreigners=27_out_of_Kabul?= Message-ID: <1D521707-8AC4-4885-8C98-117FEEB7DFBB@shaw.ca> Afghans want ?foreigners' out of Kabul http://www.e-ariana.com/ariana/eariana.nsf/allDocs/89C1A6D163684BE28725754D005F1A46?OpenDocument The National, UAE 01/29/2009 By Chris Sands KABUL - Afghans living on the main motorway leading east out of Kabul have demanded that foreign troops be withdrawn from the area. Residents on the Jalalabad Road say high-speed military convoys are becoming an increasing danger to the local population and their presence encourages suicide bombings. ?They cause lots of problems. If there are women, children or men in the street, they don't care. They just drive too fast,? said a 26-year- old who gave his name only as Babrak. ?We need the foreigners to leave the city. They should go right to the provinces or to the outside of Kabul.? Jalalabad Road is one of the most important highways in Afghanistan. Heading east from the capital to the Pakistani border, it is a major supply route for Nato and American forces, as well as a vital transport link for civilian traffic. Razor wire, concrete blast walls and high fences protect the military bases, government compounds and industrial estates that line the road as it begins to leave the Kabul city. Checkpoints stop cars at regular intervals and helicopters fly overhead. It is the kind of road that can only be found in a war zone and the tension bubbling just below the surface is gradually becoming clear. ?The Russians did good work in Afghanistan but these people have done nothing except spend lots of money,? said Babrak, while armoured vehicles rushed by and soldiers held their guns at the ready. He was speaking at the point where the unrest now developing briefly boiled over. According to witnesses, one morning in November a military convoy deliberately rammed a minibus off the motorway and into a butcher's shop. Shots were also reportedly fired and a 12-year- old boy was killed. Riots subsequently broke out. The victim's brother, Zirgay, said the troops drove straight on after the crash, rather than offering any help. ?I want them to go to the outside of the city. They can still use this road, but they need to stop shooting people and causing accidents,? he said. With so many military bases and convoys, the newly paved motorway has become a prime target for insurgents. During the last few years, there have been a number of suicide attacks here. Residents say nervous foreign soldiers throw everything from stones to water bottles at civilian cars in an effort to keep them at a safe distance. Military vehicles also often have signs warning people to stay back and billboards carrying the same message are put up throughout the city. But with traffic often jammed bumper to bumper along the road, it can be difficult for cars to move out of the way quickly enough. And in an area littered with rundown stores, children playing and shepherds looking for land where their sheep can graze, the constant presence of the soldiers is regarded as a direct and indirect threat to the local population. Ghulam Mohauddin, a stationery shop owner, said there had never been these problems during the Soviet era. ?Let me tell you the truth. There is not even a fraction of a reason for the foreigners to stay in Kabul. If somebody is going to do a suicide attack they will not come from my shop, they will come from outside the country. So the soldiers should go to the borders outside Kabul and make the security good there. We don't need them here,? he said. Another danger is that the visible presence of such large numbers of troops risks becoming a lightening rod for people's wider grievances. Afghans across Kabul can now be heard saying their lives have not improved in the past seven years. Insecurity and high unemployment, they commonly say, are the main features of this latest occupation. Sayed Khalilullah runs a small convenience store off the Jalalabad Road. It is his second job. He also works as a teacher at a primary school, where his wages do not add up to much more than the money he earns selling biscuits and toilet rolls. ?It's not up to me whether the foreigners should go, but they should change their method of driving and be very careful,? he said. ?If the situation stays like this and the people remain jobless they will start jihad because there is no other way for them.? Asked about the concerns of residents in the Jalalabad Road area, a spokesman for the Nato-led Isaf force insisted it demonstrated ?respect and consideration for Afghan traffic and pedestrians?. ?We must maintain our professionalism at all times and always keep in mind the consequences of our actions,? he said. From aaron.doncaster at gmail.com Sun Feb 1 23:04:07 2009 From: aaron.doncaster at gmail.com (aaron doncaster) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 01:04:07 -0500 Subject: [R-G] Bloody Monday" and the Changing Consciousness in America Message-ID: <164236a30902012204r578d6d99qcf407e5c1ab2c75d@mail.gmail.com> Bloody Monday" and the Changing Consciousness in America [image: Print] [image: E-mail] By John Peterson in the USA Friday, 30 January 2009 As if losing 2.3 million jobs in 2008 wasn't enough ? the most since 1945 ? 68,000 jobs cuts were announced on Monday, January 26th. "Bloody Monday" ran the headlines, as jobs continue to hemorrhage from the U.S. economy with no end in sight. Since Monday, even more companies have announced layoffs. The list of companies laying off workers is a "who's who" of corporate America: 20,000 from Caterpillar, 10,000 from Boeing, 8,000 from Pfizer, 8,000 from Sprint Nextel, 7,000 from Home Depot, 6,700 from Starbucks, 6,000 from Intel, 5,000 from Microsoft, 5,000 from Schlumberger, 2,000 more from General Motors, 1,200 more from Ford, S1,000 more from United Airlines, 700 from AOL, 600 from Target, 350 from Brooks Automation, and on and on. The official unemployment rate is at a 16-year high of 7.2 percent and is expected to reach 10 percent or higher over the next 12 months. The number of Americans continuing to claim unemployment is now at 4.78 million, the highest level since records began in 1967. 11 million U.S. workers are now officially counted as unemployed, a 48 percent jump from a year ago, even before this latest wave of cuts. Some two million jobs are expected to be lost in the coming year, even if Obama's $819 billion economic stimulus plan manages to create or even merely hold off the termination of hundreds of thousands of jobs. Todd Wilson, an Overland Park, Kansas computer salesman put it this way: "Anybody who is looking for a job now is feeling an economic tsunami. It feels like all of a sudden, it has just fallen apart." According to Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, there are four unemployed workers competing for every available job. "There are literally millions of workers unemployed with no hope of finding a new job. The queue is just too long." And according to Mid-America Regional Council chief economist Frank Lenk, for every corporate job lost, an average of two others will be lost. [image: Unemployment in the US has been on a steady increase since the beginning of 2008 and had reached 11 million by the beginning of this year. Source: Bureau of Labour Statistics.] *Unemployment in the US has been on a steady increase since the beginning of 2008 and had reached 11 million by the beginning of this year. Source: Bureau of Labour Statistics.* But 68,000 isn't just a number. These are individual workers with families, friends, homes, dreams and hopes for the future. With job openings vanishing, mortgage payments looming, savings evaporating, and credit cards maxed out, the future looks increasingly bleak for millions of American workers. The harsh realities of life under capitalism ? the crushing of the "American Dream" beneath an avalanche of debt ? has led many to despair. Quite literally in many cases, capitalism kills. While some have gone so far as to burn their own homes to the ground in order to avoid defaulting on mortgage payments, others have taken even more drastic action. On Tuesday, January 27, one day after "Bloody Monday," the country was shocked ? but not altogether surprised ? to hear that yet another mass killing had taken place as a result of desperation over the economy. A California man killed his wife, his five young children, and himself, after both he and his wife lost their hospital jobs. According to reports, the couple jointly planned the killings as an "escape" for the family, as they saw no other way out. According to the suicide note: "Why leave our children in someone else's hands?" Of course, not everyone who is laid off goes off the deep end. But who can deny that the pressures of this system drove these "normal" American parents to the edge? And what about 93-year old Marvin Schur from Michigan, who froze to death in his own home after the power company restricted his use of electricity because of unpaid bills? According to the county medical examiner, the World War Two veteran died "a slow, painful death." This is the real face of capitalism. It therefore comes as no surprise that anger and disgust at the bankers, CEOs and the rich in general is rising. On the same day the 68,000 job losses were announced, it was reported that Citigroup, a major recipient of bailout cash, was going forward with the purchase of a $45 million private jet for its CEOs. Corporate excess has always ruffled the class instincts of working people, but $45 million in public money for a private jet when millions of workers are losing their jobs is going "over the line." [image: Citigroup are going ahead with their planned purchase of a $45 million private jet.] *Citigroup are going ahead with their planned purchase of a $45 million private jet.* Incredibly, nine out of 10 senior executives at banks receiving public bailout money are still on the job. In other words, those who captained this latest crisis of capitalism are still at the helm. For example, JPMorgan Chase, which received billions in taxpayer dollars, is still headed by CEO James Dimon, who made about $28 million in 2007 and stands to make many millions more. Meanwhile, the company is laying off at least 10 percent of its workforce. Unemployment in the banking industry has nearly tripled as some 100,000 bank employees have lost their jobs over the last two years. According to Rebecca Trevino of Louisville, Kentucky, a mother of three recently fired from her job as a training coordinator at Bank of America: "The same people at the top are still there, the same people who made the decisions causing a lot of our financial crisis. But that's what tends to happen in leadership. The people at the top, there's always some other place to lay blame. It is surprising that leadership can make decisions that lead to financial ruin for so many, and then get bailed out for it." With no public oversight whatsoever on the bailout money, it is simply assumed that the CEOs will make "better choices" this time around. But as Jamie Court, president of the California-based group Consumer Watchdog put it: "When you deal with the same dogs, you're going to end up with the same fleas." Often, anecdotes tell more about the underlying processes in society than endless lists of facts and figures. The following is a case in point, an example of the conclusions being reached by many workers on the basis of their own experience. While traveling through Chicago's O'Hare airport on "Bloody Monday," I went to the service desk at my departure gate to confirm my arrival time. Three airline workers, one working the desk and two crew members waiting to get on the plane before boarding, saw the news on CNN that 68,000 workers had lost their jobs in a single day. The looks on their faces were of concern and disbelief; they were clearly thinking about their own job security. Then the service desk worker said, "It's a shame, when all they really need to do is lay off five people." The others looked puzzled. "Yeah, just five people: the CEOs of United Airlines, American Airlines, Delta Airlines, etc. and the problem would be solved!" The others chuckled, and one added, "Make that 10 people ? the heads of the banks too!" After more laughter, the third added: "Let them all get on their Learjets and fly off to wherever, never to return!" These are the snippets of conversation one hears across the country as millions of workers engage in a molecular process of discussion and analysis of the crisis and its causes, reaching out to one another for ideas and support. Here are a few more: "Every day it's more bad news and more people unemployed." "I thought my job was safe, but now I'm starting to worry. The axe could come down at any moment." "We need to confiscate the property of the rich." "They built too many stores during the boom and now everyone's getting laid off." U.S. workers are beginning to "connect the dots." They instinctively understand that it is just a handful of people at the top who make the decisions that affect the rest of us. Just a few months ago, these kinds of discussions were simply not taking place on such a wide scale: on the bus, in the grocery store checkout line, at the Post Office, during the football game, at church, and at the bar, around the dinner table. This is just the beginning of the beginning of a profound shift in how U.S. workers ? yes, the same workers who in the past voted for GW Bush and supported the Iraq War ? understand and relate to the society they live in. The revolutionary implications for the future are clear. [image: Print] [image: E-mail] From aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm Mon Feb 2 01:11:27 2009 From: aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm (Aaron Aarons) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 00:11:27 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Message about "60 Minutes" and Palestine from J Street In-Reply-To: <1108697202.1895481233433061357.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> References: <1108697202.1895481233433061357.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <20090202081132.E78AB1650C@heartbeat1.messagingengine.com> >Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 12:17:41 -0800 (PST) >From: Sid Shniad >Subject: [R-G] Message about "60 Minutes" and Palestine from J Street > >This past Sunday, 60 Minutes aired a powerful and thoughtful report on the danger that Israeli settlements pose to the chances for Israeli-Palestinian peace. There are many good reasons to oppose the racist Jewish settlements in areas on both sides of the "green line". But the probability that settlements to the East of that line will make a two-state version of the present apartheid system in Palestine less possible is NOT one of them. > If you haven't watched the segment, it is must-see journalism. >http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/01/cbs-on-israel-palestine.html > >All week long, 60 Minutes' Bob Simon has been under attack for supposed "anti-Israel bias." CAMERA (the Orwellian-named Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) alerted their activist network - flooding the 60 Minutes' offices and their advertisers with angry phone calls charging media bias. [1] Jewish community leader Abe Foxman fired off a letter calling the >piece a "hatchet job on Israel." [2] > >Journalists - as well as rabbis, professors and elected officials - know that if they raise questions about what Israel does - they'll often get attacked as anti-Israel. It's one way the forces of the status quo constrain debate and discussion on what's really best for Israel and the United States. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not interested in promoting "what's really best for Israel and the United States." Rather, I'm interested in subverting, undermining, and destroying those two political-economic-military entities that plague the planet and its peoples. Groups like J Street are part of the problem, not part of the solution. - Aaron [SNIP] >Thanks for all you do. >- Isaac >Isaac Luria >Online Director >J Street >January 29, 2009 >P.S. If you'd like to support our work, click here to make a gift. From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Mon Feb 2 02:34:29 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:34:29 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Obama's New Bank Giveaway Message-ID: <4986BE25.2050309@ashisuto.co.jp> It Won't Save the Economy; It May Make the Crisis Worse by Michael Hudson CounterPunch (January 30 / February 01 2009) First, here's the silhouette of the giveaway, as outlined Thursday in the New York Times: "Treasury Secretary Timothy F Geithner said Wednesday the administration is working on a comprehensive plan to 'repair the financial system' ... bank stocks surged on hopes the government was moving toward creating a 'bad bank' to purge toxic assets from balance sheets that are rapidly deteriorating as the economy worsens ... administration officials believe that trillions of dollars more may be needed to buy the majority of bad assets from banks ... "The concept of a bad bank has gained momentum in the financial industry as the economy deteriorates, slashing the value of risky assets on banks' books and increasing the need for banks to hold capital against those losses. Shares in Citigroup and Bank of America, which both recently received a second taxpayer lifeline, surged nineteen percent and fourteen percent respectively as the stock market rose on optimism that the administration would relieve banks of money-losing assets." -- "Geithner Says Plan for Banks Is in the Works", by Stephen Labaton and Edmund L Andrews, The New York Times (January 29 2009). After (1) threatening for eight years that the prospect of a trillion-dollar deficit spread over a generation or so is sufficient reason to stiff Social Security recipients and abolish debts to the nation's retirees, and (2) after the Bush administration provided $8 trillion over the past three months in cash-for-trash swaps of good Treasury bonds for Wall Street junk derivatives, the Obama Administration is now speaking of (3) some $2 to $4 trillion more to be given in just the next week or so. Not a single Republican Congressman went along, just as Representative Boehmer refused to support the Bush bailout on that fatal Friday when Mr McCain and Mr Obama debated each other over marginal issues not touching on the giveaway, which both candidates passionately supported. The Party of Wealth sees the political handwriting on the wall, for which the Party of Labor seems happy to take all responsibility. This probably is the only place where I'd like to see "bipartisanship". Watch the campaign contributions flow for an index of how well this will pay off for the Democrats! How many families would like a "give-back" on every bad investment they've ever made? It's like a parent coming to a child who has just broken a toy, saying "That's all right. We'll just go out and buy you a new one." This from the apostles of "responsibility" for poverty, for mortgage debtors owing more than they can afford to pay, for people who get sick and can't afford medical care, and for states and cities now left high and dry by the fiscal wipe-out that the Bush-Obama "cleanup" has foisted onto the economy. No do-over for anyone but the hundred or so billionaires who have just been endowed with enough free money to become America's ruling elite for the rest of the 21st century. After spending a lifetime denouncing socialism as inherently unfair, Wall Street is now doing a hideous parody - as if "socialism for the rich" were not an oxymoron in the first place. Certainly the banks are not being "nationalized". Giving away the largest sum of spendable securities in history without direct managerial power that goes with ownership is not "nationalization". Ask Lenin. Now that the details of the new, larger but definitely not improved bank giveaway of between $2 and $4 trillion more have been leaked out in time for Wall Street's Davos attendees to celebrate, we may ask whether, financially speaking, the Obama Administration should best be thought of as Bush-3 - or indeed, whether it is still on a pro-creditor trend that may better be traced as Clinton-5, or perhaps even Reagan-8. Since 1980 the financial sector has made a sustained money grab at the expense of labor and "taxpayers". More accurately, it has been a debt grab, on the opposite side of the balance sheet from assets. Backed by Larry Summers, Boris Yeltsin's Harvard Boys transferred trillions of dollars of Russian mineral wealth and public enterprises into the hands of kleptocrats. That was an asset transfer, pure and simple. In 1997, to be sure, the IMF gave Russia a loan that immediately disappeared into the kleptocrats' bank accounts, to be paid out of subsequent oil-export proceeds. But assets were the name of the game. Today's US giveaway has a new twist. The analogy is the "watered stocks" and bonds of yesteryear that railroad magnates and Wall Street emperors of finance gave themselves and their political mouthpieces, simply adding the interest coupons and dividends onto the prices charged the public as if they were real "costs". Today's version - "watered Treasury bonds" - are being created on the public sector's balance sheet. "Taxpayers" must pay bear the interest charges - leaving less for the infrastructure investment that Mr Obama suggests we may need. The Bush-Obama bailout bore "small print" stipulations that have already given Wall Street a decade's tax-free status by letting it count its financial losses against its tax liability. So not only has there been a great fiscal giveaway, there has been a tax shift off finance onto labor and industry. States and localities already have begun to announce plans to sell off roads and airports, land and other public assets to the financial sector in order to finance their looming budget deficits (which localities are not allowed to run under present legislation). No federal funding has been granted to finance the cities as their tax receipts plunge. There has been a token amount to relieve some low-income families saddled with junk mortgages. But this does not involve actually giving them a spendable money "bonus". Their role is simply to be trotted out like widows and orphans used to be, as justification to bail out banks for their bad gambles on currency, interest rates and bond derivative gambles. Insolvent debtors are merely passive vehicles to get a book-credit of mortgage relief that the government will turn over in their name to their bankers to make these institutions whole. Whole, and then some! Chris Matthews just reported his statistic of the day (January 29): $18.4 billion in Wall Street bonuses, paid for out of the government giveaway. This is called "saving the economy". That is as much an oxymoron as "socializing the losses". Socializing the losses would mean wiping the mortgages and other bank loans of debtors off the books. These giveaways are to keep the debts on the books, but for the government to buy them and make the creditors whole - while a quarter of real estate has fallen into Negative Equity as its debts are not being bailed out but kept on the books. The economy's "toxic waste" remains. But a matching volume of new waste is being created and given to a few hundred families. No wonder the stock market soared by 200 points on Wednesday, led by bank stocks! In the seemingly frenetic ten days since Obama took office, it is beginning to look as if his good political decisions regarding Guantanamo, Iraq, employee rights to sue for employer wrongdoing, are sugar coating for the giveaway to Wall Street, a quid pro quo to avert opposition from his Democratic Party constituency. At least this seems to be their effect. To accuse Obama of a giveaway would seem at first glance to contradict the basic thrust of his actions - or would be if one did not take into account his appointments of Larry Summers at the White House and the conspicuous leadership role in the bailout played by Barney Frank in the House and Chuck Schumer in the Senate. There is a simple way to think about what has happened - and why it won't help the economy, but will hurt it. Suppose the new $4 trillion "bad bank" works. The government shell will give away Treasury bonds for bad bank loans and derivatives gambles, without the government "marking to market". (So much for the pretense that giving Wall Street credit is "free market" policy. But the alternative to free markets does not turn out to be "socialism" at all, even if "socialism for the rich". There are worse words for it, which I won't use here.) The real question is what the Wall Street elite will do with the money. >From Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank through Larry Summers, the Obama administration hopes that the banks will lend it out to Americans. Borrowers are to take on yet more debt - enough to start re-inflating house prices and making homes yet more unaffordable, requiring buyers to take on yet larger mortgages. Larger mortgages at rising prices are supposed to help the banks rebuild their balance sheets - to earn enough to compensate for their gambling losses. But this neglects the fact that today's looming depression is caused by debt deflation. Families, businesses and government having to spend more wage income, profits and tax revenues on debt service instead of buying goods and services. So why is the solution to this debt overhead held to be yet MORE debt? Is there not something crazy here? The government's solution, placed in its hands by the financial lobbyists, is to bail out the bankers and Wall Street while leaving the "real" economy even more highly indebted. All this talk about "more credit" being needed, all this begging of banks to lend more money and then extract yet more interest and amortization from the economy, is leading it even deeper into the debt hole. It is not helping families repay their debts. And indeed, homeowners whose mortgages already exceed the market price of their property are not going to be able to borrow more. It would take only $1 trillion or so - or simply to let "the market" work its magic in the context of renewed debtor-oriented bankruptcy laws - to cure the debt problem. But that obviously is not what the government aims to solve at all. It simply wants to make creditors whole - creditors who are, after all, the largest political campaign contributors and lobbyists these days. The most important thing to understand about the present economic crisis is that it was not necessary technologically, politically or fiscally. Government at the state, local and federal levels are strapped for funds - but only because the natural source of taxation, land rent and monopoly rent and the user fees from public enterprise have been financialized. That is, whereas property taxes used to finance about three-quarters of state and local budgets back in 1930, today they supply only about a sixth. The shrinkage has not been passed on to homeowners and renters or commercial users. Prices for homes and office buildings are set by the marketplace. The rise in market price has been pledged to bankers as mortgage interest. The financial sector thus has replaced government as recipient of the economic surplus - leaving the public sector starved of cash. The financial sector also has replaced the government as economic planner. This role has followed from its monopoly in credit creation, which turns out to be the key to resource allocation. Bank credit is created freely. Governments could do the same. Indeed, this is what the US Treasury did during America's Civil War, when it issued greenback credit. If today's looming economic depression is a manmade (that is, lobbyist-financed) phenomenon, then what policy is needed as a remedy? _____ Michael Hudson is a former Wall Street economist. A Distinguished Research Professor at University of Missouri, Kansas City (UMKC), he is the author of many books, including Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (new edition, Pluto Press, 2002) He can be reached via his website, mh at michael-hudson.com http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson01302009.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Feb 2 06:14:02 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 08:14:02 -0500 Subject: [R-G] U.S. Removes Kashmir from Envoy's Mandate; India Exults Message-ID: U.S. Removes Kashmir From Envoy's Mandate; India Exults By Emily Wax Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, January 30, 2009; A09 NEW DELHI, Jan. 29 -- Inside a chandeliered ballroom Thursday, Indian diplomats and business leaders and American officials held forth about a new "Cooperation Triangle" for the United States, China and India. But little mention was made at the Asia Foundation's conference on Indo-U.S. relations of the Indian government's recent diplomatic slam-dunk. India managed to prune the portfolio of the Obama administration's top envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, Richard C. Holbrooke -- basically eliminating the contested region of Kashmir from his job description. The deletion is seen as a significant diplomatic concession to India that reflects increasingly warm ties between the country and the United States, according to South Asia analysts. Indian diplomats, worried about Holbrooke's tough-as-nails reputation, didn't want him meddling in Kashmir, according to several Indian officials and Indian news media reports. Holbrooke is nicknamed "the Bulldozer" for arm-twisting warring leaders to the negotiating table as he hammered out the 1995 Dayton peace accords that ended the war in Bosnia, a peace that has stuck. "I think it is time for us -- having fobbed off Holbrooke -- to sit quietly and ask where are we and how do we manage the situation," said C. Raja Mohan, an Indian strategic analyst who served on India's national security advisory board in 2006. Mohan's comments captured the public glee many Indians feel over their country's latest diplomatic success. It follows the government's victory in securing a deal with the United States that gives India access to civilian nuclear technology, even though it is a not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. India and Pakistan have made slow but steady progress on Kashmir over the past four years, but relations quickly chilled after the November attacks in Mumbai; India accused Pakistan of aiding in the three-day assault. Few places represent the region's complexities more than Kashmir, a territory that has been disputed since the 1947 partition of India and Pakistan. The nuclear-armed nations have fought two wars over Kashmir, and the United States stepped in to head off a third one in 2001. Both countries claim Kashmir and both control parts of it, with the United Nations monitoring a cease-fire line between them. "No matter what government is in place, India is not going to relinquish control of Jammu and Kashmir," Brajesh Mishra, India's former national security adviser, said in reference to the territory's Indian-administered sector. "That is written in stone and cannot be changed." During the U.S. presidential campaign, Obama said the Kashmir issue was central to any stability in the region. But India is suspicious of third-party intervention in the dispute. Kashmir is an internal issue and shouldn't be a part of any outsider's mandate, many Indian officials here say. The country's Outlook magazine ran a cover story this week showing Obama dancing with his wife at an inaugural ball with the headline: "Should India fear him? What India must do to ensure Kashmir won't get caught in the crosshairs." Last week, Mohan warned Holbrooke against "any high-profile intervention" in Kashmir. The topic is so politically sensitive here that it is referred to as the "K-word." At a news briefing Tuesday, State Department spokesman Robert A. Wood said Kashmir was not part of Holbrooke's mandate. "His mandate is to go out and try to help bring stability to Afghanistan, working closely with Pakistan," Wood said. "India has some very clear views as to what it wants to do vis-a-vis dealing with the Kashmir issue, as well as the Pakistanis." When asked whether Holbrooke would play a role if there were heightened tensions again over the Mumbai attacks, Wood said, "I don't want to speculate in terms of what he may or may not do, but his brief is focused solely on, as I said, Afghanistan-Pakistan." Holbrooke was originally tasked as the special envoy for Afghanistan, Pakistan "and related matters," code for India and Kashmir, according to a U.S. official in Washington who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person is not authorized to speak publicly. But on the morning Holbrooke's posting was announced, "related matters" had been deleted from the description. Wood said at a briefing Thursday that Holbrooke would stop at the Munich Conference on Security Policy on Tuesday before heading to Pakistan and Afghanistan, where the border region is a haven for Taliban fighters and where Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding. Pakistan and Afghanistan have yet to comment on the Kashmir decision. But other South Asia experts say that taking Kashmir out of Holbrooke's hands may upset Pakistan and that there may be back-channel negotiations anyway. "Intellectually, it is impossible to disentangle these problems from each other," said Daniel Markey, a South Asia expert at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. "The smartest thing is to work on this behind the scenes." From fentona at shaw.ca Mon Feb 2 12:03:20 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 11:03:20 -0800 Subject: [R-G] FAIR Study: Human Rights Coverage Serving Washington's Needs Message-ID: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Isabel Macdonald FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) 212-633-6700 x 310 imacdonald at fair.org FAIR Study: Human Rights Coverage Serving Washington's Needs FEBRUARY 2, NYC--A new FAIR study finds that leading newspapers have been putting political considerations ahead of humanitarian concerns in their editorials on human rights in Latin America. The report, "Human Rights Coverage Serving Washington's Needs," finds that while Venezuela is by every measure a safer place than Colombia to live, vote, organize unions and political groups, speak out against the government or practice journalism, editorials at four influential newspapers have portrayed Venezuela's government as having a far worse human rights record than Colombia's. While the human rights concerns expressed in newspaper editorials do not track with the degree of human rights abuses documented by human right groups, they do closely follow Washington's official stances toward these countries. Some highlights from the study, which looked at editorials on human rights in Venezuela and Colombia in the New York Times, Washington Post, Miami Herald and Los Angeles Times over 10 years (1998?2007): - Nine in 10 editorials about human rights in Venezuela presented a strictly negative view of the country's record, while a majority of the Colombia editorials presented either a mixed or wholly positive assessment. Of the 101 editorials onVenezuela examined in the study, 91 described the human rights situation negatively, and not a single editorial portrayed Venezuela's record in a wholly positive light. Of 90 editorials on Colombia, 42 only portrayed Colombia's situation as negative, 32 expressed a mixed assessment, and 16 were entirely positive. -The Washington Post editors offered the most positive view of the Colombian government's human rights record; of the paper's 13 editorials on Colombia's record, seven presented a positive view, and none were exclusively negative, while 22 of 23 Post editorials on Venezuela were negative and none were exclusively positive. -Of the four papers, the New York Times held the Colombian government?s human rights record in the lowest esteem; 20 of its 29 editorials on Colombia were negative, none were positive, and nine held a mixed view. But the Times did not stray far from the norm with regard to Venezuela, with nine out of a total of 12 negative and three mixed. The authors conclude that, "rather than independently and critically assessing the Colombian and Venezuelan records, major corporate newspaper editors, to one degree or another, have subordinated crucial human rights questions to what they see as the U.S.'s interests in the region." The report, which is published in the February issue of FAIR's magazine Extra!, is available online at:http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3699 . The pdf can be downloaded at:http://www.fair.org/reports/FAIRStudy_HumanRightsCoverage.pdf From fentona at shaw.ca Mon Feb 2 12:21:17 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 11:21:17 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision Message-ID: US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision By Gareth Porter* http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45640 WASHINGTON, Feb 2 (IPS) - CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21. But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting. Obama's decision to override Petraeus's recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy. A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision. Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, "Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama." Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise. Gates and Mullen had discussed the relabeling scheme with Obama as part of the Petraeus-Odierno plan for withdrawal they had presented to him in mid-December, according to a Dec. 18 New York Times story. Obama decided against making any public reference to his order to the military to draft a detailed 16-month combat troop withdrawal policy, apparently so that he can announce his decision only after consulting with his field commanders and the Pentagon. The first clear indication of the intention of Petraeus, Odierno and their allies to try to get Obama to amend his decision came on Jan. 29 when the New York Times published an interview with Odierno, ostensibly based on the premise that Obama had indicated that he was "open to alternatives". The Times reported that Odierno had "developed a plan that would move slower than Mr. Obama's campaign timetable" and had suggested in an interview "it might take the rest of the year to determine exactly when United States forces could be drawn down significantly". The opening argument by the Petraeus-Odierno faction against Obama's withdrawal policy was revealed the evening of the Jan. 21 meeting when retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, one of the authors of the Bush troop surge policy and a close political ally and mentor of Gen. Petraeus, appeared on the Lehrer News Hour to comment on Obama's pledge on Iraq combat troop withdrawal. Keane, who had certainly been briefed by Petraeus on the outcome of the Oval Office meeting, argued that implementing such a withdrawal of combat troops would "increase the risk rather dramatically over the 16 months". He asserted that it would jeopardise the "stable political situation in Iraq" and called that risk "not acceptable". The assertion that Obama's withdrawal policy threatens the gains allegedly won by the Bush surge and Petraeus's strategy in Iraq will apparently be the theme of the campaign that military opponents are now planning. Keane, the Army Vice-Chief of Staff from 1999 to 2003, has ties to a network of active and retired four-star Army generals, and since Obama's Jan. 21 order on the 16-month withdrawal plan, some of the retired four-star generals in that network have begun discussing a campaign to blame Obama's troop withdrawal from Iraq for the ultimate collapse of the political "stability" that they expect to follow U.S. withdrawal, according to a military source familiar with the network's plans. The source says the network, which includes senior active duty officers in the Pentagon, will begin making the argument to journalists covering the Pentagon that Obama's withdrawal policy risks an eventual collapse in Iraq. That would raise the political cost to Obama of sticking to his withdrawal policy. If Obama does not change the policy, according to the source, they hope to have planted the seeds of a future political narrative blaming his withdrawal policy for the "collapse" they expect in an Iraq without U.S. troops. That line seems likely to appeal to reporters covering the Iraq troop withdrawal issue. Ever since Obama's inauguration, media coverage of the issue has treated Obama' s 16-month withdrawal proposal as a concession to anti-war sentiment which will have to be adjusted to the "realities" as defined by the advice to Obama from Gates, Petreaus and Odierno. Ever since he began working on the troop surge, Keane has been the central figure manipulating policy in order to keep as many U.S. troops in Iraq as possible. It was Keane who got Vice President Dick Cheney to push for Petraeus as top commander in Iraq in late 2006 when the existing commander, Gen. George W. Casey, did not support the troop surge. It was Keane who protected Petraeus's interests in ensuring the maximum number of troops in Iraq against the efforts by other military leaders to accelerate troop withdrawal in 2007 and 2008. As Bob Woodward reported in "The War Within", Keane persuaded President George W. Bush to override the concerns of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about the stress of prolonged U.S. occupation of Iraq on the U.S. Army and Marine Corps as well its impact on the worsening situation in Afghanistan. Bush agreed in September 2007 to guarantee that Petraeus would have as many troops as he needed for as long as wanted, according to Woodward's account. Keane had also prevailed on Gates in April 2008 to make Petraeus the new commander of CENTCOM. Keane argued that keeping Petraeus in the field was the best insurance against a Democratic administration reversing the Bush policy toward Iraq. Keane had operated on the assumption that a Democratic president would probably not take the political risk of rejecting Petraeus's recommendation on the pace of troop withdrawal from Iraq. Woodward quotes Keane as telling Gates, "Let's assume we have a Democratic administration and they want to pull this thing out quickly, and now they have to deal with General Petraeus and General Odierno. There will be a price to be paid to override them." Obama told Petraeus in Baghdad last July that, if elected, he would regard the overall health of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps and the situation in Afghanistan as more important than Petraeus's obvious interest in maximising U.S. troop strength in Iraq, according to Time magazine's Joe Klein. But judging from Petraeus's shock at Obama's Jan. 21 decision, he had not taken Obama's previous rejection of his arguments seriously. That miscalculation suggests that Petraeus had begun to accept Keane's assertion that a newly-elected Democratic president would not dare to override his policy recommendation on troops in Iraq. *Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006. (END/2009) From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Feb 2 13:16:24 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 12:16:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Barack Obama will allow rendition to continue In-Reply-To: <9A87D684D31847689A9A183570F512F4@twubby.com> Message-ID: <1613338540.2807601233605784846.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4425135/Barack-Obama-to-allow-anti-terror-rendition-to-continue.html Daily Telegraph ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 2 February 2009 Barack Obama to allow anti-terror rendition to continue The highly controversial anti-terror practice of rendition will continue under Barack Obama, it has emerged. By Alex Spillius in Washington Despite ordering the closure of Guantanamo and an end to harsh interrogation techniques, the new president has failed to call an end to secret abductions and questioning. In his first few days in office, Mr Obama was lauded for rejecting policies of the George W Bush era, but it has emerged the CIA still has the authority to carry out renditions in which suspects are picked up and often sent to a third country for questioning. The practice caused outrage at the EU, after it was revealed the CIA had used secret prisons in Romania and Poland and airports such as Prestwick in Scotland to conduct up to 1,200 rendition flights. The European Parliament called renditions "an illegal instrument used by the United States". According to a detailed reading of the executive orders signed by Mr Obama on Jan 22, renditions have not been outlawed, with the new administration deciding it needs to retain some devices in Mr Bush's anti-terror arsenal amid continued threats to US national security. "Obviously you need to preserve some tools ? you still have to go after the bad guys," an administration official told the Los Angeles Times. "The legal advisers working on this looked at rendition. It is controversial in some circles and kicked up a big storm in Europe. But if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice." Section 2 (g) of the order, appears to allow the US authorities to continue detaining and interrogating terror suspects as long as it does not hold them for long periods. It reads: "The terms "detention facilities" and "detention facility" in section 4(a) of this order do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis." The revelation will cause anger in Europe, where several cases of abuse or mistaken identity were revealed during the Bush administration. Khaled Masri, a German citizen, was arrested in Macedonia in 2003 and taken to Afghanistan for five months before the CIA realised it had made a mistake. The Italians sought to prosecute CIA operatives who had arrested Abu Omar, an Egyptian cleric, and flew him to Egypt where he claimed he was tortured. Though rendition was widely deployed after the September 11 attacks, the programme began under Bill Clinton, the last Democratic president, in the early 1990s. It is credited with bringing to justice Ramzi Yousef, who was picked up in Pakistan, brought to the US and convicted for plotting the 1993 bombings at the World Trade Centre in New York. Rendition could well become the second issue to strain relations between the new president and his European allies, in addition to an argument over "Buy American" clauses in Mr Obama's $820 billion plan to revive the economy. European embassies have already urged senators who will debate the bill this week to remove stipulations that any infrastructure projects funded in the package use only American steel, iron and concrete. Leaders of major corporations and business groups have come out strongly against the provisions. In the senate protectionism is not the most pressing issue however. Mr Obama faces a real battle to have his bill approved because Republicans see it as spending bill designed to please Democratic constituencies rather than create jobs. Jon Kyl, the Republican's second-ranking Senate member, said yesterday that the party would flex its muscles by stalling the package, by talking the bill off the agenda with a filibuster. The president meanwhile kept up his attempt to charm the opposition into accepting his plan, which could determine the fate of not just the economy but his presidency. He invited 15 congressmen from both major parties to watch last night's Superbowl game, the climax of the American football season, at the White House. From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Feb 2 13:17:20 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 12:17:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Black Flag In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <50153720.2808041233605840230.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Uri Avnery 31.1.09 Black Flag A SPANISH JUDGE has instituted a judicial inquiry against seven Israeli political and military personalities on suspicion of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The case: the 2002 dropping of a one ton bomb on the home of Hamas leader Salah Shehade. Apart from the intended victim, 14 people, most of them children, were killed. For those who have forgotten: the then commander of the Israeli Air Force, Dan Halutz, was asked at the time what he feels when he drops a bomb on a residential building. His unforgettable answer: ?A slight bump to the wing.? When we in Gush Shalom accused him of a war crime, he demanded that we be put on trial for high treason. He was joined by the Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, who accused us of wanting to ?turn over Israeli army officers to the enemy?. The Attorney General notified us officially that he did not intend to open an investigation against those responsible for the bombing. I should be happy, therefore, that at long last somebody is ready to put that action to a judicial test (even if he seems to have been thwarted by political pressure.) But I am sorry that this has happened in Spain, not in Israel. ISRAELI TV VIEWERS have lately been exposed to a bizarre sight: army officers appearing with their faces hidden, as usual for criminals when the court prohibits their identification. Pedophiles, for example, or attackers of old women. On the orders of the military censors, this applies to all officers, from battalion commanders down, who have been involved in the Gaza war. Since the faces of brigade commanders and above are generally known, the order does not apply to them. Immediately after the cease-fire, the Minister of Defense, Ehud Barak, promoted a special law that would give unlimited backing by the state to all officers and soldiers who took part in the Gaza war and who might be accused abroad of war crimes. This seems to confirm the Hebrew adage: ?On the head of the thief, the hat is burning?. I DO NOT object to trials abroad. The main thing is that war criminals, like pirates, should be brought to justice. It is not so important where they are caught. (This rule was applied by the State of Israel when it abducted Adolf Eichmann in Argentina and hanged him in Israel for heinous crimes committed outside the territory of Israel and, indeed, before the state even existed.) But as an Israeli patriot, I would prefer suspected Israeli war criminals to be put on trial in Israel. That is necessary for the country, for all decent officers and soldiers of the Israeli army, for the education of future generations of citizens and soldiers. There is no need to rely on international law alone. There are Israeli laws against war crimes. Enough to mention the immortal phrase coined by Justice Binyamin Halevy, serving as a military judge, in the trial of the border policemen who were responsible for the 1956 massacre in Kafr Kassem, when dozens of children, women and men were mown down for violating a curfew which they did not even know about. The judge announced that even in wartime, there are orders over which flies ?the black flag of illegality?. These are orders which are ?manifestly? illegal ? that is to say, orders which every normal person can tell are illegal, without having to consult a lawyer. War criminals dishonor the army whose uniform they wear ? whether they are generals or common soldiers. As a combat soldier on the day the Israeli Defense Army was officially created, I am ashamed of them and demand that they be cast out and be put on trial in Israel. My list of suspects includes politicians, soldiers, rabbis and lawyers. THERE IS not the slightest doubt that in the Gaza war, crimes were committed. The question is to what extent and by whom. Example: the soldiers call on the residents of a house to leave it. A woman and her four children come out, waving white handkerchiefs. It is absolutely clear that they are not armed fighters. A soldier in a near-by tank stands up, points his rifle and shoots them dead at short range. According to testimonies that seem to be beyond doubt, this happened more than once. Another example: the shelling of the United Nations school full of refugees, from which there was no shooting ? as admitted by the army, after the original pretexts were disproved. These are ?simple? cases. But the spectrum of cases is far wider. A serious judicial investigation has to start right from the top: the politicians and senior officers who decided on the war and confirmed its plans must be investigated about their decisions. In Nuremberg it was laid down that the starting of a war of aggression is a crime. An objective investigation has to find out whether the decision to start the war was justified, or if there existed another way of stopping the launching of rockets against Israeli territory. Without doubt, no country can or should tolerate the bombing of its towns and villages from beyond the border. But could this be prevented by talking with the Gaza authorities? Was our government?s decision to boycott Hamas, the winner of the democratic Palestinian elections, the real cause of this war? Did the imposition of the blockade on a million and a half Gaza Strip inhabitants contribute to the launching of the Qassams? In brief: were the alternatives considered before it was decided to start a deadly war? The war plan included a massive attack on the civilian population of the Strip. The real aims of a war can be understood less from the official declarations of its initiators, than from their actions. If in this war some 1300 men, women and children were killed, the great majority of whom were not fighters; if about 5000 people were injured, most of them children; if some 2500 homes were partly or wholly destroyed; if the infrastructure of life was totally demolished ? all this clearly could not have happened accidentally. It must have been a part of the war plan. The things said during the war by politicians and officers make it clear that the plan had at least two aims, which might be considered war crimes: (1) To cause widespread killing and destruction, in order to ?fix a price tag?, ?to burn into their consciousness?, ?to reinforce deterrence?, and most of all ? to get the population to rise up against Hamas and overthrow their government. Clearly this affects mainly the civilian population. (2) To avoid casualties to our army at (literally) any price by destroying any building and killing any human being in the area into which our troops were about to move, including destroying homes over the heads of their inhabitants, preventing medical teams from reaching the victims, killing people indiscriminately. In certain cases, inhabitants were warned that they must flee, but this was mainly an alibi-action: there was nowhere to flee to, and often fire was opened on people trying to escape. An independent court will have to decide whether such a war-plan is in accordance with national and international law, or whether it was ab initio a crime against humanity and a war-crime. This was a war of a regular army with huge capabilities against a guerrilla force. In such a war, too, not everything is permissible. Arguments like ?The Hamas terrorists were hiding within the civilian population? and ?They used the population as human shields? may be effective as propaganda but are irrelevant: that is true for every guerrilla war. It must be taken into account when a decision to start such a war is being considered. In a democratic state, the military takes its orders from the political establishment. Good. But that does not include ?manifestly? illegal orders, over which the black flag of illegality is waving. Since the Nuremberg trials, there is no more room for the excuse that ?I was only obeying orders?. Therefore, the personal responsibility of all involved - from the Chief of Staff, the Front Commander and the Division Commander right down to the last soldier - must be examined. From the statements of soldiers one must deduce that many believed that their job was ?to kill as many Arabs as possible?. Meaning: no distinction between fighters and non-fighters. That is a completely illegal order, whether given explicitly or by a wink and a nudge. The soldiers understood this to be ?the spirit of the commander?. AMONG THOSE suspected of war crimes, the rabbis have a place of honor. Those who incite to war crimes and call upon soldiers, directly or indirectly, to commit war crimes may be guilty of a war crime themselves. When one speaks of ?rabbis?, one thinks of old men with long white beards and big hats, who give tongue to venerable wisdom. But the rabbis who accompanied the troops are a very different species. In the last decades, the state-financed religious educational system has churned out ?rabbis? who are more like medieval Christian priests than the Jewish sages of Poland or Morocco. This system indoctrinates its pupils with a violent tribal cult, totally ethnocentric, which sees in the whole of world history nothing but an endless story of Jewish victimhood. This is a religion of a Chosen People, indifferent to others, a religion without compassion for anyone who is not Jewish, which glorifies the God-decreed genocide described in the Biblical book of Joshua. The products of this education are now the ?rabbis? who instruct the religious youths. ? With their encouragement, a systematic effort has been made to take over the Israeli army from within. Kippa-wearing officers have replaced the Kibbutzniks, who not so long ago were dominant in the army. Many of the lower and middle-ranking officers now belong to this group. The most outstanding example is the ?Chief Army Rabbi?, Colonel Avichai Ronsky, who has declared that his job is to reinforce the ?fighting spirit? of the soldiers. He is a man of the extreme right, not far from the spirit of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, whose party was outlawed in Israel for its fascist ideology. Under the auspices of the army rabbinate, religious-fascist brochures of the ultra-right ?rabbis? were distributed to the soldiers. This material includes political incitement, such as the statement that the Jewish religion prohibits ?giving up even one millimeter of Eretz Israel?, that the Palestinians, like the Biblical Philistines (from whom the name Palestine derives), are a foreign people who invaded the country, and that any compromise (such as indicated in the official government program) is a mortal sin. The distribution of political propaganda violates, of course, army law. The rabbis openly called upon the soldiers to be cruel and merciless towards the Arabs. To treat them mercifully, they stated, is a ?terrible, awful immorality?. When such material is distributed to religious soldiers going into war, it is easy to see why things happened the way they did. THE PLANNERS of this war knew that the shadow of war crimes was hovering over the planned operation. Witness: the Attorney General (whose official title is ?Legal Advisor to the Government?) was a partner to the planning. This week the Chief Army Attorney, Colonel Avichai Mandelblut, disclosed that his officers were attached throughout the war to all the commanders, from the Chief of Staff down to the Division Commander. ? All this together leads to the inescapable conclusion that the legal advisors bear direct responsibility for the decisions taken and implemented, from the massacre of the civilian police recruits at their graduating ceremony to the shelling of the UN installations. Every attorney who was a partner to the deliberations before an order was given is responsible for its consequences, unless he can prove that he objected to it. The Chief Army Attorney, who is supposed to give the army professional and objective advice, speaks about ?the monstrous enemy? and tries to justify the actions of the army by saying that it was fighting against ?an unbridled enemy, who declared that he ?loves death? and finds shelter behind the backs of women and children?. Such language is, perhaps, pardonable in a pep-talk of a war-drunk combat commander, like the battalion chief who ordered his soldiers to commit suicide rather than be captured, but totally unacceptable when it comes from the chief legal officer of the army. WE MUST pursue all the legal processes in Israel and call for an independent investigation and the indictment of suspected perpetrators. We must demand this even if the chances of it happening are slim indeed. If these efforts fail, nobody will be able to object to trials abroad, either in an international court or in the courts of those nations that respect human rights and international law. Until then, the black flag will still be waving. From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Feb 2 13:26:30 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 12:26:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] By giving unquestioning support to Israel, Canada has destroyed its reputation for impartiality - Amnesty International In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1507449320.2812491233606390706.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Vancouver Sun ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? February 1, 2009 Canadians not always good guys: Amnesty Amnesty Internation Canada?s secretary general argues that Canada?s unquestioning support for Israel with respect to human rights issues regarding Israel and Palestine are a sign that the Harper government has abandoned previous efforts to remain impartial By Louisa Taylor, Ottawa Citizen ????????????????????????????????????????? OTTAWA ? Canadians have long prided themselves on being the good guys when it comes to protecting human rights at home and abroad, but that?s no longer always the case, says Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International Canada. ?Canada has started to be a problem with regard to some human rights issues and has in fact started to get in the way of protection,? said Neve, citing as an example Canada?s ?aggressive opposition? to the 2007 adoption of a United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Canada was one of only four countries to vote against the measure. Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the Canadian government ?set out to block and defeat? the declaration, says Neve. ?Other countries can?t believe they saw that kind of behaviour from Canada and it has significantly set back and undermined our authority on the world stage.? Neve was speaking in advance of a speech he?s making at the University of Ottawa Monday as part of its International Development Week activities. The theme of the week is Development: A Basic Human Right? and featured speakers include former minister of Foreign Affairs Lloyd Axworthy, Council of Canadians chair Maude Barlow and journalist Alexandre Trudeau. Neve says he was asked to reflect on the state of human rights protection in the world today, a timely topic a month after the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. ?There is a great deal to celebrate and the world has come forward leaps and bounds from that time, in spite of horrific tragedies,? such as Rwanda and Darfur, said Neve. Canada?s place at the forefront of human rights protection begins with the 1948 declaration itself, which was drafted in large part by Canadian legal scholar John Humphrey. Since then Canada has been a leader on many fronts, including the protection of child soldiers, the treaty to ban land mines and the creation of the International Criminal Court. Neve cites former Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney?s ?strong leadership? in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa and on initiatives regarding children?s rights as evidence the shift in Canada?s reputation can?t be explained by blaming one political party or another. But he points to Canada?s current position ?of complete support of Israel with respect to the very volatile human rights issues that come up regarding Israel and Palestine? as a sign that the Harper government has abandoned previous efforts to remain impartial. ?That has damaged our reputation for principled leadership and objectivity regarding human rights,? said Neve. ?There?s no question it has been since this government took power that we have seen a lot of these changes in policy and positions . . . We need to make it clear that?s not Canada?s tradition and Canadians want to see a return to principled leadership.? Ottawa Citizen From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Feb 2 13:30:44 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 12:30:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] A Context for Gaza - The Harvard Crimson In-Reply-To: <881F3BABFD6D4771BBF0D4ED031A4DDB@twubby.com> Message-ID: <1057562835.2813831233606644075.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=526273 The Harvard Crimson ??? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? February 2, 2009 Opinion A Context for Gaza By DUNCAN KENNEDY When I told a friend, a former section leader in a large Harvard College course, that I had been offered a chance to do an op-ed for The Harvard Crimson on Gaza, she identified two fairly common, understandable undergraduate attitudes: ?The situation is too complicated and I can?t make up my mind about it;? and ?This is controversial and there are differences of opinion. No side is ?right.? ? I hope that the recent war, occurring at the beginning of the Obama presidency, will lead to enough discussion of Israel and Palestine in the Harvard community so that more of us feel able to take positions. With that in mind, I will use my space to present a factual picture one would think controversial, but which surprisingly is a matter of consensus of ?informed observers.? The Israeli ?new historian? Benny Morris?a strong Zionist?has documented the ?Origins of the Palestine Refugee Problem.? During military operations in 1947 and 1948 against Palestinian resisters and Arab invading armies trying ineffectually to prevent the creation of a Jewish state, Jewish regular and irregular forces, sometimes using carefully calibrated terror tactics, drove somewhere between 600,000 and 800,000 Palestinian men, women and children from their villages, which they then leveled. After the war, they used force to prevent any of them from returning. Then the new state summarily confiscated their land and property for redistribution to Jews. The remaining Arab population of Israel?now about 20 percent?eventually received formal legal equality, but live in second-class citizen status similar to that of American blacks in the North before affirmative action and the rise of the new black bourgeoisie. In 1967, Israel preemptively attacked Egypt, Jordan and Syria, and occupied the West Bank and Gaza, largely populated by refugees of 1948, as well as East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and Sinai (later returned to Egypt). This generated another approximately 200,000 Palestinian refugees who were also forbidden to return. Since 1973, Israeli governments have gradually moved about 400,000 Jewish settlers into the West Bank and another 200,000 into East Jerusalem, appropriating about 50 percent of the land (when roads and other infrastructure are taken into account), taking over the water, and alternately exploiting and starving the West Bank and Gaza economies to the point where the Arab population is overwhelmingly dependent on the international ?donor community? for subsistence. Palestinian non-violent and violent resistance to the military occupation is fully legal under international law. On the other hand, many of the specific tactics, especially airplane hijacking, suicide bombing targeting civilians, including children and old people, and indiscriminate rocket attacks, have been widely denounced as criminal. The Israeli government justifies the wall, check points, the network of access roads, the discriminatory legal regime, the pass laws, arbitrary arrests, house demolitions, targeted assassinations, torture, and everyday military control as necessary for the security of the settlements (viewed as illegal everywhere but in Israel), and to protect against terrorism inside Israel. The international human rights NGOs such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the United Nations that have denounced Palestinian terror tactics have unanimously condemned Israel on many occasions for violating the human rights of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. After Israel withdrew its settlers from Gaza in 2005, it retained full control of land and sea borders and of the air space. It periodically entered the territory with the goal of suppressing rocket fire aimed indiscriminately at southern Israeli towns. Over the four years before the December 2008 invasion, this rocket fire killed 13 Israeli civilians and made life miserable for tens of thousands of inhabitants of the towns targeted. After Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections in 2006, Israel and the U.S. set out to isolate Hamas by cutting off Gaza from the outside world. The justification was that Hamas was a terrorist organization ?dedicated to the destruction of Israel.? Israel and its allies persisted in this strategy in spite of repeated indications, reported faithfully in the New York Times, that Hamas, like the Palestine Liberation Organization of Yasser Arafat before it, was looking for face-saving means to alter its position and accept a two-state solution. The economic and financial sanctions, including stop-and-go electricity and fuel for the people and for institutions like hospitals, along with Israeli restrictions of the movement of goods and persons into and out of Gaza, destroyed what little productive capacity the occupation had left in Gaza. It turned the territory, according to the clich?, into a ?prison camp,? where the inmates were dependent on charity and Israeli government whim to keep them precariously one step away from ?full fledged humanitarian crisis.? When this did not cause a revolt against Hamas in Gaza, Israel and the U.S., according to an article in Vanity Fair not yet refuted, organized a PLO coup, which failed, and led Hamas to expel the PLO from Gaza. There was eventually a truce between Israel and Hamas. The Hamas claim, which seems basically sound to me, is that Israel was mainly responsible for its ending: Hamas suppressed almost, but not all rocket fire; Israel retaliated for the residuum by refusing to open the borders, so that Gazan misery continued unabated or worsened, and then carried out an armed incursion in November 2008. When Hamas refused to renew the truce and recommenced rocket fire, Israel invaded. Numerous observers have charged Israel with committing war crimes during the war. Without downplaying that aspect, I think it is important to understand the 1,300 Palestinian casualties, including 400 children as well as many, many women, versus 13 Israeli casualties, as typical of a particular kind of ?police action? that Western colonial powers and Western ?ethno-cratic settler regimes? like ours in the U.S., Canada, Australia, Serbia and particularly apartheid South Africa, have historically undertaken to convince resisting native populations that unless they stop resisting they will suffer unbearable death and deprivation. Not just in 1947 and 1948, but also in Lebanon in 1982 and 2006, Israel used similar tactics. Causing horrific civilian deaths is often perfectly defensible under the laws of war, which favor conventional over unconventional forces in asymmetric warfare. The outright ?crimes,? like the My Lai massacre, Abu Ghraib, or Russian massacres in Afghanistan and then in Chechnya, are less important for the civilian victims than the daily tactics of air assault, bombardment, and brutal door-to-door sweeps, meant to draw fire from the resisters that will justify leveling houses and the people in them. Can this picture be right? If so, what is to be done? If not, what is to be done? If you are not already clear about what you think, it is crucial to try to find out for yourself. If the situation is as bad as I have painted, you might consider some small step, perhaps just a contribution to humanitarian relief for Gaza, or e-mailing the White House, or something more, like advocating for Harvard to divest. Duncan Kennedy ?64 is the Carter Professor of General Jurisprudence at Harvard Law School. From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Feb 2 13:41:18 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 12:41:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Riot? If I were 20 years younger I would take to the streets In-Reply-To: <1878625056.2817841233607219548.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <649670748.2818491233607278473.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/01/henry-porter-recession The Observer ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 1 February 2009 Riot? If I were 20 years younger I would take to the streets? Henry Porter The riots in Paris and the demonstrations against foreign work forces being used at British oil refineries and a power station seemed to be a presentiment of widespread civil disturbance, especially in this country. We are, after all, only at the beginning of a slump which is predicted by the IMF to hit Britain more seriously than any other developed nation. It will be longer and deeper and we can already see the hardship, the bills accumulating. In the last week, it seems that I have hardly had a conversation that has not dwelled on the economic crisis and how we arrived at a position where we are paying to bail out the bankers, who are still claiming vast bonuses, and face finding another ?20bn each year in taxes or losing that amount in services. If it had been a matter of straight theft - ie the damage done was equal to every bonus - the world economy could easily absorb the hit, but there is a vast multiple involved between the amount taken in bonuses and the bail-out received from governments. Figures to be published in Vanity Fair next week show that the bail-out in the US is anything up to 900 times the bonuses paid to the top five executives of leading American banks. At Citicorp, bonuses equalled $54m in 2007 while the bail-out was $45bn. This ratio doesn't capture anything like the economic consequences of greed on both sides of the Atlantic. They are incalculable. The crime is nearly the equivalent to poisoning of the world's water supply. If the banking industry and advocates of unregulated market capitalism expect a return to normal service after the slump they are gravely mistaken. It is fortunate for the hedge fund managers and derivative traders in Britain that the London mob does not materialise at moments like this to drag them from their spruced-up homes and limousines as regularly happened in the 18th century. In one way, it is also regrettable, because then the mob, which, incidentally, is a shortening of mobile vulgus, affected the conduct of politics and on several occasions changed things for the better. It was not made up of the depraved and violent underclass found in most historical accounts, but of groups of young working men and apprentices who, while demonstrating for Protestantism and against foreign workers, also played their part in supporting liberty. Something of their voice was heard last week outside the refineries where foreign workers have been employed en masse instead of British workers, but in London, everything is - for the moment - quiet. We are slower to anger than the French, although I must say that if I were a member of my children's generation I would very much feel like hurling the odd carton of milk at politicians and bankers of the older generation. For the people who are going to pay for the lunatic exuberance of the last decade are not its perpetrators - largely the baby boomers born between 1945 and 1965 - but those born after 1985 and, by the way, several succeeding generations. To put it crudely, my generation has stolen from its children and grandchildren. It is they who will be affected by ?20bn per annum shaved off services and for as long as anyone can predict. And this crisis means that we are about to fail in that other important obligation of providing jobs for people coming out of university and school. Last Friday, it was reported that unemployment among 16- to 24-year-olds has risen to 16.1%, which is above the European average of 15.9%. That figure is bound to grow over the next two years. Look coldly at my generation, the one that's has been claiming every sort of entitlement since the Who sang about it, and you realise that we have been criminally irresponsible. We are leaving the people born after 1985 not just with the bills for this economic mess, but we also expect them to pay for an increase in the cost of state pensions for us, a rise of benefits and soaring pensioner health costs, which has been clear in demographic studies for some time. How young people are going to get started in paying for our old age without jobs and with a credit crunch and a frozen property market is anyone's guess. Consider the political classes of today, the people who clustered round Tony Blair - born a month after me in 1953 - and who have been in charge for more than a decade. What have they done to make politics and the business of Parliament responsive to the widely appreciated needs of this century? Though there are many well-intentioned politicians, politics probably hasn't been held in such low esteem since the time of the London mob. It simply fails to deliver. Even in the good years, the government spent vast amounts on education and health, but failed to secure a proportionate rise in standards and productivity. I won't try your patience with my generation's failure on rights and liberty, its casual erosion of the privileges that were passed to us by our parents, or its bewildering ignorance of history, but it is important to understand that at the heart of the deterioration is Parliament and in this sense politics, rather than society, is broken. Last week, a friend said that what he found so frustrating in the scandal involving peers allegedly offering to influence laws for cash, as well as the apparent immunity of bankers, was the absence of justice. None of the 3,000 offences introduced by Labour apparently caters for lords and multi-millionaires. But this is minor compared with the crisis in the way laws - often designed to serve the political classes of my generation - are drafted and passed without proper scrutiny. My generation wanted everything - good food, cheap travel, large disposable incomes, luxury and security - and we have had them all, but at a great cost. We knew about climate change a long time ago, yet our government all but ignored it until the Tories made the running. We knew that bankers had not discovered the secret of limitless wealth creation, but we failed to regulate. And now if my children's generation demonstrates, we will deploy a newly equipped and trained riot police to protect us. You see we have been expecting trouble. From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Feb 2 13:47:41 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 12:47:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Israeli racist, fascist superhawk Avigdor Lieberman surging in polls Message-ID: <1170266537.2821841233607661250.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/world/middle_east/article5627585.ece ? The Sunday Times ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? February 1, 2009 ? Israel?s nuclear hawk Avigdor Lieberman in poll surge ? Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv ? An ultra-rightwinger, who is said to favour flattening Tehran if Iran develops nuclear weapons, has emerged as the politician gaining the most ground in next week?s general election in Israel. ? Avigdor Lieberman, 50, is advancing so rapidly in the polls that his Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel Our Home) party is set to overtake Labour and become the third largest party in the Knesset, Israel?s parliament. ? In a recent interview Lieberman said: ?I definitely see myself as ready for the post of defence minister.? Although it is unlikely he would be granted access to Israel?s nuclear arsenal, he could be in line for a senior post in a coalition government led by Binyamin Netanyahu, head of the centre-right Likud party and frontrunner in the polls. ? Lieberman was born in Russia and emigrated to Israel as a teenager. His party, which strongly opposes the peace process, has a powerful appeal to Russian immigrants despite corruption allegations against members of his circle. ? Last week police arrested seven of his associates, including his 26-year-old daughter Michal, during an investigation into suspected money laundering, fraud and breach of trust. ? The investigation was dismissed by Lieberman although he was furious after Michal collapsed under interrogation and was taken to hospital. Aides said that after polling day on February 10 he would ensure that the heads of senior police officers rolled. ? In private Lieberman is said to have urged that Tehran be levelled if Iran goes ahead with its nuclear weapons programme. In public he told listeners to Israel Radio?s Persian service: ?You will pay a high price. You, the good Iranian citizens, will pay for your leaders? actions.? ? He has also denounced Egypt, despite its peace treaty with Israel. He once suggested that in the event of war with Egypt, Israel should destroy the Aswan dam on the Nile and flood the country. From mstainsby at resist.ca Mon Feb 2 15:12:03 2009 From: mstainsby at resist.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:12:03 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Iran- Trapped Between Theocracy and Imperialism: The Reality of Iran Message-ID: <49876FB3.5030809@resist.ca> Trapped Between Theocracy and Imperialism: The Reality of Iran By Poya Saffari Iran is urgently facing both domestic tyranny and foreign imperialism. Instead of emphasizing opposition to one, in isolation, a balanced understanding should evaluate both. Iran's current geopolitical reality is shaped by both a despotic theocracy and threats of US-led imperialist intervention. In the midst of this reality, current anti-war and anti-imperialist movements in the "West" disproportionately emphasize imperialist threats, some sympathizing with the Iranian regime as a stronghold against imperialism and others opposing the regime, but avoiding active criticism for fear of playing into right-wing agendas and discourses. Conversely, many in the Iranian Diaspora have focused opposition solely on the Iranian regime. While both these standpoints are understandable given the contexts out of which they arise (a brutalized Iranian Diaspora and a passionate anti-imperialist movement), neither is viable in the face of past and present realities. In the context of looming military intervention against Iran, advocated in the United States by both Democrats and Republicans, we must root our analysis in a nuanced understanding, cognizant of colonial and imperialist histories as well as the unacceptable tyranny of the Islamic Republic of Iran. A conscientious perspective must seek to explore, criticize and resist both. The following text seeks to contribute to the development of this perspective through exploration and analysis of contemporary Iranian history and current events. ? To understand the contemporary reality of Iran1 <#sdfootnote1sym>, it is useful to start with the important events of the early 1950s. In 1951, building on decades of popular struggle, Iran's Prime Minister Muhammad Mossadeq nationalized Iran's oil production, which had to that point been under the exploitative control of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (known today as British Petroleum). Just two years after this bold challenge to imperialist control the CIA - encouraged and aided by British intelligence - funded, engineered, and executed a military coup that toppled Mossadeq's government and restored the pro-western and dictatorial rule of Muhammad Reza Shah. This imperialist attack on Iranian democracy thrust Iran onto a collision course with a brutal Islamic theocracy. (Keddie 129-31) The roots of the anti-imperialist and democratization efforts headed by Mossadeq in the early 1950's go back to the gradual penetration of Iran by the West during the nineteenth century and the popular struggle that occurred in response, most significantly during the Tobacco Revolt (1891-92) and the Constitutional Movement (1905-11). Western penetration started with military defeats throughout Central Asia and the Caucasus at the hands of the Russian and British armies. These defeats resulted in creation of several treaties that established borders that have endured more-or-less intact into the contemporary age. Representatives from Russia and Britain became influential players in Iranian politics and even though Iran was still ruled by the Qajar monarchy, the quasi-colonial impact of Western influence was established. (Abrahamian, 36-37) In 1890, Nasir al-Din Shah, the tyrannical head of the Qajar monarchy, granted the British a monopoly on the sale of Iranian tobacco. In response, a popular revolt - boycotting the use of tobacco forced Nasir al-Din Shah to rescind the concession. (Abrahamian 73-74; Keddie 61-62; Milani 26-27) The Tobacco Revolt of 1891-92 amounted to a dress rehearsal for the Constitutional Movement of 1905-11 that followed. In April 1896 at the Adb al-Azim Mosque, just outside Tehran, Nasir al-Dine Shah was shot and killed. (Dabashi 67-70) His death along with an economic crisis and threats of foreign control went on to trigger a massive uprising, known as the Constitutional Movement (1905-11), which became the political vehicle for opposition to foreign domination and the arbitrary powers of the Shah.2 <#sdfootnote2sym> (Abrahamian, 41) Between June 1905 and June 1908 several waves of resistance - combining mass meetings (under the structure of popular *anjumans,* or community councils), protests and strikes - brought the Qajar dynasty to its knees. What had in earnest been fermenting for several decades, culminated in 1906 with the creation of a Constituent National Assembly (*Majles-i Meli)* and a constitution. (Ambrahmian 81-85) Although, the constitution was a progressive accomplishment for its time, the fragile alliance between secular reformers and religious authorities (* ulama**)* produced a noteworthy compromise, especially given Iran's present political reality. Beyond opening the door toward democracy, the constitution also created an "ecclesiastical committee" of five *ulama* with veto power over all *Majles* legislation they deemed contrary to Islamic law. Thus, in 1906, this religiously sanctioned committee, established the precedent upon which today's Guardian Council, a twelve memeber body comprising of six *ulama* and six jurists with veto power over bills passed by parliament and who can bar candidates from standing in elections, along with other oppressive state organs prevent genuine democracy. (Abrahamian 81-92) Soon after the creation of the *Majles* and constitution, opposition from certain members of the *ulama*, began to mount, particularly from Shaykh Fazallah Nouri. He described the concept of equality as an "alien heresy," and labeled the constitutionalists as "atheist." (Abrahamian 95) As a leading religious figure, his hostility toward the constitution markedly weakened the movement, creating an opening for Mohammad Ali Shah, with the help of a brigade under a Russian colonel, to jail and kill constitutionalists, silence the press, establish martial law and bomb the * Majles*. However, the Constitutional Movement was able to regroup and converge on Tehran, finally forcing Mohammad Ali Shah to surrender on July 16, 1909. (Milani 30) Two years before this reassertion of popular will, an important event had set the stage for the end of the Constitutional Movement. The Anglo-Russian Entente of 1907 divided Iran into three spheres of influence: the north and central parts under the Russians, the south under the British, and in-between a "neutral zone." (Keddie 69-70) This colonial agreement set the stage for imminent foreign intervention. After the Shah's surrender of 1909, Russia - fearing that the Constitutional Movement, with strong foundations in northern Iran would hurt its interests - occupied Enzeli and Rasht in the north and threatened to march on Tehran. (Keddie 69-71) By December 1911, due to this imperialist intervention, the *Majlis* was forced to dissolve. (Abrahamian 109) The decades that followed saw mass protests in the face of the Anglo-Russian occupation, a period of political disintegration and the rise of another local tyrant: Reza Shah. (Abrahamian 103-165) Nonetheless, this short-lived revolution inspired generations to follow, ultimately leading to the strong anti-imperialist movement of the early 1950's. ? Iran has always been an amalgamation of ideologies, histories, languages and ethnicities, layered with religious, class, urban-rural and gender complexities and divisions. These various communities and identities are tied together by the presumptuous and ultimately false notion of "Iranian nationhood." Iran, like so many other nations, should be understood as a complex mix of incongruities and differences. Beyond the dominant Persian and Twelver Shi'i Islamic identities, there at least another eighteen languages, religions and ethnicities present in Iran, including but not restricted to Azeris, Kurds, Baluchis, Turkmens, Armenians, Assyrians, Georgians, Bakhtiaris, Khamsehs, Lurs, Qashqais, Arabs, Jews, Zoroastrians, Bahai's, Sunni Muslims and Afghan refugees. Iran's population, numbering roughly 70 million (not including the 1.9 million Afghan refugees), while in no way monolithic, does share one commonality: the tyranny of the Islamic Regime. ? The Iran of today has deep roots in the events of 1953, when the CIA reinstalled Reza Shah to act as the United States' main proxy in the Gulf region. As the Shah re-established his repressive rule, Iran also became the US' main provider of cheap and accessible oil and an important consumer of Western military hardware (including nuclear technology). (Abrahamian *Axis of Evil* 98) The 1953 coup lowered an "iron curtain" on Iranian politics, making the work of progressive and revolutionary movements treacherous. (Abrahamian 450) Still, six decades after the Constitutional Revolution another epic movement against a native-born tyrant shook Iran. Building on decades of resistance, wide sectors of Iranian society participated in the monumental Iranian Revolution (1979). On January 16, 1979 a defeated Muhammad Reza Shah left the country; however, what had begun as a radical broad-based initiative, supported and developed by millions was quickly highjacked by the Islamic leadership trusted to lead it. In order to mount a united campaign against the monarchy, many nationalist (most importantly the Liberation Movement led by Mehdi Bazargan and the prominent progressive cleric Ayatollah Taleqani), socialist (namely the urban guerilla movement of the Cherik-ha-ye- Fada'i-e Khalq and the longstanding, Russian backed, Tudeh Party), and non-clerical Islamic socialists (the Mojahedin-e khalq) rallied behind the populist leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini, not knowing what horrors were to come. Although, the religious authority of clerical leadership was deeply anchored into Iranian culture, and Shi'i sentiments where readily activated toward political ends (in both positive and negative ways), the 1979 revolution was in no way exclusively Islamic; rather it was forcefully "Islamicized." Through a series of opportunistic and repressive maneuvers following the Shah's departure - including the systematic annihilation of all opposition - Ayatollah Khomeini shrewdly transformed a popular revolution into the tyrannical Islamic Republic of Iran. The clerical regime was able to achieve its aims by utilizing and manipulating two important events: The American Embassy Hostage Crisis (1979-80) and the brutal Iran-Iraq war (1980-88). The hostage crisis broke when a group of students took American diplomats and embassy staff as hostages. Khomeini seized the situation as a smokescreen for the regime's brutal repression of Kurdish autonomy, the ratification of a draconian Islamic constitution and the suppression of progressive meetings and gatherings (carried out by the emerging *Hezbollah*or "party of god"). The *Hezbollah*, established by Khomeini to impress upon the population his political ideology, was a ruthless agent of repression.3 <#sdfootnote3sym>(Dabashi 165-166) The outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88) became Khomeini's next opportunity to cement his rule. The war was started by Iraq, although Iran happily jumped into it. As a result one million people lost their lives and another million were displaced. Beyond the opportunistic use of the war to reinforce the cruel tyrannies of Ayatollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein, the war was perpetuated through the sale of arms by foreign powers, particularly the United States (through Israel, in what become a major scandal, know as the Iran-Contra Affair), the Soviet-Union and France. Throughout the war the United States backed Iraq, even deploying its navy into the Persian Gulf, though their overall strategy aimed to contain both sides. Henry Kissinger's statement "too bad they can't both lose" is emblematic of this callous approach. Throughout the war Khomeini brutally clamped down on internal unrest, using national security as a pretext. Alongside social repression, an active propaganda campaign that utilized the notion of martyrdom and attempted to evoke national pride was at the forefront of the regime's effort to control popular protest. The same propaganda campaign, with imagery and language from Khomeini's period, is still present in Iran today. The Iran-Iraq war and the American Embassy Hostage Crisis afforded the Iranian regime the opportunity to wipe out its opposition and entrench its own calculated authority. This power was most tyrannically expressed through the establishment of *velayat-e-faqih* (rule of the jurisprudent, or guardianship of the Clerical Jurist), a religious institution that grants unequivocal and unquestionable authority to a Supreme Leader: at that time Ayatollah Khomeini and today Ayatollah Khamenehi. (Dabashi 242, Abrahamian *New Left Review*) The events surrounding the forced transformation of the 1979 Iranian Revolution into an Islamic Republic have left deep scars upon the people of Iran, particularly among those who experienced the revolution. ? After less than two decades of failed reconstruction and reform under Presidents Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (1989-97) and Mohammad Khatami (1997-2005), Iranians went to polls, on June 25, 2005. This election made the conservative populist, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president. Although, Iran has the semblance of democracy with an elected president and parliament, ultimate power resides in the hands of the Supreme Leader and a few cleric controlled state organs - the Judiciary, the Guardian Council and the Expediency Council. Nonetheless, American foreign policy planners, pursuing regime change, have exaggerated Ahmadinejad's power, which is limited (for example, he does not control the military or foreign policy). (Abrahamian 98) From his side, Ahmadinejad has opportunistically embraced the spotlight, in order to divert attention away from social and economic distress and to spur nationalism. To this end, he has pursued the ludicrous questioning of the Holocaust and the chauvinistic defense of Iran's nuclear program. While elected into office by Iran's poor and disenfranchised - left out of Rafsanjani's neo-liberal reconstruction project - Ahmadinejad has not been able to deliver on his election promises. Iran's harsh economic and social realities have overtaken his empty populist rhetoric. Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad has become a useful villain for American policy makers, trying to convolute the realities of Iranian politics in an attempt to prepare the stage for self-serving intervention. The issue of Iran's nuclear program has gained tremendous attention recently. It has been exploited by both the Iranian and US governments towards their own strategic ends. Iran has manipulated the issue into a question of national pride and used it as a way to suppress political opposition as treasonous.4 <#sdfootnote4sym> The US motivated by an agenda seeking strategic control of the entire region including Iran, has pushed the issue onto the international table in order to manufacture an opportunity for intervention. Moreover, the hypocrisy of US foreign policy is glaring: as it was the same United States, beginning in 1957, that enthusiastically supported and provided nuclear technology for its strategic ally, Iran's dictatorial ruler, Muhammad Reza Shah. (Malm & Esmailian 140-141) This technology and infrastructure is being used today by the Islamic regime. The criminal invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq on the Eastern and Western sides of Iran, by the United States and its allies (including Canada) have allowed the Islamic regime to ratchet up misguided nationalism. In the wake of the Bush doctrine, unveiled in a document entitled* National Security Strategy of the United States of America* and former President Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech (on January 29th 2002), America's aim for the strategic control of the middle east region, with Iran as a key component is more than ever clear. The pressure and warmongering so far directed at Iran have only fed into the strategies of the Iranian conservativ*e *block. This section of the Iranian regime has welcomed US aggression as a means of propelling nationalism and camouflaging internal repression. 5 <#sdfootnote5sym> Through indirect collusion, the United States and the Islamic Republic have worked in tandem to silence resistance within Iran. For all intents and purposes creating an atmosphere where Iranians fighting to change or oust the regime, are isolated as supporters of the United States. An example was the arrest of the widely respected, Mansour Ossanlou, the leader of the Vahed bus workers union who was accused of "maintaining relations with and receiving financial support from a foreign power." (Malm & Esmailian 201) Bolstering the existence and threat of an "enemy," in order to fan nationalist sentiments, divert attention away from internal tensions and increase repression, is an old trick of both the United States and the Islamic Republic. Consequently, Iran's true geopolitical realities have been seriously skewed. In this light, the challenge facing Iran's peoples remains the same as a hundred years ago; overthrow an oppressive domestic regime (with clerics replacing monarchs) and defend against foreign intervention (with the United States replacing Russian and Britain as the main imperialist force). ? With half of the population under the age of 24, Iran's youth are an important factor toward change. (CBC; http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iran/) This demographic reality placed next to rampant unemployment, rising inflation and increasing poverty has produced bewilderment and opposition among many Iranians, youth in particular. In an attempt to side track this reality, the regime has continued its militarization of poverty, through the absorption of youth and poor into the various military branches (*Pasdaran*, *Basijj* and *Hezbollah *). Nonetheless, people are still motivated by the dire realities of their day-to-day lives, ranging from repressive social controls to economic hardship. The rise of mass communication, especially the Internet (with some estimates reporting the existence of as many as 75,000 Persian blogs, and Persian being one of the most popular languages for blogs in the world) has become a key window toward change. This has occurred despite the regimes attempts to censor web access and restrict the speed of Internet connections. At the same time the relentless work of labor, student and women's movements, who in the face systematic repression continue to forge ahead, are another important factor. Thus, the existence of resentment toward the regime, especially by youth with access through the Internet to alternative ideas and messages along with the work of many grassroots movements fighting to change Iran's current reality, are fueling another broad-based struggle for revolution. Hostilities and the looming prospect of an attack by the United States have only served to stifle the voice of resistance movements and strengthen the grip of the Islamic regime. US aggression has sparked fear and nationalism amongst the population, which in turn has been insidiously manipulated by the regime in order to further impose its rule. Not only is any kind of forced intervention dangerous for those living in Iran (and should be understood as part of a long history of imperialist aggression built upon centuries of brutal colonialism), but it will also undermine the persistent work of movements within Iran, by affording the regime more opportunities to repress resistance in the name of national security. As an "Iranian" forced to leave Iran by a brutal regime, who is very conscious of past and present imperialist and colonial realities, I see no choose, but to expose and resist, with equal urgency, the Iranian regime and US-led imperialism. -- Poya Saffari is a farmer and activist, born in Iran, and based in Quebec. He is active with migrant justice and indigenous solidarity struggles in Montreal with groups like No One Is Illegal and Solidarity Across Borders. For feedback on this article, and for a full bibliography, contact poya at resist.ca. 1 <#sdfootnote1anc> "Iran" will be employed throughout this text in reference to both the present nation-state labeled as such, as well as the entity formerly called "Persia"(before 1935). 2 <#sdfootnote2anc> The period between June 1905 and August 1906 - beginning with a protest in the form of a procession during the religious mourning of Muharram and ending with the creation of a Constituent National Assembly, is know as the Constitutional Revolution, although the struggle for a constitution continued for years after. Consequently, the entire span between 1905 and 1911 is considered the period of the Constitutional Movement. 3 <#sdfootnote3anc> The passionate opinions of many left-wing Iranians regarding the Lebanese *Hezbollah* are rooted in the brutality of the Iranian *Hezbollah* following the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The Lebanese * Hezbollah* was created from conditions spurred by devastating Israeli oppression, the liberation efforts of Lebanon's historically marginalized Shi'i population and Iran's desire to propagate its political ideology and influence. Even though Iran did play a critical role during the formation of the Lebanese *Hezbollah,* it is today an independent political entity, though it still receives considerable financial and military support from Iran. Moreover, its foundations and present political ideologies are arguably tied to Khomeini (still revered in Iran, Lebanon and elsewhere, as a saint). 4 <#sdfootnote4anc> It should be obvious that nuclear weapons in the hands of anyone, whether Iran or the United States, is unacceptable and disastrous. Furthermore, it should be made obvious that Iran is pursuing nuclear capacity as both a supplemental energy source and to pursue the potentiality of a nuclear weapon for strategic power reasons. We should remember that Iran has ample motivation, to seek a nuclear arsenal, since it is surrounded by nuclear states; Russia, Pakistan, Israel and the United States in the Persian Gulf. 5 <#sdfootnote5anc> The clerical power structure within Iran is divided into two main camps, with relatively differing perspectives on US hostility. The pragmatists, led by Rafsanjani, prefer to maintain the regime through relatively neutral and in-offensive positioning in the face of US aggression. Rafsanjani, one of the wealthiest people in the world, holds a great deal of power in Iranian politics, but cannot climb to the position of supreme leader due to his lack of cleric credentials and thus is pushing to do away with *velayat-e-fagih* in order to increase his potential power. The strategy of the pragmatist branch is also fueled by a desire to open the Iranian market to foreign investment (meaning they want to see an end to the long standing American boycott on investment in Iran) and increased neo-liberal economic strategies. Meanwhile the conservatives, led by Mehsbah Yazdi and Khamenehi, hold a strategy that aims to maintain power by aggressive posturing against the US that can be transformed into public support. From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Feb 2 15:37:43 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 14:37:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] =?utf-8?q?It=E2=80=99s_Not_Going_to_Be_OK?= Message-ID: <146943914.2878961233614263454.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090202_its_not_going_to_be_ok/ ? TruthDig.com ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? February?2,?2009 ? It?s Not Going to Be OK ? By Chris Hedges ? The daily bleeding of thousands of jobs will soon turn our economic crisis into a political crisis. The street protests, strikes and riots that have rattled France, Turkey, Greece, Ukraine, Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Iceland will descend on us. It is only a matter of time. And not much time. When things start to go sour, when Barack Obama is exposed as a mortal waving a sword at a tidal wave, the United States could plunge into a long period of precarious social instability. ? At no period in American history has our democracy been in such peril or has the possibility of totalitarianism been as real. Our way of life is over. Our profligate consumption is finished. Our children will never have the standard of living we had. And poverty and despair will sweep across the landscape like a plague. This is the bleak future. There is nothing President Obama can do to stop it. It has been decades in the making. It cannot be undone with a trillion or two trillion dollars in bailout money. Our empire is dying. Our economy has collapsed. ? How will we cope with our decline? Will we cling to the absurd dreams of a superpower and a glorious tomorrow or will we responsibly face our stark new limitations? Will we heed those who are sober and rational, those who speak of a new simplicity and humility, or will we follow the demagogues and charlatans who rise up out of the slime in moments of crisis to offer fantastic visions? Will we radically transform our system to one that protects the ordinary citizen and fosters the common good, that defies the corporate state, or will we employ the brutality and technology of our internal security and surveillance apparatus to crush all dissent? We won?t have to wait long to find out. ? There are a few isolated individuals who saw it coming. The political philosophers Sheldon S. Wolin , John Ralston Saul and Andrew Bacevich, as well as writers such as Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson , David Korten and Naomi Klein, along with activists such as Bill McKibben and Ralph Nader, rang the alarm bells. They were largely ignored or ridiculed. Our corporate media and corporate universities proved, when we needed them most, intellectually and morally useless. ? Wolin, who taught political philosophy at the University of California in Berkeley and at Princeton, in his book ?Democracy Incorporated? uses the phrase inverted totalitarianism to describe our system of power. Inverted totalitarianism, unlike classical totalitarianism, does not revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader. It finds its expression in the anonymity of the corporate state. It purports to cherish democracy, patriotism and the Constitution while cynically manipulating internal levers to subvert and thwart democratic institutions. Political candidates are elected in popular votes by citizens, but they must raise staggering amounts of corporate funds to compete. They are beholden to armies of corporate lobbyists in Washington or state capitals who write the legislation. A corporate media controls nearly everything we read, watch or hear and imposes a bland uniformity of opinion or diverts us with trivia and celebrity gossip. In classical totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi fascism or Soviet communism, economics was subordinate to politics. ?Under inverted totalitarianism the reverse is true,? Wolin writes. ?Economics dominates politics?and with that domination comes different forms of ruthlessness.? ? I reached Wolin, 86, by phone at his home about 25 miles north of San Francisco. He was a bombardier in the South Pacific during World War II and went to Harvard after the war to get his doctorate. Wolin has written classics such as ?Politics and Vision? and ?Tocqueville Between Two Worlds.? His newest book is one of the most important and prescient critiques to date of the American political system. He is also the author of a series of remarkable essays on Augustine of Hippo, Richard Hooker, David Hume, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Max Weber, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx and John Dewey. His voice, however, has faded from public awareness because, as he told me, ?it is harder and harder for people like me to get a public hearing.? He said that publications, such as The New York Review of Books, which often published his work a couple of decades ago, lost interest in his critiques of American capitalism, his warnings about the subversion of democratic institutions and the emergence of the corporate state. He does not hold out much hope for Obama. ? ?The basic systems are going to stay in place; they are too powerful to be challenged,? Wolin told me when I asked him about the new Obama administration. ?This is shown by the financial bailout. It does not bother with the structure at all. I don?t think Obama can take on the kind of military establishment we have developed. This is not to say that I do not admire him. He is probably the most intelligent president we have had in decades. I think he is well meaning, but he inherits a system of constraints that make it very difficult to take on these major power configurations. I do not think he has the appetite for it in any ideological sense. The corporate structure is not going to be challenged. There has not been a word from him that would suggest an attempt to rethink the American imperium .? ? Wolin argues that a failure to dismantle our vast and overextended imperial projects, coupled with the economic collapse, is likely to result in inverted totalitarianism. He said that without ?radical and drastic remedies? the response to mounting discontent and social unrest will probably lead to greater state control and repression. There will be, he warned, a huge ?expansion of government power.? ? ?Our political culture has remained unhelpful in fostering a democratic consciousness,? he said. ?The political system and its operatives will not be constrained by popular discontent or uprisings.? ? Wolin writes that in inverted totalitarianism consumer goods and a comfortable standard of living, along with a vast entertainment industry that provides spectacles and diversions, keep the citizenry politically passive. I asked if the economic collapse and the steady decline in our standard of living might not, in fact, trigger classical totalitarianism. Could widespread frustration and poverty lead the working and middle classes to place their faith in demagogues, especially those from the Christian right? ? ?I think that?s perfectly possible,? he answered. ?That was the experience of the 1930s. There wasn?t just FDR. There was Huey Long and Father Coughlin . There were even more extreme movements including the Klan. The extent to which those forces can be fed by the downturn and bleakness is a very real danger. It could become classical totalitarianism.? ? He said the widespread political passivity is dangerous. It is often exploited by demagogues who pose as saviors and offer dreams of glory and salvation. He warned that ?the apoliticalness, even anti-politicalness, will be very powerful elements in taking us towards a radically dictatorial direction. It testifies to how thin the commitment to democracy is in the present circumstances. Democracy is not ascendant. It is not dominant. It is beleaguered. The extent to which young people have been drawn away from public concerns and given this extraordinary range of diversions makes it very likely they could then rally to a demagogue.? ? Wolin lamented that the corporate state has successfully blocked any real debate about alternative forms of power. Corporations determine who gets heard and who does not, he said. And those who critique corporate power are given no place in the national dialogue. ? ?In the 1930s there were all kinds of alternative understandings, from socialism to more extensive governmental involvement,? he said. ?There was a range of different approaches. But what I am struck by now is the narrow range within which palliatives are being modeled. We are supposed to work with the financial system. So the people who helped create this system are put in charge of the solution. There has to be some major effort to think outside the box.? ? ?The puzzle to me is the lack of social unrest,? Wolin said when I asked why we have not yet seen rioting or protests. He said he worried that popular protests will be dismissed and ignored by the corporate media. This, he said, is what happened when tens of thousands protested the war in Iraq. This will permit the state to ruthlessly suppress local protests, as happened during the Democratic and Republic conventions. Anti-war protests in the 1960s gained momentum from their ability to spread across the country, he noted. This, he said, may not happen this time. ?The ways they can isolate protests and prevent it from [becoming] a contagion are formidable,? he said. ? ?My greatest fear is that the Obama administration will achieve relatively little in terms of structural change,? he added. ?They may at best keep the system going. But there is a growing pessimism. Every day we hear how much longer the recession will continue. They are already talking about beyond next year. The economic difficulties are more profound than we had guessed and because of globalization more difficult to deal with. I wish the political establishment, the parties and leadership, would become more aware of the depths of the problem. They can?t keep throwing money at this. They have to begin structural changes that involve a very different approach from a market economy. I don?t think this will happen.? ? ?I keep asking why and how and when this country became so conservative,? he went on. ?This country once prided itself on its experimentation and flexibility. It has become rigid. It is probably the most conservative of all the advanced countries.? ? The American left, he said, has crumbled. It sold out to a bankrupt Democratic Party, abandoned the working class and has no ability to organize. Unions are a spent force. The universities are mills for corporate employees. The press churns out info-entertainment or fatuous pundits. The left, he said, no longer has the capacity to be a counterweight to the corporate state. He said that if an extreme right gains momentum there will probably be very little organized resistance. ? ?The left is amorphous,? he said. ?I despair over the left. Left parties may be small in number in Europe but they are a coherent organization that keeps going. Here, except for Nader?s efforts, we don?t have that. We have a few voices here, a magazine there, and that?s about it. It goes nowhere.? From nmgoro at gmail.com Mon Feb 2 16:49:28 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 20:49:28 -0300 Subject: [R-G] Excuse me?????!!!!!!! Message-ID: <49878688.3020106@gmail.com> "In the context of looming military intervention against Iran, advocated in the United States by both Democrats and Republicans[...As] an "Iranian" forced to leave Iran by a brutal regime, who is very conscious of past and present imperialist and colonial realities, I see no choose, but to expose and resist, with equal urgency, the Iranian regime and US-led imperialism." With equal urgency... This is what in my own country would be labelled a "left wing sepoy". A "left wing Quisling", in plain English. From mstainsby at resist.ca Mon Feb 2 15:56:57 2009 From: mstainsby at resist.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:56:57 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Excuse me?????!!!!!!! In-Reply-To: <49878688.3020106@gmail.com> References: <49878688.3020106@gmail.com> Message-ID: <49877A39.1050908@resist.ca> When the war is happening (and sanctions are war) I agree one-hundred percent. However, I personally grow tired of listening to people praise the Islamic Republic as if it were on the same side as a socialist one. We do not need to make a virtue where imperialists make a denunciation. And there is a lot of good information in the article even if the conclusions are too "pox on all your houses", or Dante's hottest part of Hell. Macdonald Nestor Gorojovsky wrote: > "In the context of looming military intervention against Iran, advocated > in the United States by both Democrats and Republicans[...As] an > "Iranian" forced to leave Iran by a brutal regime, who is very conscious > of past and present imperialist and colonial realities, I see no choose, > but to expose and resist, with equal urgency, the Iranian regime and > US-led imperialism." > > With equal urgency... > > This is what in my own country would be labelled a "left wing sepoy". A > "left wing Quisling", in plain English. From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Feb 2 21:03:49 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 23:03:49 -0500 Subject: [R-G] El Israel de las manifestaciones por la paz Message-ID: El Israel de las manifestaciones por la paz Unos veinte grupos pacifistas, entre ellos Coalici?n de Mujeres por la Paz, Anarquistas contra el Muro y el Centro de Informaci?n Alternativa, son parte de una resistencia al accionar b?lico de los gobernantes. Por Herman Schiller Hace pocos d?as se hab?a anunciado que iba a hablar en la Universidad de Tel Aviv el ministro de Defensa de Israel, Ehud Barak, art?fice de la masacre de Gaza. R?pidamente los estudiantes se movilizaron llenando las paredes de esa casa de estudios con pintadas que dec?an "Barak rotzeaj" (Barak asesino). Y el ministro, "por precauci?n", ante la evidencia de que podr?an producirse confrontaciones, decidi? suspender la conferencia. Este es uno de los tantos episodios que desde el 27 de diciembre han revelado la resistencia que, en condiciones nada f?ciles ?y en un clima pol?tico, social y comunicativo adverso? se ha extendido en Israel. Los organismos de derechos humanos israel?es han protestado por el silencio que los medios centrales han guardado al negarse a informar a la poblaci?n sobre las numerosas manifestaciones que a diario y a lo largo y a lo ancho del pa?s se produjeron contra la escalada b?lica. Una de las m?s numerosas, encabezada por el legendario Uri Avneri (l?der de Gush Shalom, Bloque de la Paz, y autor del libro Israel sin sionistas), super? las diez mil personas en Tel Aviv y s?lo mereci? 27 palabras (dentro de una nota muy larga) del matutino Haaretz, que suele ufanarse de su "pluralismo". Esa movilizaci?n, que recorri? la zona c?ntrica de la populosa urbe (desde la plaza donde asesinaron a Yitzhak Rabin hasta la Cinemateca, ocupando todos los carriles de la ancha avenida Ibn Gabirol), fue promovida tambi?n por otras 20 organizaciones pacifistas, incluidos la Coalici?n de Mujeres por la Paz, Anarquistas contra el Muro y el Centro de Informaci?n Alternativa. La pancarta gigante de Gush Shalom dec?a en hebreo, ?rabe e ingl?s "?Stop asesinatos!", "?Stop al cerco!", "?Stop a la ocupaci?n!". Entre las consignas coreadas por la densa columna se encontraban las siguientes: "Uno no construye una campa?a electoral sobre cad?veres de ni?os", "Jud?os y ?rabes no queremos ser enemigos", "Olmert, Livni y Barak, la guerra no es un juego", "Todos los ministros del gobierno son criminales de guerra", "Basta, basta, hablen con Hamas" y "Barak, Barak, no te preocupes, nos encontraremos en La Haya" (en alusi?n a la denuncia internacional que los organismos de derechos humanos israel?es formularon contra su gobierno). Tambi?n proliferaron los carteles, algunos parafraseando los lemas electorales de Barak: "Barak no es un amigo, sino un asesino" (el lema original de campa?a dice "Barak no es un amigo, es un l?der"). Y, tambi?n: "Los seis esca?os de la Knesset, esca?os de la guerra", en referencia a las encuestas que muestran que desde el comienzo de la masacre el laborismo gan? seis esca?os. La ultraderecha hostiliz? la movilizaci?n durante todo el trayecto y al llegar a la Cinemateca, donde estaban previstos los discursos, la polic?a se alej? y la patota comenz? sus agresiones con palos y armas de fuego. Hubo corridas, los provocadores se hicieron due?os de la situaci?n y la oratoria debi? ser suspendida. Los militantes de Gush Shalom me enviaron el texto del discurso que debi? pronunciar Avneri. "Acuso a Ehud Barak de aprovechar a los soldados del ej?rcito para obtener m?s esca?os ?dec?a, entre otras cosas?; acuso a Tzipi Livni de abogar por la matanza para llegar a ser primera ministra; acuso a Ehud Olmert de intentar tapar la putrefacci?n y la corrupci?n de su gobierno con esta desastrosa guerra" (..) Las cr?ticas que en todo el mundo suscitaron las acciones del ej?rcito israel? en Gaza dieron lugar a r?plicas desde el juda?smo oficial: "Ustedes no tienen en cuenta los misiles de Hamas que caen sobre la poblaci?n civil del sur de Israel". Esta argumentaci?n fue respondida por un importante referente del pacifismo israel? en la propia Beer Sheva, una de las ciudades afectadas por los misiles palestinos. Se trata del profesor Nev? Gordon, director del Departamento de Pol?tica y Gobierno de la Universidad Ben Guri?n, que declar? a la periodista Amy Goodman en un reportaje: "Reci?n, hace menos de una hora, cay? un cohete a pocos metros de mi casa. Mis dos hijos duermen desde hace una semana en un refugio antibombas. Y aun as?, creo que lo que est? haciendo Israel es una atrocidad". Gordon es uno de los tantos profesores e intelectuales israel?es que nadaron contra la corriente y concurrieron a las masivas demostraciones llevadas a cabo en Tel Aviv. En esa misma ciudad de Beer Sheva, un nutrido grupo de jud?os y ?rabes desafi? la prohibici?n de concentrarse durante la guerra y realiz? una protesta silenciosa. No vocearon consignas y se limitaron a portar carteles con las leyendas "Queremos di?logo, no violencia" y "Jud?os y ?rabes se niegan a ser carne de ca??n". El grupo me envi? el texto de la convocatoria firmada por los jud?os Daniela Yudelevich, doctora Merav Mosh? y Bela Alexandrov y los ?rabes Sultan Abu Abied, Anuar Hajoj y Fadi Masmara. El desaf?o fue reprimido y se produjeron varias detenciones, entre ellas la de Lea Shakdiel, una jud?a religiosa ortodoxa perteneciente al grupo Ierujam. El semanario en castellano Aurora, que aparece en Tel Aviv y ha mostrado una absoluta incondicionalidad con la guerra desatada por su gobierno, titul? as? una de sus ?ltimas ediciones: "Tolerancia cero contra manifestantes". Y esa misma publicaci?n inform? que en Beit Hanina, seis kil?metros al norte de Jerusal?n, la polic?a detuvo a todos aquellos que intentaron levantar una carpa de la dignidad (al estilo argentino) "en honor de los muertos en Gaza". Estos son apenas algunos ejemplos emblem?ticos. La lista completa es absolutamente mayor. Le di prioridad a la digna tarea que realizan los organismos israel?es de derechos humanos, pero tambi?n ha sido muy gravitante la acci?n de la izquierda, que realiz? centenares de actos y movilizaciones. En Haifa, la ciudad portuaria donde abundan las parejas mixtas y sigue vigente el chiste (?chiste?) de que la paz entre jud?os y palestinos s?lo se lograr? en la cama, los actos fueron numerosos. Los dos m?s importantes tuvieron lugar en el barrio de Wadi Nisnas y en el Monte Carmelo. De los ?ltimos d?as, quiero destacar la marcha de Tel Aviv a Jaffa (Iafo) que congreg? a unas 10.000 personas. Y en esta ?ltima ciudad, plet?rica de galer?as de arte y teatros independientes alternativos, se espera una concurrencia multitudinaria para el pr?ximo s?bado a la noche, jornada tradicional de las grandes concentraciones en Israel. Adem?s los M?dicos Israel?es por los Derechos Humanos est?n culminando su campa?a de recolecci?n de medicinas y alimentos para ser enviados a Gaza. En cuanto a las elecciones, la izquierda en las ?ltimas horas ha volcado buena parte de sus esfuerzos a denunciar la campa?a racista y fascista de Ivette Lieberman, un miembro de la mafia rusa que lleg? a Israel despu?s de la desintegraci?n de la URSS y que viene obteniendo buenos resultados en los ?ltimos comicios liderando un partido que se llama Israel Beteinu (Israel, nuestra casa). En el campo de los jud?os en el mundo, hay numerosas expresiones dignas de destacar, pero por razones de espacio me limito a citar dos: el comunicado de Apemia (Asociaci?n por el Esclarecimiento de la Masacre Impune de la AMIA), que aqu? en Buenos Aires repudi? la masacre de Gaza, y sobre todo, el manifiesto emitido por decenas de intelectuales y docentes universitarios jud?os de Gran Breta?a, que en sus p?rrafos esenciales se?ala: "El verdadero motivo del ataque a Gaza es que Israel s?lo desea tratar con los colaboracionistas. El principal crimen de Hamas no es el terrorismo, sino su negativa a convertirse en un pelele en manos del r?gimen de ocupaci?n (..). Los abajo firmantes somos todos de origen jud?o. Cuando vemos los muertos y los ensangrentados cuerpos de ni?os peque?os, los cortes de agua, de electricidad y de comida, recordamos el asedio del ghetto de Varsovia". Gerardo Liebner, historiador de origen uruguayo que reside en Tel Aviv, fue entrevistado largamente y v?a telef?nica por La colectiva, un programa radial que se emite en Montevideo. Sobre el final, Liebner se?al?: "Repudiar la pol?tica del actual gobierno israel? no es ser antisemita, sino algo leg?timo y una forma de apoyar de verdad al futuro democr?tico de la sociedad israel?". Justamente, la banalizaci?n y superficialidad con que el juda?smo oficial acusa de antisemita a cualquiera que se atreva a confrontar con la pol?tica oficial israel? se entremezcla hoy, sobre todo en Buenos Aires, con algunos impresentables que se han colado en el rechazo a la masacre de Gaza y parecen m?s cerca de la polic?a, de la burgues?a ?rabe menemista de Goebbels o del Medioevo, que de la revoluci?n socialista. Este tema, que ahonda a?n m?s la confusi?n en la sociedad, y la demonizaci?n absoluta y total que realiza alg?n segmento de izquierda, omitiendo las contradicciones y la profundidad de la lucha de clases en el campo israel? y jud?o, son por ahora rubros secundarios que no deben opacar la monstruosidad de la masacre de Gaza. Pero son temas que existen y en etapas inmediatas deber?an formar parte de la agenda de debates sin preconceptos. Mi posici?n es conocida: estoy a favor de la creaci?n del Estado palestino al lado de Israel y no en lugar de Israel. Y estoy por la in-teracci?n de las fuerzas revolucionarias y socialistas palestinas e israel?es. Tal como se ratific? hace pocos d?as en una reuni?n que mantuvieron delegados del Partido del Pueblo (PC palestino), del Partido Comunista Israel? y del Frente Democr?tico por la Liberaci?n de Palestina que preside un viejo luchador como Hawatmeh. Esta posici?n ?soy un revolucionario pero no puedo dejar de admitirlo?- suele generarme s?lo angustia y sentimiento de soledad. Muchos jud?os me han declarado "traidor" y no pocos compa?eros de izquierda me recriminan que ?sta es una posici?n "funcional a los intereses sionistas". Repudio una y otra vez la masacre de Gaza. Pero no voy a marchar con quienes esgrimen los mismos argumentos ("juda?smo internacional", "sinarqu?a", "ratas", "ap?tridas") que utilizaba Felipe Romero en la revista El Caudillo (?rgano de la Triple A) y que muy poco tiempo despu?s usaron los militares de la dictadura cuando torturaban a los muchos jud?os que pertenec?an a ERP, Montoneros y dem?s organizaciones combatientes. Paz y amistad entre Palestina e Israel. Paz con justicia, por supuesto; no la paz de los sepulcros, ni la paz impuesta por los ocupantes, ni la paz que le convenga al imperialismo. Paz con justicia entre Palestina e Israel. Por el momento s?lo parece una consigna voluntarista y ut?pica. Pero cada d?a somos m?s. From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Tue Feb 3 01:11:47 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 17:11:47 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Panic on Wall Street Message-ID: <4987FC43.70008@ashisuto.co.jp> You've heard about the home-loan bust, but do you know your derivatives from your tranches? Read Salon's easy guide to understanding the current market freakout. by Andrew Leonard Salon.com (August 17 2007) From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Feb 3 10:32:57 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 09:32:57 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Biofuels more harmful to humans than petrol and diesel, warn scientists Message-ID: Biofuels more harmful to humans than petrol and diesel, warn scientists Corn-based bioethanol has higher burden on environment and human health, says US study * Alok Jha, green technology correspondent * guardian.co.uk, Monday 2 February 2009 22.05 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/02/biofuels-health Some biofuels cause more health problems than petrol and diesel, according to scientists who have calculated the health costs associated with different types of fuel. The study shows that corn-based bioethanol, which is produced extensively in the US, has a higher combined environmental and health burden than conventional fuels. However, there are high hopes for the next generation of biofuels, which can be made from organic waste or plants grown on marginal land that is not used to grow foods. They have less than half the combined health and environmental costs of standard gasoline and a third of current biofuels. The work adds to an increasing body of research raising concerns about the impact of modern corn-based biofuels. Several studies last year showed that growing corn to make ethanol biofuels was pushing up the price of food. Environmentalists have highlighted other problems such deforestation to clear land for growing crops to make the fuels. The UK government's renewable fuels advisors recommended slowing down the adoption of biofuels until better controls were in place to prevent inadvertent climate impacts. Using computer models developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency, the researchers found the total environmental and health costs of gasoline are about 71 cents (50p) per gallon, while an equivalent amount of corn-ethanol fuel has associated costs of 72 cents to $1.45, depending on how it is produced. The next generation of so-called cellulosic bioethanol fuels costs 19 cents to 32 cents, depending on the technology and type of raw materials used. These are experimental fuels made from woody crops that typically do not compete with conventional agriculture. The results are published online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "The dialogue so far on biofuels has been pretty much focused on greenhouse gases alone," said David Tilman, a professor at the department of ecology, evolution and behaviour at the University of Minnesota. "And yet we felt there were many other impacts that were positive or negative not being included. We wanted to expand the analysis from greenhouse gases to at least one other item and we chose health impacts." The health problems caused by conventional fuels are well studied and stem from soot particles and other pollution produced when they are burned. With biofuels, the problems are caused by particles given off during their growth and manufacture. "Corn requires nitrogen fertilisers and some of that comes on as ammonia, which is volatilised into the air," said Tilman. "The ammonia particles are charged and they attract fine dust particles. They stick together and form particles of the size of 2.5 micron and that has significant health impacts. Some of this gets blown by prevailing winds into areas of higher population density ? that's where you have the large number of people having the health impact which raises the cost." Health problems from biofuels and gasoline include increased cases of heart disease, respiratory symptoms, asthma, chronic bronchitis or premature death. The team has calculated the economic costs associated with these. "For the economy, it's the loss of good, productive workers who might otherwise have been able to contribute," said team member Jason Hill, an economist at the University of Minnesota's Institute on the Environment. "These costs are not paid for by those who produce, sell and buy gasoline or ethanol. The public pays these costs," said Dr Stephen Polasky, an economist at the University of Minnesota, also part of the team. A report published last year by Ed Gallagher, the head of the government's Renewable Fuels Agency, suggested that the introduction of biofuels to the UK should be slowed until more effective controls were in place to prevent the inadvertent rise in greenhouse gas emissions caused by, for example, the clearance of forests to make way for their production. His report said that if the displacements were left unchecked, current targets for biofuel production could cause a global rise in greenhouse gas emissions and an increase in poverty in the poorest countries by 2020. Gallagher also suggested the government should introduce incentives to promote the production of next-generation biofuels of the type studied by the Minnesota researchers. So-called cellulosic ethanol can be made from plants such as switchgrass or jatropha that can grow with very little fertiliser on poor land, but the technology to convert these plants into fuels is in its early stages. Tilman said society needed to make the transition away from corn-based ethanol as soon as possible. "We've gone one step further than the work that only looked at greenhouse gases and found some surprisingly large effects. Before we dedicate major resources to new biofuels, we should be trying to quantify other likely impacts to society ? water quality, biodiversity and so on ? and put all of those into our analysis." He hopes this will encourage society to make "a long-term commitment to the right biofuel". * Print thisPrintable version * Send to a friendSend to a friend * Share thisShare * Clip thisClip * Contact usContact us * larger | smaller Email Close Recipient's email address Your first name Your surname Add a note (optional) Your IP address will be logged Share Close * Digg * reddit * Google Bookmarks * Yahoo! My Web * del.icio.us * StumbleUpon * Newsvine * livejournal * Facebook * BlinkList Contact us Close * Contact the Environment editor environment at guardian.co.uk * Report errors or inaccuracies: userhelp at guardian.co.uk * Letters for publication should be sent to: letters at guardian.co.uk * If you need help using the site: userhelp at guardian.co.uk * Call the main Guardian and Observer switchboard: +44 (0)20 7278 2332 * o Advertising guide o License/buy our content Environment * Biofuels ? * Energy Books * Health, mind and body Science * Energy ? * Medical research More news Related 27 Jan 2009 Pier-munching gribble could provide breakthrough for second generation biofuels 4 Dec 2008 Michael Pollitt on turning waste glycerol from biofuels into high- value hydrogen gas 4 Nov 2008 Scientists discover Patagonian diesel that grows on trees 30 Apr 2008 Beyond petrol: which fuels will we be using in 30 years' time? * Print thisPrintable version * Send to a friendSend to a friend * Share thisShare * Clip thisClip * Contact usContact us * Article historyArticle history Email Close Recipient's email address Your first name Your surname Add a note (optional) Your IP address will be logged Share Close * Digg * reddit * Google Bookmarks * Yahoo! My Web * del.icio.us * StumbleUpon * Newsvine * livejournal * Facebook * BlinkList Contact us Close * Contact the Environment editor environment at guardian.co.uk * Report errors or inaccuracies: userhelp at guardian.co.uk * Letters for publication should be sent to: letters at guardian.co.uk * If you need help using the site: userhelp at guardian.co.uk * Call the main Guardian and Observer switchboard: +44 (0)20 7278 2332 * o Advertising guide o License/buy our content About this article Close Biofuel health warning: some are more dangerous than petrol and diesel This article was first published on guardian.co.uk at 22.05 GMT on Monday 2 February 2009. It was last updated at 11.36 GMT on Tuesday 3 February 2009. Most viewed on guardian.co.uk * 24 hours * 7 days * Most talked about 24 hours 1. 1. Analysis: How world leaders view Iran's space ambitions 2. 2. Stuart Jeffries: London's day of innocence 3. 3. The day the snow came - and Britain stopped 4. 4. Porn interrupts Super Bowl TV coverage 5. 5. Premier League: Andrei Arshavin agrees 'extra-time' deal with Arsenal 6. More top stories 7 days 1. 1. Revealed: the letter Barack Obama's team hope will heal Iran rift 2. 2. Google's Street View camera car hits a baby deer 3. 3. Heavy snow to cause travel chaos all week 4. 4. Google Earth, Google Ocean: mysteries of the seafloor are mapped for the first time 5. 5. Tanya Gold offers an essential survival guide in case of apocalypse 6. More top stories Most talked about
    {for blog_item in blogs} ${parseInt(blog_item_index) + 1}.

    ${blog_item.article.title} ($ {blog_item.linkcount}{if blog_item_index == 0} technorati links{/if})

    {/for}
1. 1. Google Earth, Google Ocean: mysteries of the seafloor are mapped for the first time (27 technorati links) 2. 2. Heavy snow to cause travel chaos all week (15) 3. 3. Half of Britons do not believe in evolution, Darwin anniversary survey finds (13) 4. 4. Porn interrupts Super Bowl TV coverage (10) 5. 5. Stuart Jeffries: London's day of innocence (8) More Today's rising blog posts from Technorati Find a car * New cars * Used cars New vehicle search Powered by AutoTrader From: To: Include pre-registered vehicles Powered by AutoTrader Used vehicle search From: To: Your details: Enter full postcode Postcode Required Sellers details: Sort results by: Distance Price (ascending) Price (descending) * Green offers from GuardianEcostore * Solar light & charger New multi-function solar rechargeable light and battery charger only ?24.95 * SIGG traveller bottle The design classic that is the durable, unbreakable alternative to the plastic drinks bottle only ?10.95 * Cut down your gas & electricity bills * gas ring - ogenterprises promo Energy bills too high? Compare the best deals from gas and electricity suppliers * broadband utility comparison Compare broadband providers Find the best deals for broadband internet providers Free P&P at the Guardian bookshop * Darwin's Lost World o Darwin's Lost World o ?16.99 with free UK delivery * Understanding Earth o Understanding Earth o ?44.99 with free UK delivery * Browse more nature and science books * Buy books from the Guardian Bookshop * Sponsored features * * Guardian Jobs * UK * USA UK * Head of Site Operations rothamsted research. north wyke research, devon. Grade E (?33,118 to ?36,798). * MOSAIC PROJECT OFFICER (Peak District, Youth Hoste? campaign for national parks. yorkshire & humberside or east midlands or eas?. ?25,000 - ?28,000. * Conservation and Planning Advisers natural england. south east england. ?19,000 to a target rate of ?24,650 with opportunity to rise to a Higher Performance ceiling of ?26,100. Browse environment jobs USA * Environmental and Progressive Campaign Staff jobs for the environment the organization... the... such as sierra club, human rights campaign, and environment america to win concrete victories for the... . co. * MidLevel Environment and Natural Resourses Associate RL1CO6514V co office seeks a mid-level environment and natural resources associate with at least three years experience to join its environment and natural resources group... . co. * Energy and Environment Senior Professional our energy and environment practice group as a senior professional. we are looking for an individual with experience in the energy and environment sectors of... . dc. Browse environment jobs Related information Environment * Biofuels ? * Energy Books * Health, mind and body Science * Energy ? * Medical research Ed Pilkington, Ethanol film 'We're not robbing food from people's mouths' 29 Oct 2008: Road trip, day 17: Beloved of corn growers and reviled by environmentalists, ethanol is a divisive campaign issue. Ed Pilkington investigates More video 29 Nov 2006 Human waste used to create green fuel 18 Sep 2006 Britain lags behind on bioenergy, say MPs 8 Aug 2005 Renewable energy going to waste 19 Mar 2004 Drax goes green with willow Syrian nuclear reactor before Israeli attack Syria's suspected nuclear facility 25 Apr 2008: Pentagon releases photographs of what it claims was a Syrian nuclear reactor built with the help of North Korea More galleries * License/buy our content | * Privacy policy | * Terms & conditions | * Advertising guide | * Accessibility | * A-Z index | * Inside guardian.co.uk blog | * About guardian.co.uk | * Join our dating site today * guardian.co.uk ? Guardian News and Media Limited 2009 From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Feb 3 11:59:49 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 10:59:49 -0800 Subject: [R-G] U.S. military to assist in Vancouver Message-ID: <3130FCD2-8AF6-43C2-8983-B904FBF5ED16@shaw.ca> Updated: February 2, 2009, 9:21 PM ET U.S. military to assist in Vancouver http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=3880235 VANCOUVER -- The United States military will be cooperating with its Canadian counterparts to provide security for the 2010 Winter Olympics. Canadian Forces officials said Monday that the combined operations fall under the provisions of joint command NORAD, said Canadian Rear Admiral Tyrone Pile, commander of Joint Task Force Games. "They have to be involved," Pile said. "We share a common border with them." Pile said the U.S. will contribute Coast Guard and Navy vessels but there will be no American troops involved on Canadian soil. Full details of security measures are not being released for operational security reasons. The news of the U.S. involvement comes two weeks after Col. Christopher Coates, said the air force, like other branches of the military, will be forced to juggle its resources during the Olympics. Coates, the commander of Canada's air wing in Afghanistan, said the Canadian military does not have enough helicopters to meet its commitments in Afghanistan and provide security for the Games. But, said Pile, both domestic security and operations abroad will be "appropriately resourced." A Canadian security and terrorism expert said helicopters are essential tools for perimeter work in the layered security employed at large- scale events such as an Olympics. Martin Rudner, the founding director of the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies, said a helicopter perimeter is the outer layer of security, the first line of defense of many around a "point of vulnerability" such as a Games venue. The announcement of U.S. involvement comes as more than 1,000 soldiers, police officers and other security staff are converging in the Vancouver area for a massive security planning exercise. Exercise Silver is the second of three test runs being held for the Games and will involve live what-if scenarios on weather, terrorism, earthquakes and other possible threats to the Games. Games security was originally estimated at $140 million to be split between the provincial and federal governments. The Canadian government has since acknowledged that cost could be as high as $800,000 million -- 1 billion in Canadian funds. However, when the latest Canadian budget was released Jan. 27, there were no Olympic security numbers. Up to 4,000 Canadian soldiers could be on the ground in Vancouver for the Games. The entire security operation for the Games is being overseen by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in an integrated security unit. Altogether, about 8,000 security personnel will be involved in policing the Games, not including staff from various government agencies like health authorities or utilities who will have their own security procedures. From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Feb 3 12:11:31 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:11:31 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Secret report urges new Afghan plan Message-ID: <3EA2ABD4-0813-4C17-8AC8-6FD6474E6D56@shaw.ca> http://mobile.politico.com/story.cfm?id=18337&cat=topnews Feb 03, 2009 Secret report urges new Afghan plan By David S. Cloud | 2/3/09 @ 4:23 AM EST The Pentagon?s top military officers are recommending to President Barack Obama that he shift U.S. strategy in Afghanistan ? to focus on ensuring regional stability and eliminating Taliban and Al Qaida safe havens in Pakistan, rather than on achieving lasting democracy and a thriving Afghan economy, officials said. The recommendations to narrow U.S. goals are contained in a classified report by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that is likely to be shown soon to Obama as part of a review of Afghanistan strategy announced by the new administration. Obama is expected to announce soon his decision on a request for additional forces from the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. David McKiernan. Several officials said they believe the president will approve sending three additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, totaling roughly 10,000 to 12,000 troops. But a decision by Obama about whether to approve a more far-reaching shift in U.S. objectives in Afghanistan will be made later as part of the strategy review, the officials said. In addition to the Joint Chiefs, Obama will hear recommendations from Gen. David Petraeus, in charge of U.S. Central Command, and from Richard Holbrooke, Obama?s civilian envoy to Afghanistan. The review is not expected to be completed for several months. As he weighs his options, Obama will have to balance his calls during the campaign for intensified effort in Afghanistan against recent warnings by some of his senior advisers, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, of the dangers of getting deeply engaged in a place that has a long and bloody history of resisting foreign occupations. Obama has indicated in recent weeks that he favors the idea of setting limited objectives, including ensuring that Afghanistan "cannot be used as a base to launch attacks against the United States." He cited the need for "more effective military action" while warning of Afghan hostility to foreign troops. His "No. 1 goal" is to stop Al Qaida, he said. The Chiefs' recommendations have been approved by Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and seen by Gates, one official said. In calling for narrowing U.S. goals, the report reflects concern on the part of some Army and Marine commanders about sending thousands of additional American troops to fight in what could be a lengthy conflict in Afghanistan. Though Obama is likely to approve the three additional three brigades, the Chiefs considered and rejected the option of a recommending an even larger ?surge? for Afghanistan, the officials said. More troops could still be approved as part of the strategy review, another official emphasized. In their report, the Chiefs concluded that the existing American goals in Afghanistan, established by the Bush administration, are overly broad and ambitious. The report does not call for abandoning U.S. hopes of turning Afghanistan into a moderate Western-style democracy, or for halting counternarcotics efforts, but it does suggest making those steps part of a long-term vision, rather than a goal. With insurgent violence in Afghanistan worsening significantly during the last year, the Chiefs' report argues for setting more concrete objectives that are achievable and realistic in the short-term, the officials said. Obama already has demonstrated his willingness to employ U.S. strikes using unmanned aircraft in Pakistan?s largely lawless western border region, a tactic originated by the Bush administration. But the Chiefs are recommending a broader effort to train and equip Pakistani security forces to conduct counter-insurgency operations in the tribal areas, and to apply pressure on Pakistan?s military and intelligence services to sever their ties with militants, one of the officials said. Amid growing concern about the stability of Pakistan, the Chiefs' report also calls for putting renewed focus by the U.S. government on ensuring that Pakistan?s nuclear weapons remain under its government?s control, the officials said. Though that has long been a U.S. aim, the officials said that including it in the report was a way to focus new attention on the problem in case militant groups threaten Pakistan?s stability. Capt. John Kirby, a spokesman for Mullen, declined to comment on the contents of the report. In a speech on Monday to the Reserve Officers Association, Mullen stressed the need to halt the Al Qaida and Taliban use of the Pakistan?s border regions as safe haven from which to mount attacks in Afghanistan. ?We cannot accept that Al Qaeda leadership, which continues to plan against us every single day? has a ?safe haven in Pakistan? and ?could resume one in Afghanistan,? he said. Mullen did not mention the Chief?s Afghanistan report in his remarks. Gates has also called publicly in recent weeks for setting modest, near-term goals for Afghanistan. ?This is going to be a long slog, and frankly, my view is that we need to be very careful about the nature of the goals we set for ourselves in Afghanistan," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "If we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose, because nobody in the world has that kind of time, patience and money,? he added. As a presidential candidate, Obama described Afghanistan as a central front in combating terror, drawing a distinction with the Bush administration, which argued that it was in Iraq. Two of the three combat brigades that the Pentagon is recommending he send to Afghanistan are now designated for Iraq and would be redirected, if Obama backs McKiernan?s recommendation. On Monday, in a quarterly report required by Congress on security conditions in Afghanistan, the Pentagon reported that ?the spring and summer of 2008 saw the highest levels of violence? since the U.S. invasion in 2001. ?The Taliban regrouped after its fall from power and has coalesced into a resilient and evolving insurgency,? concluded the report. Between January and Dec. 10, 2008, 132 U.S. personnel in Afghanistan died as the result of hostile action, up from 82 in 2007. From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Feb 3 12:06:25 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:06:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Cosatu and PSC launch Week of Action for Palestine In-Reply-To: <594AAD71C1E94D5C9873E0DD907FF591@twubby.com> Message-ID: <1758755424.201331233687985867.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Media Statement: Cosatu and PSC launch Week of Action for Palestine ? Embargoed until 11H00, 3rd February Media Conference, Cosatu House, 3 February 2009 In a historic development for South Africa, South African dock workers have announced their determination not to offload a ship from Israel that is scheduled to dock in Durban on Sunday, 8 February 2009. This follows the decision by Cosatu to strengthen the campaign in South Africa for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Apartheid Israel. The pledge by Satawu (South African Transport and Allied Workers Union) members in Durban reflects the commitment by South African workers to refuse to support oppression and exploitation across the globe. Last year, Durban dock workers refused to offload a shipment of arms that had arrived from China and was destined for Zimbabwe. Now, says Satawu's General Secretary Randall Howard, the union's members are committing themselves not to handle Israeli goods. Satawu's action on Sunday will be part of a proud history of worker resistance against apartheid. In 1963, just four years after the Anti-Apartheid Movement was formed, Danish dock workers refused to offload a ship with South African goods. When the ship docked in Sweden, Swedish workers followed suit. Dock workers in Liverpool and, later, in the San Francisco Bay Area also refused to offload South African goods. South Africans, and the South African working class in particular, will remain forever grateful to those workers who determinedly opposed apartheid and decided that they would support the anti-apartheid struggle with their actions. This is the legacy and the tradition that South African dock workers have inherited, and it is a legacy they are determined to honour. Last week, members of the Western Australian members of the Maritime Union of Australia resolved to support the campaign for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel and have called for a boycott of all Israeli vessels and all vessels bearing goods arriving from or going to Israel. Cosatu, the PSC and many other organisations salute the principled position taken by these workers. In celebration of the actions of Satawu members with regard to the ship from Israel, and in pursuance of the campaign for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel, and our call on the South African government to sever diplomatic and trade relations with Israel, this coalition of organisations has declared a week of action beginning on Friday, 6 February 2009. These actions follow marches and rallies held throughout the country over the past month involving tens of thousands of South Africans in all provinces. Activities that have already been confirmed for this week will include: . Friday, 6 February: A protest outside the offices of the South African Zionist Federation and the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, 2 Elray Street, Raedene, off Louis Botha. Both these organisations unquestioningly supported the recent Israeli attacks against Gaza, and supported the massacre of civilians and the attacks on schools, mosques, ambulances, and UN refugee centres. Protestors will be addressed by, among others, Satawu General Secretary Randall Howard, and ex-Minister Ronnie Kasrils. Protest starts at 14:00. . Friday, 6 February: A picket outside parliament in Cape Town. Cosatu members and solidarity activists will be joined by a number of members of parliament. Picket starts at 09:30. . Friday, 6 February: A mass rally in Actonville, Benoni, at the Buzme Adab Hall. The rally will be addressed by, among others, Cosatu General Secretary Zwelinzima Vavi, South African Council of Churches General Secretary Eddie Makue, ex-Minister Ronnie Kasrils and Salim Vally from the PSC. Rally starts at 19:30. . Sunday, 8 February: A protest at the Durban Harbour Mouth, off Victoria Embankment. Protestors will be addressed by, among others, Cosatu President Sdumo Dlamini. Protest starts at 10:00. . Sunday 8 February: A mass rally in Cape Town at Vygieskraal Rugby Stadium. The rally will be addressed by, among others, Cosatu General Secretary Zwelinzima Vavi, and Allan Boesak. Rally starts at 14:30. Cosatu and the PSC will inform members of the media of other activities as details are confirmed. For further information contact: Patrick Craven (Cosatu spokesperson) Bongani Masuku (Cosatu international Relations officer) Melissa Hole (PSC) Na'eem Jeenah (PSC) Salim Vally (PSC) From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Feb 3 12:07:28 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:07:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Mission statement: Australian Academic Boycott of Israel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1450643453.202981233688048663.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Mission statement: Australian Academic Boycott of Israel http://usacbi.wordpress.com/2009/01/30/australian-academics-join-us-in-boycott-call/ Appeal from the Australian academic community: 22 January 2009 Mission statement: Australian Academic Boycott of Israel Responding to the CALL of Palestinian civil society to join the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, we are an Australian campaign focused specifically on a boycott of Israeli academic and cultural institutions, as delineated by PACBI (Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel): In light of Israel's persistent violations of international law, and given that, since 1948, hundreds of UN resolutions have condemned Israel's colonial and discriminatory policies as illegal and called for immediate, adequate and effective remedies, and given that all forms of international intervention and peace-making have until now failed to convince Israel to comply with humanitarian law, to respect fundamental human rights and to end its occupation and oppression of the people of Palestine, and In view of the fact that people of conscience in the international community have historically shouldered the moral responsibility to fight injustice, as exemplified in the struggle to abolish apartheid in South Africa through diverse forms of boycott, divestment and sanctions: We scholars, inspired by the wishes of Palestinian civil society, call upon international civil society organizations and people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era. We appeal to you to pressure your respective states to impose embargoes and sanctions against Israel. We also invite conscientious Israelis to support this Call, for the sake of justice and genuine peace. These nonviolent punitive measures should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people's inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by: 1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Palestinian and Arab lands and dismantling the Wall which separates Palestinians from their arable lands; 2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; 3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194. The principles guiding our campaign and the three goals outlined above are also points of unity for the British, Canadian, and US Campaigns for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USCACBI, this statement is a modified version of theirs). There can be no academic freedom in Israel/Palestine unless all academics are free and all students are free to pursue their academic desires. If you are committed to these principles of unity, and wish to work on a campaign of boycotting academic and cultural institutions guided by this approach, please join our campaign. Gaza is but the latest incident in a series of ongoing Israeli massacres, from Deir Yassin (1948 ) to Kafr Kassim (1956) to Jenin (2002) to the wars on Lebanon (from 1980s to 2006). All demonstrate a pattern of violence by a state that will not end its violations of international law and war crimes on its own, without international pressure. We must act now. As academics we wish to focus on campaigns in our universities and in institutions of higher education to advocate for compliance with the academic and cultural boycott, a movement that is growing internationally across all segments of global civil society. This call for an academic and cultural boycott parallels the call in the non-academic world for divestment, boycott and sanctions by trade unions, churches and other civil society organizations in countries such as the United States, Canada, Italy, Ireland, Norway, the United Kingdom, Brazil, South Africa and New Zealand. Actions Since Israeli academic institutions (mostly state-controlled) and the vast majority of Israeli intellectuals and academics have either contributed directly to maintaining, defending or otherwise justifying the above forms of oppression, or have been complicit in them through their silence, we call upon our colleagues to comprehensively and consistently boycott all Israeli academic and cultural institutions as a contribution to the struggle to end Israel's occupation, colonization and system of apartheid, by applying the following: 1. Refrain from participation in any form of academic and cultural cooperation, collaboration or joint projects with Israeli institutions; 2. Advocate a comprehensive boycott of Israeli institutions at the national and international levels, including suspension of all forms of funding and subsidies to these institutions; 3. Promote divestment and disinvestment from Israel by academic institutions; 4. Work toward the condemnation of Israeli policies by pressing for resolutions to be adopted by academic, professional and cultural associations and organizations; 5. Support Palestinian academic and cultural institutions directly without requiring them to partner with Israeli counterparts as an explicit or implicit condition for such support. As educators and scholars of conscience in Australia, we fully support this call. We urge our colleagues, nationally, regionally, and internationally, to stand up against Israel's ongoing attacks on the rights of Palestinians to education, land, and human dignity, and to support the nonviolent call for academic boycott, disinvestment, and sanctions. Please email us with your full name and institutional affiliation if you fully endorse the Mission Statement of the Australian ACBI Campaign and authorize us to use your name publicly: Ned.Curthoys [at] anu.edu.au John.docker [at] usyd.edu.au From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Feb 3 12:41:43 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:41:43 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Counterinsurgency, Anthropology and Disciplinary Complicity Message-ID: <74F741FA-2446-4014-992A-0E60408B5D66@shaw.ca> February 3, 2009 Roberto Gonz?lez on Human Terrain Systems Counterinsurgency, Anthropology and Disciplinary Complicity http://www.counterpunch.org/price02032009.html By DAVID PRICE During the spring and summer of 2007 word began circulating of a new military program designed to draw upon anthropological theory, field methods and personnel in theatres of military battles and occupation. As anthropologists' concerns over the program grew, mainstream media outlets availed themselves for a cascade of fawning uncritical personality profiles and news pieces selling the American public on the idea that more culturally nuanced forms of military occupation would lead to victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. While different branches of the military have a number of anthropologically informed programs, the Human Terrain System (HTS) has become the most visibly controversial program because of the ethical and political problems it creates (and ignores) by embedding social scientists with battlefield troops. Since it was conceived in 2006, the Pentagon has allocated nearly $200 million for HTS. When the details of the HTS first became publicly known, Roberto Gonz?lez, associate professor of anthropology at San Jose State University, wrote a series of articles appearing the Royal Anthropological Institute's journal Anthropology Today, CounterPunch, and Z Magazine critically analyzing the political, ethical, and military problems with Human Terrain. Gonz?lez is a founding member of the Network of Concerned Anthropologists and has been at the forefront of debates on Human Terrain within the American Anthropological Association (AAA). He has also introduced AAA resolutions denouncing the Iraq War and the use of anthropological knowledge for coercive interrogations and torture. Gonz?lez's book, American Counterinsurgency: Human Science and the Human Terrain, has just been published in Marshall Sahlins's University of Chicago Press Prickly Paradigm Press series; it is a timely hard hitting critique of Human Terrain Systems and the dangers of social science subservient to counterinsurgency. This past week Professor Gonz?lez gave CounterPunch an exclusive interview. David Price: How did you come to write American Counterinsurgency: Human Science and the Human Terrain? Roberto Gonz?lez: I decided to write "American Counterinsurgency" because I was concerned about growing connections between the military and the social sciences, and how these connections might threaten the lives of Iraqis, Afghans, and others. For more than two years, a group of military planners has been involved in a scheme to whitewash counterinsurgency-to clean up the image of anti-revolutionary warfare, which is always a dirty business. Even though the US military has more than a century of experience in counterinsurgency warfare (going back to the "Indian Wars" of the 1800s and the cruel campaign against Filipino revolutionaries in the early 1900s), General David Petraeus and other battlefield technicians have portrayed the method as a "gentler" means of fighting, while recruiting political scientists, anthropologists, and other social scientists to create the tools to do this. The Human Terrain System, which embeds social scientists in combat brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan, is among the most visible new counterinsurgency programs, and this became the focus of my work. Price: Where did the idea of human terrain come from? Gonz?lez: The idea of human terrain-euphemistically defined as the local population in a theater of war--is not a new concept. Although one could go back centuries to find similar metaphors, its contemporary roots stretch back to 1968, when it appeared in a report by the infamous US House Un-American Activities Committee, or HUAC. (HUAC was responsible for witch hunts of suspected communists during the 1950s.) The report was about the perceived threat of the Black Panther Party and similar groups within the US, and it warned that such militants "possess the ability to seize and retain the initiative through a superior control of the human terrain." From the beginning, discussions of human terrain were linked to social control in the context of domestic counterinsurgency. Keep in mind that all of this was happening as the FBI's nefarious Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO)--which brutally repressed political dissent within the US--was in full gear. The human terrain concept resurfaced decades later, in 2000, when retired US Army Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters--a hard-boiled neoconservative pundit who advocates using American armed forces for a "cultural assault" upon non-Western societies--published an influential article that was circulated widely. In the article, Peters argued that in urban combat operations, "human terrain. . .the people, armed and dangerous. . .will determine the success or failure of the intervention." Over the next several years, Peters' ideas spread quickly and eventually entered the military's lexicon. The Human Terrain System cleverly incorporated the term, perhaps in order to capitalize on the buzzword's popularity within military circles. Price: This history linking notions of human terrain with social control and suppression of domestic political movements strikes me as being very different from normal anthropological research undertakings designed to understand rather than control or subvert other cultures. How does this past history of human terrain as tool to suppress domestic political movements align with Human Terrain Systems today and with normal anthropological research or practice standards? Gonz?lez: Today's HTS program is aligned with past incarnations of human terrain in at least two ways. First of all, it is clear from early descriptions of HTS (published mostly in military journals) that its architects envisioned it as an intelligence-gathering program along the lines of Vietnam War-era efforts such as the US Army's CORDS (short for Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support). An essential part of CORDS was the collection of ethnographic data on Vietnamese civilians, which was then passed on to paramilitaries working for Operation Phoenix, a secret branch of CORDS. As a result, the paramilitaries eventually assassinated more than 26,000 Vietnamese with alleged ties to the Viet Cong. If we take descriptions of HTS seriously, then political suppression of Iraqis and Afghans appears as a very real possibility. Another similarity between HTS and the 1960s human terrain concept has to do with its uses as a tool for suppressing domestic dissent. HTS supporters from John McCain and Robert Gates on down have used it as a way demonstrating to Americans that we're involved in a culturally sensitive occupation. It offers us the illusion that we're fighting a kinder, gentler war, a war that we can feel good about supporting. I think it's revealing that HTS-though still an experimental program-has employed a well-connected, full-time public relations specialist to help groom this public image. Dozens of puff pieces have appeared in the corporate media, which has had the effect of winning over liberals who might otherwise be opposed to the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Using anthropologists for these kinds of objectives-for political suppression and propaganda purposes-runs completely against normal anthropological research practices. For many years, American anthropology has typically been used as a means of understanding other societies, not as a way of controlling them more efficiently. It's useful to think of anthropology as a field that is similar in many ways to the fields of medicine or psychology. The knowledge in each of these fields can be used responsibly, in ways that improve the human condition, human health, human self-awareness. But the same knowledge can be used to harm people, to make their lives more miserable rather than better. Price: In reading public statements and published articles from Human Terrain personnel and leaked documents like the recently surfaced Human Terrain Manual I'm struck by the crude efforts to harness specific forms of anthropological theory for the program. It seems that the program only wants to use certain types of anthropological theories and methods; what do you see as the key elements of Human Terrain System's efforts to apply anthropological theory? Gonz?lez: HTS personnel tend to use outdated anthropological concepts, theories, and methods, mostly from the 1930s and 1940s. For example, Montgomery McFate (the Pentagon's senior social science advisor for HTS) has recently published articles and given presentations in which she relies heavily upon the concept of "tribalism," functionalist theory, and data collection methods developed for the Human Relations Area Files. Others have sought to incorporate social network analysis as a research method. Each of these elements was either created or elaborated at a time when many anthropologists were employed by colonial governments to more effectively control indigenous populations. It's no accident that these are precisely the tools advocated by HTS's architects. In the past, when military planners and colonial administrators sought the counsel of anthropologists, they looked for a social science stripped of ambiguity, meaning, and context. They wanted simple analytical tools that might help them accomplish short-term objectives: to put down an uprising, to manufacture propaganda, to conduct psychological warfare, to divide one ethnic group or religious sect against another. Today, anthropologists commissioned by the Pentagon as counterinsurgency consultants use the same tools as instruments for manipulation and social control-not as a means of humanizing other people. Some of this work is published in army journals with titles like, "The Military Utility of Understanding Adversary Culture" and "Operational Culture for the Warfighter." These kinds of articles tell us a great deal about a principal aim of militarized social science: transforming culture into a weapon. Price: There are indications that AFRICOM is interested in using Human Terrain, or Human Terrain-type programs. What is your read on how the Obama Administration will approach Human Terrain Systems or other efforts to adopt cultural forms of "soft power" to control and occupy other cultures? Gonz?lez: Recently, a military contract firm called Archimedes Global posted a recruitment ad for "socio-cultural cell" members within the newly-established AFRICOM (US African Command). The ad calls for specialists with "human terrain" expertise, among others. It's a clear example of how human terrain has become a much broader phenomenon, now embraced by the military, industries, and research universities. Beyond the army's HTS program, human terrain has become a growth industry. After Robert Gates replaced Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary, there was a boom in funding for projects focused on human terrain research and "culture-centric" warfare, and this attracted dozens of companies from the military-industrial complex-BAE Systems, Aptima Corporation, MITRE, the RAND Corporation, Wexford Group, MTC Technologies, NEK Advanced Securities Group, and Alpha Ten to name a few. Unfortunately, President Obama has asked Gates-a staunch supporter of HTS-to continue serving as Defense Secretary, while simultaneously calling for an escalation of the Afghanistan war. I think that HTS and similar programs are likely to flourish as long as the US military continues to occupy other countries. Price: The journalist John Stanton has written a detailed series of investigative reports indicating widespread financial mismanagement, lack of accountability and programmatic conditions indicative of a military-contract-without-accountability gone wild. Last month, the British journal Nature reversed its earlier support for Human Terrain Systems and called for an end of the Human Terrain program. While most anthropologists and even members of the intelligence community have come to recognize Human Terrain as a rouge program, do you foresee either the ethical, political or financial problems bringing any sort of investigation to Human Terrain Systems? Gonz?lez: A great deal of evidence points to extreme waste and fraud in the Human Terrain System-something that is typical of many other Pentagon programs farmed out to military contractors. Former HTS employees told me that millions of dollars were routinely wasted on ineffective and inadequate training exercises, useless software programs, and incompetent staff members. They reported that an expensive "Reachback Research Center" located at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas was rarely used for research, but instead functioned as a warehouse for employees who weren't "deployable assets." Zenia Helbig, a former employee of the program, has stated that "the program is desperate to hire anyone or anything that remotely falls into the category or 'academic'." To make matters worse, HTS has not had any independent reviews or assessments. In fact, the only assessments that have been conducted were carried out by evaluation teams consisting of people with a vested interest in the program's continuation. Despite this overwhelming evidence pointing to a program run amok, the US Congress has not shown much interest in investigating HTS. In fact, when a joint session of the House Armed Services and Science Committees held hearings in April 2008 to discuss the Human Terrain System and other social science programs, House representatives did not ask Steve Fondacaro (director of HTS) any tough questions. Since that time, three HTS social scientists-Michael Bhatia, Nicole Suveges, and Paula Loyd-have been killed in action, an HTS employee has been charged with murder for a revenge killing in Afghanistan, and yet another has been charged with espionage. These scandals, along with persistent pressure from academic groups, may yet lead to HTS's demise. But remember that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been a staunch supporter of HTS and counterinsurgency warfare, and he will continue his term as a member of the Obama administration. We can't rely on the new administration to bring an end to these programs. It will be left to citizens of conscience to demand the abolition of human terrain teams-and the imperial wars that employ them. David Price is a member of the Network of Concerned Anthropologist. He is the author of Anthropological Intelligence: The Deployment and Neglect of American Anthropology in the Second World War, just published by Duke University Press. He can be reached at dprice at stmartin.edu Roberto J. Gonz?lez is author of American Counterinsurgency: Human Science and the Human Terrain (Prickly Paradigm Press, 2008) and Zapotec Science: Farming and Food in the Northern Sierra of Oaxaca (University of Texas Press, 2001). He can be reached at roberto_gonzalez at netzero.net From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Feb 3 13:00:50 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 12:00:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] KESTERSON AT WAR: U.S. photojournalist Scott Kesterson spent 15 months embedded with Canadian troops in Afghanistan In-Reply-To: <55F2ACCC5F9C4D30B77F814981AF978D@twubby.com> Message-ID: <1298711931.233801233691249975.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Military/Afghanistan????????????????????????????????????????????????????? February 2, 2009 Kesterson At War U.S. photojournalist Scott Kesterson spent 15 months embedded with Canadian troops in Afghanistan in an effort to understand the conflict. (Runs 18:38) http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/militaryafghanistan/kesterson_at_war.html From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Feb 3 13:14:03 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 12:14:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Song about Gaza from Martyn Joseph In-Reply-To: <235465986.240431233692029369.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <696661223.240571233692043937.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Five Sisters (mp3 download of the song available at: http://www.martynjoseph.com/listen.html ) ? This is not the place for vengeance Not a place for battle cries This is no rally it?s a funeral For five sisters lives Every day I watched them growing In the night I watched them breathe But it only takes a second Five sisters gone We walk we breathe we are not animals Though you treat us like we are I never fired a rocket sir at anyone But you may have pushed too far The propaganda of the leaders Making speeches heads held high I want them standing by this graveside Where five sisters lie Every day? Take away a mans water Build upon his land Raise a mighty wall around him What is it you don?t understand? Make his children walk in squalor With only night stars for a view Then the rage within that helplessness One day comes back at you But this is not the place for vengeance Not a place for battle cries This is no rally it?s a funeral For five sisters lives Every day? One day I?ll buy a rocket And I will aim it at the sky Celebrate in the light of a thousand colours I pray, peace and justice in our time For five sisters Too late for my five daughters Tahir, Ikram, Samar, Dina and Jawaher Balousha From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Feb 3 13:50:14 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 12:50:14 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Dutch inquiry into support for Iraq invasion Message-ID: <84ACBFB7-F20B-42F9-8D74-5B557B894593@shaw.ca> Dutch inquiry into support for Iraq invasion The Associated Press Monday, February 2, 2009; 10:42 AM http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/02/AR2009020200940.html THE HAGUE, Netherlands -- The Dutch prime minister on Monday ordered an independent inquiry into his government's decision to support the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 _ even though that support was verbal only. The decision is a dramatic U-turn for Jan Peter Balkenende's government, which long refused to conduct any kind of investigation. But momentum for an investigation has grown in recent weeks after evidence emerged that government lawyers believed the invasion might be illegal under international law _ a potential embarrassment for a country that houses many of the top international courts. Balkenende's government did not send any troops to participate in the invasion. But it announced it supported the U.S.-led military campaign that toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. "Parliament and the Cabinet made a decision based on clear and honest consideration," in 2003, Balkenende said. "So there is nothing to hide." Balkenende installed a former head of the Dutch Supreme Court to lead the inquiry and pledged it would be given access to all documents and would have the power to question people. The board of inquiry is due to publish its findings by Nov. 1. From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Feb 3 15:03:30 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:03:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Khyber Pass bridge used by Nato is blown up by militants Message-ID: <2015650694.293221233698610911.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Daily Telegraph ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 3 February 2009 ? Khyber Pass bridge used by Nato is blown up by militants ? A bridge in the Khyber Pass has been blown up by militants, halting Nato supplies bound for Afghanistan. ? By Ben Farmer in Kabul ? Traffic on the road came to a standstill after a 100ft iron bridge was blown up 15 miles west of Peshawar in north west Pakistan. ? Transport through the historic gateway to landlocked Afghanistan has repeatedly been cut by fighting and militant attacks in recent months, exposing the vulnerability of the main Nato supply route. ? The pressure on supply routes has been intensified by the US decision to double its forces in Afghanistan in the next 18 months to more than 60,000. ? Pakistani officials said hundreds of vehicles were stuck on both sides of the bridge, but work on a bypass had begun. ? Saed Ali, a paramilitary officer at the scene said: "Work is in full swing. ? "We've sent some vehicles across the dried-up stream and by tomorrow, hopefully, it'll be open for trucks." ? Nato maintains its troops have enough supplies and the regular attacks have no effect on provisions, but commanders have stepped up the search for alternative routes. ? A spokesman said: "It's had no effect on supplies. It's only one of our routes. If one supply route gets blown up it doesn't make a difference." ? Around 300 civilian lorries a day carry military supplies cross the Khyber Pass and enter Afghanistan at the Torkham crossing. ? The only other route via Pakistan is from Quetta, across the border at Spin Boldak, to Kandahar. That route takes far fewer trucks and has itself been closed by unrest. ? General John Craddock, Nato's senior military commander, said this week that he would not oppose Nato countries making deals to supply their forces through Iranian territory. ? The Indian government has just opened a new road from central Afghanistan to the Iranian border at Zaranj, which would allow access to Iran's deep sea Gulf port at Chabahar. However the perilous security situation in the south of the country means the road is still unused. ? The US has also recently cut deals with Russia and central Asian republics to bring in supplies through Afghanistan's northern neighbours. From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Feb 3 16:12:04 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 15:12:04 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Farewell, Monroe Doctrine Message-ID: <32A48B12-7F5D-49FC-82C6-78258690E8C0@shaw.ca> Farewell, Monroe Doctrine Philip Brenner and Saul Landau | February 2, 2009 Editor: Emily Schwartz Greco http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5830 Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org President Barack Obama could swiftly improve U.S. relations with Latin America by announcing the death of the Monroe Doctrine and then presiding over its funeral. Such a statement would cost him little domestically, and win him praise and appreciation throughout Latin America and much of the world. Most Americans don't know the details of this 185-year-old policy and could care less about it. Latin Americans, in contrast, not only can describe the Monroe Doctrine, but they revile it. In effect, it has become nothing more than hollow rhetoric that offends the very people it purports to defend. In 1823, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams wrote, and President James Monroe proclaimed, a doctrine that asserted U.S. political character is different from Europe's. The United States, President Monroe declared, would consider the extension of Europe's monarchical political influence into the New World "as dangerous to our peace and safety." European powers should leave the Americas for the Americans, he warned, and he strongly implied that there existed a U.S. sphere of influence south of the border. At the time, Europe shrugged. After all, the United States possessed neither a formidable army nor navy. But three serious problems fundamentally vitiated this apparently noble gesture to protect newly independent republics in South America from European re-colonization. First, Washington proclaimed it unilaterally. Latin Americans didn't ask us for protection. U.S. diplomats didn't even consult their counterparts. That was ironic, since the Doctrine's "protection" involved placing the United States between Latin American countries and supposedly malevolent European states. Second, its paternalism ? the claim that "our southern brethren" lack the ability to defend themselves ? raises hackles in Latin America. Even if the implication had some validity at one time, it no longer corresponds to the region's reality. The third and most problematic issue Obama faces from the outmoded doctrine relates to its legacy. For more than a century, the United States has periodically intervened in the domestic affairs of Latin American countries. Typically the United States invoked the Monroe Doctrine ? without threats from Europe ? to justify self-serving intrusions that have inflicted heavy damage on Latin American dignity and sovereignty. Roosevelt Corollary Under President Theodore Roosevelt, the doctrine stood for the informal colonization of most "independent" Caribbean Basin countries. The so-called Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine claimed Washington's right to preemptively intervene and occupy a Latin American nation, even if no European power had yet threatened to impose its power there. Roosevelt asserted that by virtue of going into debt to a European bank, a Latin American country weakened itself sufficiently to be vulnerable to re-colonization. Ergo, anticipatory military intervention became a necessity from 1900 to 1933. U.S. troops invaded Colombia in 1901 and 1902; Honduras in 1903, 1907, and 1911; and the Dominican Republic in 1903, 1904, 1914, and 1916, occupying the island nation until 1924. U.S. troops landed in Nicaragua on multiple occasions, occupying it for some 20 years, and occupied Cuba for three years (1906-1909) and Haiti for 20 years. U.S. forces also made incursions into Mexico, Panama, Guatemala, and Costa Rica. President Dwight D. Eisenhower used the doctrine in 1954 to justify the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Guatemala. President John F. Kennedy embraced it from 1961 to 1963 in attacking Cuba, and President Lyndon B. Johnson raised its banner in 1965 when he sent 23,000 Marines into the Dominican Republic in support of generals who tyrannically governed the country over the next 13 years. President Ronald Reagan said it was the basis for the CIA wars he pursued in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala during which more than 200,000 Central Americans died, as well as the U.S. attack on Grenada. For these historic reasons, "Monroeism" carries a deeply negative meaning in Latin America and the Caribbean. Throughout the region, the mere mention of the Monroe Doctrine hints at impending U.S. aggression. Nearly two decades after the Cold War's demise, U.S. policy elites still cling to this doctrine as an axiom of U.S. policy. In recent years they added as the latest corollary a demand that Latin American governments adopt neoliberal economics. No wonder Latin Americans have elected leaders ? in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Guatemala, Honduras, Uruguay, and Venezuela ? who repudiated not only the doctrine's implied hegemony, but the economic rules that accompany it today. Notably, not one Western hemispheric country supported the United States in October, when the UN General Assembly voted 185-3 to end the U.S. embargo against Cuba. The Ballots Did It Over the last decade, citizens in Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and other Central American nations have declared their opposition to U.S.-backed neoliberal economic policies and voted for candidates who eschew the notion of perpetual U.S. hegemony. Ballots, ultimately, killed the doctrine. This new wave of leaders is challenging U.S. supremacy. Last year, Bolivian President Evo Morales did what would have been unthinkable two decades ago: He evicted the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. Ecuador has kicked out a U.S. military base. Most Latin American nations now defy the United States on some major policy. Chile and Mexico, both Security Council Members, voted against Washington when the key UN resolution arose that would have sanctioned Bush's invasion of Iraq. And U.S. influence has been further eroded by the stronger diplomatic, economic, and military ties with China, Russia, and Iran that several countries in the region are developing. Given the facts, President Obama should announce as soon as possible ? and no later than the mid-April Summit of the Americas in Trinidad that he's slated to attend ? that the Monroe Doctrine is dead and buried. This move could serve as a rhetorical catalyst for developing real partnerships that acknowledge Latin America's new status. Only the funeral of this 19th-century canon will enable the United States to birth a healthy policy. Philip Brenner is a professor of international relations at American University. His most recent book is A Contemporary Cuba Reader (Rowman and Littlefield, 2008). Saul Landau is vice chair of the Institute for Policy Studies board of trustees. His most recent film is "We Don't Play Golf Here ? and Other Stories of Globalization." They are Foreign Policy In Focus contributors. From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Feb 3 16:16:15 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 15:16:15 -0800 Subject: [R-G] =?iso-8859-1?q?Three_cheers_for_Ch=E1vez?= Message-ID: <21651958-BEF5-42E7-949B-617963CD8DC8@shaw.ca> Three cheers for Ch?vez Hugo Ch?vez's 10 years in office have led to better healthcare and education for the majority of Venezuelans * Benjamin Dangl o Benjamin Dangl o guardian.co.uk, Monday 2 February 2009 12.00 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/feb/02/venezuela-hugo-chavez-anniversary-election/print A few years ago, when I first visited Venezuela, I met countless enthusiastic supporters of Venezuelan President Hugo Ch?vez. One of them was Peggy Ortiz, a blonde, self proclaimed Chavista (Ch?vez supporter) who at the time was working as a radio producer in Caracas. On a walk through the city's Plaza Bolivar she introduced me to her friends who were all, in her words, revolucionarios. One of them was a Che Guevara impersonator. He had the same smile, beret and goatee as El Comandante, and proudly rode a black moped around, giving high fives to street vendors selling Hugo Ch?vez T-shirts, key chains and alarm clocks. "People believe in Ch?vez. I believe in him," Ortiz explained as we walked past the stalls. "He's a clean president, he doesn't hide anything. Most people who are against Ch?vez don't understand this political process." That is as true now as it was three years ago. Today, 2 February, the day that marks 10 years since Ch?vez was first sworn into office, is a good opportunity to reflect on Ch?vez's rise to power and the positive changes his policies have brought to Venezuela. Ch?vez first entered the national limelight in the wake of a popular rebellion in Venezuela against neoliberal economic policies and state repression. Economic inequality, rampant in Venezuela throughout the 20th century, came to a breaking point in 1989, when right-wing President Carlos Andres Perez arrived in office. Perez implemented harmful International Monetary Fund structural adjustments, accepted a massive loan and subsequent debt which plunged the country into an economic recession. The Caracazo, a February 1989 uprising in Caracas against the Perez government and his economic policies, was met with brutal military repression. Hugo Ch?vez, then a young colonel in the army, refused to participate in the Caracazo crackdown. He led an attempted coup d'?tat against the Perez government in 1992. When the coup failed Ch?vez took the blame for it and was imprisoned until 1994. Soon after his release Ch?vez began a presidential campaign that took him across the country, gaining support from diverse sectors of society. He started out with little financial backing, often traveling in a broken-down pickup truck and giving speeches out of the back. His humble background ? he grew up in a poor family ? and fiery speeches offered a radical alternative to the wealthy, right-wing politicians in power and gave hope to a disenfranchised population, 60% of which lived below the poverty line. Shortly after winning the 1998 presidential election, Ch?vez re- nationalised the country's oil reserves. Under the new constitution, the state was granted full ownership of the Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) gas and oil company. This keeps the government, instead of corporations, in control of the industry. The constitution also established that revenue from the oil business should be used primarily to finance social and development programmes that alleviate poverty. With the new funds, Ch?vez's government began literacy campaigns, undertook land reform, constructed free dentist offices, hospitals and schools in the poorest neighbourhoods and created systems of subsidised supermarkets and business cooperatives all over the country. The Ch?vez government has faced many challenges, particularly from the disenfranchised elite that used to run the country. In April of 2002, a US supported coup d'etat was staged against Ch?vez. Yet the rebellion was short-lived. After an outpouring of support among civilian and military Chavistas, the illegitimate government was pushed from office. Ch?vez was back in the presidency within two days. During one visit to Venezuela, I stopped by a newly built community center in a Caracas neighborhood. In one room, women over the age of 70 were attending literacy classes decorated with murals of Ch?vez. The literacy campaign, known as Mission Robinson, has reached millions of people of all ages. Other occupational classes teach carpentry, auto repair and other skills to help people gain employment. Programmes in education and literacy have lowered Venezuela's poverty rates by giving citizens new skills to improve their standard of living. Nearby the literacy classrooms were the octagonal health clinics that are located throughout the country. In the clinics, Cuban doctors offer emergency medical care, vaccinations, check-ups and medicine for common illnesses. Free healthcare improves the quality of life for many Venezuelans. The work of Cuban doctors in Venezuela's new clinics and healthcare systems has allowed for the quick expansion of services. In some cases, poor families are able to visit the doctor or a dentist for the first time in generations. A local resident led me to a building under construction that was soon to be a Mercal. Mercals, government subsidised supermarkets providing basic food for low prices, are now all over the country. Beans, bread, milk, vegetables and other products, largely from Venezuelan producers, are available in the markets. Everywhere I went across the country, I ran into Ch?vez supporters. William Barillas, a tall, bearded volunteer at Radio Horizonte, a community radio station in Merida, Venezuela, believed the Ch?vez administration was a significant improvement from previous governments. "This government has left the era when governments never did anything for the country. They used to just help capitalists, which were a minority of the population. This government actually cares about the education and health of poor people." * Print thisPrintable version * Send to a friendSend to a friend * Share thisShare * Clip thisClip * Contact usContact us * larger | smaller Email Close Recipient's email address Your first name Your surname Add a note (optional) Your IP address will be logged Share Close * Digg * reddit * Google Bookmarks * Yahoo! My Web * del.icio.us * StumbleUpon * Newsvine * livejournal * Facebook * BlinkList Contact us Close * Report errors or inaccuracies: userhelp at guardian.co.uk * Letters for publication should be sent to: letters at guardian.co.uk * If you need help using the site: userhelp at guardian.co.uk * Call the main Guardian and Observer switchboard: +44 (0)20 7278 2332 * o Advertising guide o License/buy our content World news * Hugo Ch?vez ? * Venezuela ? * United States More comment Related 6 Jan 2009 Venezuela suspends programme that provides free heating oil to US poor 24 Nov 2008 Richard Gott: The loss by the Chavistas of the main cities in Venezuala is a huge blow, and threatens the survival of the project 18 Sep 2008 Human Rights Watch report accuses Hugo Ch?vez of undermining democracy in Venezuela 17 Jul 2008 Obama no different to McCain, says Chavez * Print thisPrintable version * Send to a friendSend to a friend * Share thisShare * Clip thisClip * Contact usContact us * Article historyArticle history Email Close Recipient's email address Your first name Your surname Add a note (optional) Your IP address will be logged Share Close * Digg * reddit * Google Bookmarks * Yahoo! My Web * del.icio.us * StumbleUpon * Newsvine * livejournal * Facebook * BlinkList Contact us Close * Report errors or inaccuracies: userhelp at guardian.co.uk * Letters for publication should be sent to: letters at guardian.co.uk * If you need help using the site: userhelp at guardian.co.uk * Call the main Guardian and Observer switchboard: +44 (0)20 7278 2332 * o Advertising guide o License/buy our content About this article Close Benjamin Dangl: Hugo Ch?vez cares about the education and health of poor Venezuelans This article was first published on guardian.co.uk at 12.00 GMT on Monday 2 February 2009. It was last updated at 12.00 GMT on Monday 2 February 2009. <A HREF="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/event.ng/Type=click&FlightID=100327&AdID=116207&TargetID=18847&Values=30,46,50,61,73,82,93,100,110,150,466,695,856,908,913,1208,1283,1306,1454,1461,1668,1680,1748,1749,1794,1837,1866,1932,2018,2262,2362,2432,2467,2477,2792,2826,2941,3281,3282,3311,3904,3998,4290,4372,4546,4691,4822,5062,5405,5526,5556,5646&Redirect=http://www.guardianweekly.co.uk/games " target="_blank"><IMG SRC="http://adimage.guardian.co.uk/top_run_of_sites/2008december/gu_hangman_300x250.gif " WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 BORDER=0></A> Most viewed on guardian.co.uk * 24 hours * 7 days * Most talked about 24 hours 1. 1. Analysis: How world leaders view Iran's space ambitions 2. 2. Carol Thatcher faces BBC ban over 'golliwog' remark 3. 3. Porn interrupts Super Bowl TV coverage 4. 4. Stuart Jeffries: London's day of innocence 5. 5. The day the snow came - and Britain stopped 6. More top stories 7 days 1. 1. Revealed: the letter Barack Obama's team hope will heal Iran rift 2. 2. Google's Street View camera car hits a baby deer 3. 3. Heavy snow to cause travel chaos all week 4. 4. Google Earth, Google Ocean: mysteries of the seafloor are mapped for the first time 5. 5. Tanya Gold offers an essential survival guide in case of apocalypse 6. More top stories Most talked about
    {for blog_item in blogs} ${parseInt(blog_item_index) + 1}.

    ${blog_item.article.title} (${blog_item.linkcount}{if blog_item_index == 0} technorati links{/if})

    {/for}
1. 1. Google Earth, Google Ocean: mysteries of the seafloor are mapped for the first time (28 technorati links) 2. 2. Heavy snow to cause travel chaos all week (16) 3. 3. Half of Britons do not believe in evolution, survey finds (15) 4. 4. India to unveil the ?7 laptop (14) 5. 5. Porn interrupts Super Bowl TV coverage (11) More Today's rising blog posts from Technorati Bestsellers from the Guardian shop * 'Alex Lighting' floor and table book lights 'Alex Lighting' floor and table book lights Designed for the reader, 'Alex' booklights feature a pool of crisp,controllable light. From: ?83.18 o Visit the Guardian reader offers shop o Green & ethical shopping at Guardian ecostore comment is free? Latest posts * Gwladys Fouch? 1hr 14min ago A Viking union? Gwladys Fouch?: Icelanders may feel more comfortable with the Norwegian crown than the euro 2 comments * Rob Smyth 2hr 14min ago Fusball's coming home Rob Smyth: England may no longer rule the waves, but at table football we kick ? can't we fast-track it into the 2012 Olympics? 11 comments Comment from the paper * Vincent Cable: This crisis must spur us to take on the tax avoiders * Look beyond number one * William Shawcross: Democratic dawn in Iraq Free P&P at the Guardian bookshop * Hidden o Hidden o ?12.99 with free UK delivery * Sex, Drugs and Chocolate o Sex, Drugs and Chocolate o ?16.99 with free UK delivery * Browse the bestsellers lists * Buy books from the Guardian Bookshop Find a car * New cars * Used cars New vehicle search Powered by AutoTrader From: To: Include pre-registered vehicles Powered by AutoTrader Used vehicle search From: To: Your details: Enter full postcode Postcode Required Sellers details: Sort results by: Distance Price (ascending) Price (descending) * Sponsored features * * Guardian Jobs * UK * USA UK * Institute Administration Manager london metropolitan university. north london. ?27,705 - ?33,057 per annum inclusive. * Head of Research Policy (Places of Worship) english heritage. flexible (depending on the circumstances of succes?. ?38,000 - ?45,000 pa. * Support Assistants st christophers fellowship. lewisham or n.w. london. ?19,000. Browse all jobs USA * Manager of Public Safety & Security and affinity for the mission of a christian liberal arts education, specifically in the lutheran faith/heritage and traditions. position will remain open until... . ny. * BC/BE Vascular Surgeon, Outstanding guaranteed compensation with productivity bonus! stunning scenery, big-city excitement, and small-town charm; music, arts, history and heritage ... it all awaits in missouri. live in a growing and vital city... . mo. * Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner known for its deep historical roots and diverse heritage. located on central pennsylvania's spectacular... visual and performing arts venues, championship... . pa. Browse all jobs Related information World news * Hugo Ch?vez ? * Venezuela ? * United States The Bronx and the New York Yankee Stadium Yankees say goodbye to stadium that Ruth built 20 Sep 2008: Fans of the New York Yankees bid farewell to the cathedral of baseball More galleries 28 Mar 2006 Reality check 21 Nov 2005 Row is all Bush's fault, Chavez tells Mexico 14 Oct 2005 Chavez tells US religious group to leave country 23 Aug 2005 US broadcaster calls for assassination of Venezuelan president chavez_defeat_CORR_freeze_frame84 Ch?vez concedes defeat 3 Dec 2007: The Venezuelan president, Hugo Ch?vez, admits defeat in referendum that would have given him new powers and scrapped term limits More video * License/buy our content | * Privacy policy | * Terms & conditions | * Advertising guide | * Accessibility | * A-Z index | * Inside guardian.co.uk blog | * About guardian.co.uk | * Join our dating site today * guardian.co.uk ? Guardian News and Media Limited 2009 From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Feb 3 16:17:52 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 15:17:52 -0800 Subject: [R-G] =?iso-8859-1?q?Three_cheers_for_Ch=E1vez_=28correct_version?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=29?= Message-ID: <172F441B-B33E-49EF-ACC9-16FFB977A133@shaw.ca> Three cheers for Ch?vez Hugo Ch?vez's 10 years in office have led to better healthcare and education for the majority of Venezuelans * Benjamin Dangl o Benjamin Dangl o guardian.co.uk, Monday 2 February 2009 12.00 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/feb/02/venezuela-hugo-chavez-anniversary-election/print A few years ago, when I first visited Venezuela, I met countless enthusiastic supporters of Venezuelan President Hugo Ch?vez. One of them was Peggy Ortiz, a blonde, self proclaimed Chavista (Ch?vez supporter) who at the time was working as a radio producer in Caracas. On a walk through the city's Plaza Bolivar she introduced me to her friends who were all, in her words, revolucionarios. One of them was a Che Guevara impersonator. He had the same smile, beret and goatee as El Comandante, and proudly rode a black moped around, giving high fives to street vendors selling Hugo Ch?vez T-shirts, key chains and alarm clocks. "People believe in Ch?vez. I believe in him," Ortiz explained as we walked past the stalls. "He's a clean president, he doesn't hide anything. Most people who are against Ch?vez don't understand this political process." That is as true now as it was three years ago. Today, 2 February, the day that marks 10 years since Ch?vez was first sworn into office, is a good opportunity to reflect on Ch?vez's rise to power and the positive changes his policies have brought to Venezuela. Ch?vez first entered the national limelight in the wake of a popular rebellion in Venezuela against neoliberal economic policies and state repression. Economic inequality, rampant in Venezuela throughout the 20th century, came to a breaking point in 1989, when right-wing President Carlos Andres Perez arrived in office. Perez implemented harmful International Monetary Fund structural adjustments, accepted a massive loan and subsequent debt which plunged the country into an economic recession. The Caracazo, a February 1989 uprising in Caracas against the Perez government and his economic policies, was met with brutal military repression. Hugo Ch?vez, then a young colonel in the army, refused to participate in the Caracazo crackdown. He led an attempted coup d'?tat against the Perez government in 1992. When the coup failed Ch?vez took the blame for it and was imprisoned until 1994. Soon after his release Ch?vez began a presidential campaign that took him across the country, gaining support from diverse sectors of society. He started out with little financial backing, often traveling in a broken-down pickup truck and giving speeches out of the back. His humble background ? he grew up in a poor family ? and fiery speeches offered a radical alternative to the wealthy, right-wing politicians in power and gave hope to a disenfranchised population, 60% of which lived below the poverty line. Shortly after winning the 1998 presidential election, Ch?vez re- nationalised the country's oil reserves. Under the new constitution, the state was granted full ownership of the Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) gas and oil company. This keeps the government, instead of corporations, in control of the industry. The constitution also established that revenue from the oil business should be used primarily to finance social and development programmes that alleviate poverty. With the new funds, Ch?vez's government began literacy campaigns, undertook land reform, constructed free dentist offices, hospitals and schools in the poorest neighbourhoods and created systems of subsidised supermarkets and business cooperatives all over the country. The Ch?vez government has faced many challenges, particularly from the disenfranchised elite that used to run the country. In April of 2002, a US supported coup d'etat was staged against Ch?vez. Yet the rebellion was short-lived. After an outpouring of support among civilian and military Chavistas, the illegitimate government was pushed from office. Ch?vez was back in the presidency within two days. During one visit to Venezuela, I stopped by a newly built community center in a Caracas neighborhood. In one room, women over the age of 70 were attending literacy classes decorated with murals of Ch?vez. The literacy campaign, known as Mission Robinson, has reached millions of people of all ages. Other occupational classes teach carpentry, auto repair and other skills to help people gain employment. Programmes in education and literacy have lowered Venezuela's poverty rates by giving citizens new skills to improve their standard of living. Nearby the literacy classrooms were the octagonal health clinics that are located throughout the country. In the clinics, Cuban doctors offer emergency medical care, vaccinations, check-ups and medicine for common illnesses. Free healthcare improves the quality of life for many Venezuelans. The work of Cuban doctors in Venezuela's new clinics and healthcare systems has allowed for the quick expansion of services. In some cases, poor families are able to visit the doctor or a dentist for the first time in generations. A local resident led me to a building under construction that was soon to be a Mercal. Mercals, government subsidised supermarkets providing basic food for low prices, are now all over the country. Beans, bread, milk, vegetables and other products, largely from Venezuelan producers, are available in the markets. Everywhere I went across the country, I ran into Ch?vez supporters. William Barillas, a tall, bearded volunteer at Radio Horizonte, a community radio station in Merida, Venezuela, believed the Ch?vez administration was a significant improvement from previous governments. "This government has left the era when governments never did anything for the country. They used to just help capitalists, which were a minority of the population. This government actually cares about the education and health of poor people." From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Feb 3 17:05:18 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 16:05:18 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Politically, Hamas May Have Won Message-ID: <085009E8-9930-4AE5-95C4-7E37370E0060@shaw.ca> MIDEAST: Politically, Hamas May Have Won Analysis by Adam Morrow and Khaled Moussa al-Omrani http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45651 CAIRO, Feb 3 (IPS) - Despite declarations of victory by Israel, the military assault on the Gaza Strip failed to achieve its stated aims, many analysts say. The assault, and even its exceptional brutality, may only have vindicated the notion of resistance among the Arab public. "The steadfastness of the resistance in Gaza in the face of Israeli military power has resuscitated the idea of armed resistance," Gamal Fahmi, political analyst and managing editor of opposition weekly Al- Arabi Al-Nassiri told IPS. From Dec. 27 to Jan. 17, Israel pounded targets throughout the Gaza Strip from air, land and sea, in ostensible retaliation for rockets fired at Israel by Palestinian resistance factions, chief among them Hamas. The latter two weeks of the campaign brought a parallel ground offensive that encountered fierce resistance in and around a number of population centres. The campaign only came to a close - albeit an uncertain one - following Israel's announcement of a unilateral ceasefire Jan. 17. The next day, Palestinian resistance factions also announced a temporary cessation of hostilities, but not before launching several rocket salvoes at targets inside Israel. Over the course of the following week, Israel gradually withdrew its ground forces from the Gaza Strip. When the dust settled, more than 1,300 Gazans lay dead, mostly women and children. Thousands were injured. Israeli military officials hastened to declare the operation a success. Some Egyptian commentators, however, say that despite the high civilian death toll and infrastructural damage the conflict represented a strategic victory for the Palestinian resistance. "Victory in war isn't determined by casualty rates but by the achievement of war aims," Abdelhalim Kandil, political analyst and editor-in-chief of independent weekly Sout Al-Umma wrote Monday (Jan. 26). "And Israel failed to achieve its stated aims after more than three weeks of punishing Gaza." He said Israel's ?unilateral ceasefire? - for which Israel received nothing in return from the Hamas-led resistance - was unprecedented in the history of Israeli war-making. "The resistance called its own ceasefire one day later, but not before demonstrating that its capacity for launching rockets at Israel remained intact," Kandil wrote. Gamal Mazloum, former Egyptian Army general, said Israel's stated war objectives changed more than once mid-campaign. "Over the course of the conflict, Israeli officials went from saying that the goal of the operation was 'removing' Hamas, to 'degrading' its rocket-launching capacity, to 'teaching Hamas a lesson?," Mazloum told IPS. "But the unexpected steadfastness of the resistance forced them to conclude operations without achieving any of these. Now Israel says its chief aim is to 'cut off weapons smuggling' to Gaza." According to Hamas officials, Israel's real objective was clear from the outset. "The reason for Israel's aggression is to change the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip," Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzook was quoted as saying during the conflict Jan. 13. "They have been thinking about this ever since Hamas won the elections." This was not the first attempt at forcible removal of the resistance group. Shortly after Hamas's surprise victory in the 2006 legislative elections, the U.S. covertly armed and trained elements of the Palestinian Fatah movement, Hamas's secular rival, with the aim of wiping out the Hamas leadership in Gaza in one fell swoop. Based in the West Bank, Fatah currently heads the Palestinian Authority (PA) under the leadership of western-backed PA President Mahmoud Abbas. The scheme, coordinated by U.S. Lt-Gen Keith Dayton and Fatah strongman Mohamed Dahlan, later became known as the Dayton Plan. But after learning of the plot in mid-June 2007, Hamas pre-emptively routed its Fatah adversaries and seized control of Gaza. Hamas has maintained control of the Gaza Strip ever since. As a result, Gaza been subject to an internationally-sanctioned embargo that has brought it to humanitarian ruin. Hamas officials say that Israel's latest assault was simply an attempt to finish the job that Fatah - with U.S. and Israeli support - failed to do in 2007. "They tried to push Fatah to stand and fight Hamas, but we defeated them in the Gaza Strip," Marzouk said in a reference to the failed Dayton plot. "So Israel took action themselves." Several commentators agree that both campaigns had the same objective - namely, the obliteration of Hamas. "Both the Dayton Plan and Israel's recent war aimed - and failed - to remove Hamas from power in Gaza," said Mazloum. Despite the Dayton Plan's significance in the chronology of the conflict, it is seldom referred to in current reporting by the western mainstream media. "The Dayton affair is largely ignored - but then facts concerning Palestine are always subject to deceptions and disinformation in the western media," Fahmi said. "The western press also rarely mentions that Hamas won democratic elections in 2006, or the extent of corruption in the PA." Along with Israel's failure to achieve its stated war aims, commentators note that the war on Gaza - horrific images of which have been transmitted around the world - represented a public relations catastrophe for Israel. "The war revealed Israeli criminality to the entire world," said Fahmi. "It also served to put the Palestinian cause back on the conscience of the international community." "Israel's image is now at an all-time low," said Mazloum, pointing to the massive demonstrations worldwide in solidarity with Gaza. "Israel is already suffering from the effects of this crisis, politically, economically and socially." Mazloum attributed Israel's uncharacteristic unilateral ceasefire declaration to mounting worldwide outrage over its assault on Gaza's largely defenceless civilian population. "There was an unprecedented explosion of popular rage in the Arab world, which put most Arab governments under tremendous pressure and could have led to serious regional escalations," said Mazloum. "The blatant carnage also eventually led to pressure on Israel by the international community to stop the aggression." Both domestically and regionally, he said, Hamas was already reaping the fruits of what amounted to a political victory. "Both in Gaza and the Fatah-controlled West Bank, the people have rallied around Hamas as defender of the Palestinian cause," said Mazloum. "And on the regional level, Hamas proved its staying power and showed it cannot be simply removed from the equation. Egypt, for one, will now have no choice but to deal with Hamas as a political reality." According to Fahmi, the most notable outcome has been a resurgence of the notion of armed resistance to Israel - after some 30 years of fruitless negotiations. "Resistance doesn't mean irrational violence devoid of political considerations, as its detractors would suggest," he said. "On the contrary, it is - particularly in the face of brutal occupation - the only logical choice." (END/2009) From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Tue Feb 3 21:15:14 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:15:14 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Road Trip Message-ID: <49891652.5060608@ashisuto.co.jp> Clusterfuck Nation by Jim Kunstler Comment on current events by the author of The Long Emergency (2005) www.kunstler.com (February 02 2009) "We will not apologize for our way of life ..." This unfortunate phrase from President Obama's otherwise sturdy inaugural address, echoed through my mind last week as I cruised the suburban outlands of Montgomery, Alabama. All the usual commercial furnishings of consumerist America hugged the flattish ochre and dusty-green landscape of played-out cotton fields where thirty feet of topsoil has washed away in the two hundred years since the mainly English settlers shoved out the native Alabamu, Coosa, and Tallapoosa. Along the low horizon, mall followed strip mall followed "lifestyle center", book-ending the "one house" failed subdivisions of otherwise empty unsold lots in a cavalcade of floundering enterprise. It seemed at times as if the terrain was a kind of sea-like expanse, and all the retail boxes ghost ships drifting to oblivion. They say that the banks have stopped calling in their loans on the commercial real estate, even though the owners of the malls and strip malls have arrived firmly in default. Calling in the loans would only pin another horrifying liability on the banks' balance sheets. So all parties join in a game of "pretend", that nothing has really happened to the fundamental equations of business life. Something similar goes on at the next level down, where the tenants of the malls and strip malls sink deeper into rent arrears every month, and the eviction process is simply postponed, while the stores themselves put off paying their vendors and suppliers - as the whole system, the whole way of life, enters upon a circle-jerk of mutual denial in a last desperate effort to forestall the mandates of reality . How long will these games go on? This is the primary question that haunts the republic as we wait for new TARPS, and "bad banks", economic stimulus packages, infrastructure renewal roll-outs, and other policy life-lines thrown out in guarded hopefulness to haul America out of a ditch. The center of Montgomery was instructive, too. Not unlike any other city in the USA (population about 200,000), the former main artery of downtown commerce - Dexter Avenue, rolling out like a red carpet below the state capitol hill, where Martin Luther King's early career kicked off in a modest red brick church, and where Rosa Parks famously refused to move to the back of her bus - this "main street" presented a sad sequence of empty shopfronts interrupted here and there by rather creepy amateur murals depicting the cruelties of slavery, as if a remonstrance to the politicos up the hill. Most of the buildings lining the avenue still stood burdened by the clownish facade re-doos and ghastly claddings of the 1950s, which had replaced the ordered classical-vernacular decorum of the original 19th century frontages. Once the malls had landed in the old cotton fields, and MLK moved on to Atlanta, Dexter Avenue was just left to rot in the memory trunk. Here and there around the rest of the downtown, other weird experiments in American post-war anti-urbanism presented themselves, most notably a "building" designed to look like a small-scaled Death Star, all black reflective glass, canted concrete and steel walls - which turned out to belong to Morris Dees' renowned Southern Poverty Law Center - deployed directly across the street from the modest white clapboard-with-green-shutters house once occupied by Jefferson Davis after Richmond fell and the Confederate leadership skeedaddled further south. There were a few recently-built government towers that looked like Nascar trophies. But the rest of the downtown - the parts not dedicated to surface parking - was the ubiquitous array of muffler shops, or restaurants and churches that looked like muffler shops. With the city center thus nearly dead, and the asteroid belt of malls and strips on their knees financially, this emblematic sunbelt metro area finds itself in a pickle. Cotton being well-past decline, and having wrecked the soil, the "new" economy of recent decades dedicated itself to building car-dependent air-conditioned suburban sprawl - the perceived perfect antidote to a previous economic order based on serfdom, hook-worm, and inescapable heat. That now-not-so-new economy of sprawl, in turn, has come to a screeching halt, as a cruel destiny threw sand in the mechanisms of reliably cheap oil and revolving credit, and the gears seized up. A mood of ominous watching and waiting pervaded the city, but many of the movers-and-shakers had pinned their hopes on the chance that Mr Obama's stimulus bill would allow them to commence building a new freeway to the ocean on the Florida panhandle. My journey continued on the Jesus-haunted blue highways, to that selfsame place, Walton County, Florida, where some of the most famous experiments in the New Urbanism were conducted beginning in the 1980s with the new town of Seaside. I had been there many times over the years, and I was called down to get a prize in the service of the movement, but it was a little disconcerting to see how the build-out had progressed. The Seaside experiment began very modestly as the idea for a bohemian village of architects and artists in what was then an almost empty quarter of piney woods owned by the St Joe timber company. Seaside was designed so beautifully that it attracted the attention of every thoracic surgeon and corporate lawyer between Nashville and New Orleans, and pretty soon Seaside became the Riviera of the sunbelt's economic elite - and came in for gales of criticism for becoming that. The newer houses and commercial structures grew ever grander, as a Boomer generation status competition ramped up into the new millennium. Several more, ever-grander New Urbanist towns sprouted along the adjacent beaches, some of the most recent composed of immense mansions embarrassing in their opulence. The outcome was a little scary, especially now that the fortunes behind many of these mansions may be threatened by the multiplying fiascos of finance and economy overspreading the nation like a vicious plague. The New Urbanists had not set out to build monuments to Yuppie-Boomer consumerism, but a peculiar destiny shoved them into that role for a while - even while they toiled elsewhere around the nation to reform town planning laws and generally provide an antidote to the fatal cultural cancer of sprawl, that is, of a settlement pattern guaranteed to comprehensively bankrupt our society. Anyway, the collapse of the housing bubble has affected the New Urbanists' business, too, and this may turn out to be a very good thing because they can put aside the distractions of building very grand places to sop up ill-gotten wealth and focus on the issues that Mr Obama's people should have been paying attention to all along, namely, how are we going to reform the way we live in this country and what will be the physical manifestation of how we live in the decades to come. The New Urbanists have preached for years that conventional suburbia would fail America in the long run, and that we'd have to prepare for this failure by restoring traditional modes of occupying the landscape. So far, the Obama team has not been willing to identify the suburban system as the heart of our economic problem. They can't recognize it for what it truly is: a living arrangement with no future - and an economic, ecological, and spiritual disaster. It is, of course, the primary reason why we find ourselves in the deadly predicament of importing over two-thirds of the oil we use every day. But then, more than half the population lives the suburban way of life, with its deadly mortgage traps, its mandatory motoring, and its civic disengagements. Nobody in power dares tell the truth: that we can't live this way anymore. But there are scores of places like Montgomery, Alabama, and thousands of traditional main street small towns that are sitting out there waiting to be re-activated. We need to do this much more than we need to build new freeways to the beach. Suburbia is not going to be abandoned overnight (even if it fails logistically and economically !) but we have got to arrive at a consensus about rehabilitating our forsaken small cities and small towns. The New Urbanists have gathered, organized, and codified all the principle and methodology needed to carry out this campaign. This should be their moment. Mr Obama and his team should get with the program. _____ My new novel of the post-oil future, World Made By Hand, is available at all booksellers. http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2009/02/road-trip.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Feb 3 23:06:57 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 22:06:57 -0800 Subject: [R-G] FAIR Challenges CBC's Report on Israel/Palestine Film References: Message-ID: <5853ABF5-7BBE-4302-8C69-374938A9B57C@shaw.ca> > > FAIR issued a press release today challenging the Canadian > Broadcasting Corporation over false and biased claims made by its > ombud after the CBC came under pressure from a campaign launched by > groups that advocate for uncritical coverage of the Israeli > government. > > The campaign was launched in response to CBC's October 23, 2008 > airing of the 2003 educational documentary Peace, Propaganda and the > Promised Land (which can be viewed online here). The film cited a > FAIR report on U.S. media coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict, > prompting the CBC's French-language radio ombud Julie Miville- > Dech?ne (12/08) to question the independence of FAIR?s research, > referring to the organization as a "pro-Palestinian" and "militant > group." > > A peculiar finding, for as FAIR contributor Seth Ackerman, who > authored the study, noted today in a letter to the CBC president, > FAIR's spokespersons have appeared on several occasions on the CBC > to discuss issues ranging from media coverage of the Kosovo War to > radio host Rush Limbaugh. > > Faulting the film for "failure to account for the withdrawal from > the Gaza Strip," Miville-Dech?ne also cited a 2001 FAIR study that > found only 4 percent of U.S. network news reports "concerning Gaza > or the West Bank mention that these are occupied territories" as an > example of an "anachronism" in the documentary, because Israel had > subsequently withdrawn military forces and settlements from Gaza. > > In a press release issued today, FAIR noted that > > Under international law, however, Gaza remains an occupied > territory, because Israel continues to control its borders. FAIR's > finding of a chronic failure by leading American media organizations > to mention the occupation is actually even more true today: A search > of the Lexis Nexis database during the most recent war > (12/2/08-1/18/09) reveals that the percentage of network news > programs about Gaza or the West Bank that mentioned the occupation > has fallen from 4 to only 2 percent. > > While the ombud characterized FAIR's finding that only 4 percent of > U.S. news reports surveyed in 2000 mentioned the occupation as > "shocking," FAIR noted that > > the coverage on CBC's own evening newscast, the National, from the > same period was roughly equivalent, with only 5 percent of reports > concerning Gaza or the West Bank referring to occupation. > > The mischaracterization of FAIR was far from the only problem with > the ombud's report. One of the "factual errors" listed by the ombud: > "Repeatedly, the documentary mentions the 'illegal' occupation of > Palestinian territories by Israel." As independent journalist Justin > Podur writes, "This merely suggests that the ombudsman lacks the > most cursory understanding of international law. And, possibly, an > understanding of what constitutes a factual error." > > Given that the role of an ombud is to uphold standards of factual > accuracy, this is an alarming state of affairs indeed. And one that > warrants action. > > Contact info for the CBC-Radio Canada ombud and president: > > Julie Miville-Dech?ne > Ombud, Services fran?ais > Soci?t? Radio-Canada > Email: ombudsman at radio-canada.ca > 514-597-4757 > > Vince Carlin > CBC English Ombud > P.O. Box 500, Station A > Toronto, Ontario M5W 1E6 > Phone: 416-205-2978 > Email: ombudsman at cbc.ca > > Mr. Hubert T. Lacroix, President and CEO > CBC/Radio-Canada > P.O. Box 6000 > Montreal QC H3C 3A8 > ht.lacroix at cbc.ca > > Read more? > From fentona at shaw.ca Wed Feb 4 12:43:51 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 11:43:51 -0800 Subject: [R-G] West shifts policy on Zimbabwe Message-ID: West shifts policy on Zimbabwe By Barry Moody Reuters Tuesday, February 3, 2009; 9:32 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/03/AR2009020303574_pf.html ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) - Britain expressed skepticism on Tuesday about Zimbabwe's new coalition government but pledged support because of the suffering of the population, indicating a shift in the West's stance on the crisis. The comments from Mark Malloch Brown followed a similar marked shift of tone from Washington since opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai agreed to enter a power sharing government with President Robert Mugabe last week. The new Obama administration has dropped its public demand for Mugabe to step down and the European Union also welcomed the deal, although Western powers say they are not ready to lift sanctions on the president and his entourage until they see concrete evidence of reform. Malloch Brown said he had been convinced by African leaders at a summit in the Ethiopian capital that the new government must be given a chance. "I think the one message I've got loud and clear from this summit, and I'm very sympathetic to it, is we've got to give this a go, we've got to all do our best to support it, because the needs of Zimbabweans are so overwhelming," he told BBC radio in an interview from Addis Ababa. "We're skeptical but we've got to try and help this work," he said, saying Britain and others would be generous donors if the agreement succeeded. Mugabe used a session of the summit on the global economic crisis on Tuesday to rail against Western powers, which he accused of blocking support to Zimbabwe from the IMF and World Bank, whose programs have been suspended because of arrears. "Due to some illegal, unilateral, extraterritorial legislation by some powerful members of the same institutions, the enjoyment of our rights of membership have been strangulated," Mugabe told his fellow African leaders. "We believe that these illegal actions are not only unjustified and cruel but they have also led to the needless suffering and foreign- induced polarization of the people of Zimbabwe." NEW GOVERNMENT The new government, with Tsvangirai as prime minister, is due to be sworn in by February 13, although the opposition MDC accused Mugabe's ZANU-PF on Tuesday of backtracking on the agreement by delaying discussions on contentious issues. Former colonial power Britain has been one of the fiercest critics of Mugabe, accusing him of destroying the economy of the formerly prosperous country and using militias to violently suppress opposition. The veteran Zimbabwean leader blames the crisis on Western sanctions. Zimbabwe suffers the world's highest inflation rate, officially put at 231 million percent, and acute shortages of food, fuel and foreign exchange. A cholera epidemic has killed 3,229 people and infected 62,909 others -- Africa's deadliest outbreak in 15 years. Malloch Brown's remarks suggested African leaders have persuaded Western powers to take a softer line over Zimbabwe while the power- sharing government starts work. In Washington, State Department spokesman Robert Wood said actions by Mugabe will determine the success or failure of the unity government. "The U.S. will only consider new development assistance and easing of targeted sanctions when we have seen evidence of true power sharing as well as inclusive and effective governance," Wood said. The toning down of U.S. rhetoric was a sharp change from the previous Bush administration, which had intensified calls for Mugabe, in power since 1980, to quit. Analysts say Western rhetoric against Mugabe is often counter- productive in Africa, feeding his allegations that Britain and other powers are plotting to overthrow him. Malloch Brown made clear, however, that Britain would not drop sanctions against Mugabe and his entourage until it had seen whether they were making a real commitment to power-sharing, echoing U.S. and European views. "We really hope this time it is different for the sake of the people of Zimbabwe and we will work as though it is different, but we are not going to completely put away our stick, if you like, until we're convinced it is." Britain, Washington and the EU are holding out promises of a major aid package to Zimbabwe but only after there is evidence of substantial political and economic reform. "At this stage we need proof on the ground ...We have to see the implementation of the agreement before we can talk about possible next steps," one EU diplomat told Reuters in Brussels. (Additional reporting by Daniel Wallis, Marius Bosch in Johannesburg, Ingrid Melander in Brussels and Sue Pleming in Washington; Editing by Diana Abdallah) ? 2009 Reuters From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Feb 4 12:55:10 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 11:55:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Gaza war changes Middle East equation at Israel's expense - Le Monde Diplomatique In-Reply-To: <4E9790670D744B4981A1ADB16AD861C1@twubby.com> Message-ID: <1526612275.705521233777310975.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Le Monde Diplomatique? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? February 2009 The long march of folly that began in 1967 Gaza war changes Middle East equation at Israel?s expense The European Union?s policy of funding Gaza?s development is just one casualty of Israel?s unprecedented attack, which has weakened the Palestinian Authority but left Hamas politically stronger than ever By Alain Gresh ?They?re still living in the War of Independence (1948) and the Sinai campaign (1956). With them, it?s all about tanks, about controlling territories or controlled territories, holding this or that hill. But these things are worthless. (?) The Lebanon war (2006) will go down in history as the first war in which the military leadership understood that classical warfare has become obsolete??( 1 ). This view, expressed in September 2008, comes not from an Israeli pacifist but the country?s prime minister, Ehud Olmert. It would take a highly sophisticated analyst to fathom the subconscious of this politician, who is responsible both for the catastrophic war in Lebanon in 2006 and the recent offensive in Gaza, and who at the same time claims his country needs to abandon its narrow vision of security. He and the majority of those who govern Israel probably share the view bluntly expressed in 2002 by Israel?s then chief of staff, general Moshe Ayalon: ?The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people??( 2 ). With each new war comes the same old refrain from Israel?s leaders: the Arabs only understand force; teach them a lesson and peace will at last be possible. ?We?re going to keep our finger on the trigger??( 3 ) was how foreign minister Tzipi Livni put it. Olmert and his government are in favour of peace in the same way that the US government in the 19th century was in favour of the peace they decided to impose on the Native American tribes. The shelling of Gaza came to a provisional halt on 18 January. The Israeli government wanted its troops out of Gaza before Barack Obama was sworn in and Hamas gave Israel a week to withdraw its soldiers and reopen crossing points with Gaza. Beyond the deliberate destruction of vital infrastructure ? which includes ministry buildings and fire stations, the parliament and the university ? the human cost shown on TV screens the world over has been overwhelming. Even the French media, which has previously been very timid, hasn?t been able to obscure the extent of the catastrophe. Leaving to one side a moral reckoning and the crimes which may mean that Israeli leaders one day face an international tribunal, how has the fighting changed the political landscape at local and regional level? The prime objective of the Israeli government was to permanently weaken Hamas politically and militarily. It claims to have succeeded in this and taught the ?terrorists? a lesson. But is it that simple? The tactic of massive bombardments and avoidance of close combat limited Israeli army losses ? the third phase of the operation, which was never put into action, would have been an infantry assault of towns ? but hasn?t broken up the military core of Hamas, which comprises between three and five thousand fighters. Like Hizbullah in 2006, Hamas was able to keep firing rockets until the very last moment and its arms supply lines held up, albeit at a reduced level. Whatever the criticisms of Hamas?s strategy, including their rocket attacks on civilian targets, the vast majority of the Palestinian population holds the Israeli government responsible for the destruction. As Elena Qleibo, a Gaza-based aid worker from Oxfam and an ex-Costa Rican ambassador to Israel says: ?People are extremely angry, and the level of hate against Israel is very high. I have lived and worked in Gaza for many years, and I have never seen such hatred from the population??( 4 ). The Palestinians also resent the Palestinian Authority?s passivity during the war. The internal crisis in Fatah, which was already factionalised, has deepened, in spite of the call for unity and resistance made by Marwan Barghouti from prison. President Mahmoud Abbas, who is himself weakened and marginalised, has called for the creation of a government of national unity. So the Gaza of tomorrow will either remain under Hamas control or will be governed by a national authority in which Hamas plays a central role. Surely not what Israel wanted. The next phase The focus of the next phase will be the reconstruction of Gaza, which the Israeli government wants to control tightly. No project will be accepted and not a dollar will reach Gaza without their agreement, according to Israeli officials. In addition, Hamas are to be prevented from claiming this aid. Israel has gained support on this from the EU commissioner for external affairs, Benita Ferrero-Waldner?( 5 ), but as there is no other authority in Gaza but Hamas, reconstruction risks being limited to humanitarian aid. All the conditions for renewed hostilities against Israel will once again be met; the Israeli blockade was one of the principal causes for the last escalation. The war has profoundly altered the regional order, too, though not in the way that Israel wished. First, it has confirmed the isolation of the Palestinian Authority. It has encouraged the consolidation of a resistance front based in Qatar (site of the biggest US base in the region) and Syria. This alliance was made concrete at a meeting in Doha, in which 12 Arab countries took part (among them Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon and Iraq, America?s supposed ally) along with Senegal (which holds the presidency of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference), Turkey, Indonesia, Venezuela and Iran. Mauritania has suspended diplomatic relations with Israel and Qatar has broken off economic links. Venezuela and Bolivia have also severed their diplomatic relations. A few days later, on 19 and 20 January, the Arab summit in Kuwait brought a fragile reconciliation even if it didn?t remove differences of opinion. This was made easier by Israel?s refusal to negotiate a ceasefire as proposed by president Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. Angered by this rebuff and by the signing of a separate US-Israeli agreement to combat arms imports to Gaza (and therefore control the border with Egypt), Mubarak toughened his stance. Turkey, Israel?s traditional ally, has confirmed its growing importance on the regional stage. Like Mubarak, Turkey?s prime minister, Recip Erdogan felt humiliated by Olmert, who kept quiet about his intentions regarding Gaza when he saw his Turkish counterpart during a visit to Ankara on 22 and 23 December. The day after the offensive was launched on 27 December, Erdogan said: ?This attack, coming while we are making such efforts for peace, is a blow against peace??( 6 ). Not only did Turkey, the mediator which had brought Israel and Syria to the verge of resuming direct negotiations, suspend its efforts, it also called for Israel?s suspension from the UN the day after it fired on UN buildings in Gaza. During the crisis, Turkey has strengthened its relations with Hamas and is hoping to mediate between it and the Palestinian Authority. And Turkish popular opinion has translated into demonstrations in which several million people have taken to the streets in Turkish towns and villages. Iran has also seen its regional position strengthened. It has extended its alliances in the Arab and Islamic world. Its radical discourse has been increasingly echoed within the region and it is now in a position of strength vis-?-vis the new US administration. However, Tehran has shown restraint in the crisis. Iranian supreme leader ayatollah Ali Khamenei has even declared that ?our hands are tied on that terrain??( 7 ). The firing of rockets from Lebanon prompted fears that a second front might open up. Although this didn?t happen, the incident can be taken as a warning: Iran has told the Egyptian government through diplomatic channels that it will not allow Hamas to be crushed. Contempt for Arab opinion Western governments have nothing but contempt for Arab popular opinion. This was clear when they challenged Hamas?s victory in the democratic elections held in Palestine in 2006. They simply shrugged when in a communiqu? on 12 January the Saudi government condemned the ?racist genocide? in Gaza. They ignore the extent of protest in the Arab and Muslim world, especially in Egypt (despite the state of near-siege in Cairo) and in Afghanistan. Yet which Arab government would now be willing to sit down to peace talks with Israel? The Saudi king has announced that the 2002 Arab initiative for a comprehensive peace between the Arab world and Israel in exchange for the creation of a Palestinian state on territory occupied by Israel in 1967 won?t remain on the table for much longer. Meanwhile, on Sunday 18 January, while Western journalists broadcast images of Gaza?s lunar landscape, prime minster Olmert was to be seen expressing his pleasure to six European leaders, including Nicolas Sarkozy, over their ?extraordinary support for the state of Israel and their concern about its security?. More than in any other conflict since 1967, the European position, especially that of France, has been aligned with the Israeli government?s (see ? A people abandoned ?). In retrospect, the upgrading of relations between the EU and Israel in early December 2008 looks like a green light to the operation in Gaza. In spite of the Israeli offensive, the EU (and France) will strengthen their bilateral relations with Tel Aviv?( 8 ). This Western alliance engaged in the fight against ?Islamic terrorism? has more than a hint of the crusades about it. Without going as far as Silvio Berlusconi, who explained in Jerusalem: ?When I heard about the rocket fire at Israel, I felt that it was a danger to Italy, and to the entire West??( 9 ), or the director of L?Express , who wrote that the Israeli army was fighting ?for our peace??( 10 ) ? some on the right used to explain in the 1980s that the apartheid government was fighting ?for us? in southern Africa, against communism, the Soviet Union and Cuba ? president Sarkozy has explained on many occasions that Hamas bore a heavy responsibility for this war as it had broken the truce, which is untrue (see ? Reasons for war: lies, lies and more lies ?, opposite). In spite of Sarkozy?s flying around on numerous foreign trips, France has lost a great deal of credit, as demonstrated by the unprecedented attacks on it in the Arab press, including in moderate countries, where it is now bracketed with the US of George Bush. The Saudi daily Al Watan wrote on 11 January ?all the great powers have supported Israel?s position, including France, which has thus far been the symbol of balance in regional causes?. And France?s decision to fight against smuggled arms in Gaza can only be construed as an operation to protect an occupying power: no one has called upon Israel to stop re-arming itself. ?A pointless war has led to a moral defeat for Israel? ? so ran the headline in the British Sunday paper, the Observer on 18 January. The majority of moral barriers have crumbled in Israel during the Gaza offensive. A phrase sums up this vision: baal habayit histhtageya (?the boss has gone mad?). Its essence is captured by Giora Eiland, a former Israeli national security adviser: ?If our civilians are attacked by you, we are not going to respond in proportion, but will use all means we have to cause you such damages that you will think twice in the future??( 11 ). This tactic was used in Lebanon in 2006 and was referred to as the Dahiya doctrine, after the district in south Beirut where Hizbullah was based. The aim is to destroy an entire district or village as soon as it is believed to harbour terrorists who are firing on Israel. It was employed again in Gaza and constitutes what international law recognises as a war crime. Yet it is now openly demanded in Israel. In a letter to prime minster Olmert in 2007, the former Sephardic grand rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu explained ?there is absolutely no moral prohibition against indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza aimed at stopping the rocket launching??( 12 ). The longer the occupation, the more it corrupts the occupier. One can only imagine what liberties would have been taken by France in Algeria if the war had gone on for 40 years. The South African government, showing more determination than most, has condemned Israeli aggression against Gaza. The long experience of fighting the apartheid regime taught ANC leaders all about the hypocrisy of western rhetoric on violence and terrorism. Writing about his negotiations with the white South African government and its demands for the end to violence, Nelson Mandela said: ?I responded that the state was responsible for the violence and that it is always the oppressor, not the oppressed, who dictates the form of the struggle. If the oppressor uses violence, the oppressed have no alternative but to respond violently. In our case, it was simply a legitimate form of self-defence??( 13 ). Translated by George Miller ( 1 ) As quoted in ? The time has come to say these things ?, New York Review of Books , 4-17 December 2008. ( 2 ) Rashid Khalidi, ? What you don?t know about Gaza ?, New York Times , 7 January 2009. ( 3 ) Interview with Le Monde , 18-19 January 2009. ( 4 ) Mel Frykberg, ? Gazans Do Not Blame Hamas ?, IPS, 20 January 2009. ( 5 ) Declaration of 19 January 2009. ( 6 ) Today?s Zaman , Ankara, 29 December 2008. ( 7 ) Trista Parsi, ? Israel, Gaza and Iran: Trapping Obama in Imagined Fault Lines ?, The Huffington Post , 13 January 2009. ( 8 ) The EU has decided, in agreement with Israel, to temporarily suspend this upgrading of relations. The Union for the Mediterranean has also been a victim of the war; all meetings have been put on hold at Egypt?s request. ( 9 ) Haaretz.com, 19 January 2009. ( 10 ) Christophe Barbier, ? Une guerre juste, juste une guerre ?, L?Express , 14 January 2009. ( 11 ) International Herald Tribune , 20 January 2009. ( 12 ) Jerusalem Post , 30 May 2007. ( 13 ) Nelson Mandela, A Long Walk to Freedom , Little, Brown, New York and London, 1994, p545. From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Feb 4 12:50:23 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 11:50:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Project Censored: Top 25 Stories of 2008 Subjected to Press Censorship In-Reply-To: <1123008377.701591233776843170.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1652798043.703321233777023772.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Project Censored's top?25 censored stories of 2008 This message is available online at http://www.WantToKnow.info/mass_media/media_news/2008_press_censorsh ip Project Censored specializes in covering the top stories which were subjected to press censorship either by being ignored or downplayed by the mainstream media each year. Project Censored is a research team composed of more than 200 university faculty, students, and community experts who annually review between 700 and 1,000 news story submissions for coverage, content, reliability of sources, and national significance. The top 25 stories selected are submitted to a distinguished panel of judges who then rank them in order of importance. The results are published each year in an excellent book available for purchase at their website , amazon.com , and most major book stores. A summary of last year's top 25 media censorship stories provided below proves quite revealing and most informative. After the headline of each news story is a link for those who want to read the entire article. For whatever reason the major media won't report these major stories. Thanks to the Internet and wonderful, committed groups like Project Censored, the news is getting out to those who want to know. By revealing these examples of media censorship, we can stop the excessive secrecy and work together to build a brighter future. Please help to spread the word, and have a great day and a rich and meaningful new year ahead. Note: Thanks to the San Francisco Bay Guardian and Amanda Witherell for use of their summaries. Top 25 Stories of 2008 Subjected to Press Censorship 1. Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation? (For full story, click here ) Nobody knows exactly how many lives the Iraq War has claimed. But even more astounding is that so few journalists have mentioned the issue or cited the top estimate: 1.2 million. During August and September 2007, a British polling group surveyed 2,414 adults in 15 of 18 Iraqi provinces and found that more than 20 percent had experienced at least one war-related death since March 2003. Using common statistical study methods, it determined that as many as 1.2 million people had been killed since the war began. Estimates range wildly and are based on a variety of sources. In October 2006, the British medical journal Lancet published a Johns Hopkins University study vetted by four independent sources that counted 655,000 dead. In January 2008, the World Health Organization and the Iraqi government did door-to-door surveys of nearly 10,000 households and put the number of dead at 151,000. The 1.2 million figure is out there, too, which is higher than the Rwandan genocide death toll and closing in on the 1.7 million who perished in Cambodia's killing fields. It raises questions about the real number of deaths from US aerial bombings and house raids, and challenges the common assumption that this is a war in which Iraqis are killing Iraqis. The Brookings Institute has reported that US troops have, over the past four years, conducted about 100 house raids a day. Brutality during these house searches has been documented (See #9 below). The aggressive "element of surprise" tactics employed by soldiers is likely resulting in several thousands of deaths a day that either go unreported or are categorized as insurgent casualties. Sources: "Is the United States killing 10,000 Iraqis every month? Or is it more?" Michael Schwartz, After DowningStreet.org, July 6, 2007 ; "Iraq death toll rivals Rwanda Genocide, Cambodian killing fields," Joshua Holland, AlterNet, Sept. 17, 2007 ; "Iraq conflict has killed a million: survey," Luke Baker, Reuters, Jan. 30, 2008 ; "Iraq: Not our country to return to," Maki al-Nazzal and Dahr Jamail, Inter Press Service, March 3, 2008 . 2. Security and Prosperity Partnership: Militarized NAFTA (For full story, click here ) Coupling the perennial issue of security with Wall Street's measures of prosperity, the leaders of the three North American nations convened the Security and Prosperity Partnership. The White House-led initiative - launched at a March 23, 2005, meeting of President Bush, Mexico's then-president Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin - joins beefed-up commerce with coordinated military operations to promote what it calls "borderless unity." Critics call it "NAFTA on steroids." However, unlike NAFTA, the SPP was formed in secret, without public input. "The SPP is not a law, or a treaty, or even a signed agreement," Laura Carlsen wrote in a report for the Center for International Policy. "All these would require public debate and participation of Congress, both of which the SPP has scrupulously avoided." Instead the SPP has a special workgroup: the North American Competitiveness Council [NACC]. It's a coalition of private companies that are, according to the SPP website , "adding high-level business input [that] will assist governments in enhancing North America's competitive position and engage the private sector as partners in finding solutions." The NACC includes the Chevron Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General Electric, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Merck, Procter & Gamble Co., and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. A look at NAFTA's unpopularity among citizens in all three nations is evidence of why its expansion would need to be disguised. "It's a scheme to create a borderless North American Union under US control without barriers to trade and capital flows for corporate giants, mainly US ones," wrote Steven Lendman in Global Research . Sources: "Deep Integration," Laura Carlsen, Center for International Policy, May 30, 2007 ; "The Militarization and Annexation of North America," Stephen Lendman, Global Research, July 19, 2007 ; "The North American Union," Constance Fogal, Global Research, Aug. 2, 2007 . 3. InfraGard: The FBI Deputizes Business (For full story, click here ) The FBI and Department of Homeland Security have effectively deputized 23,000 members of the business community, asking them to tip off the feds in exchange for preferential treatment in the event of a crisis. "The members of this rapidly growing group, called InfraGard, receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does - and, at least on one occasion, before elected officials," Matthew Rothschild wrote in the March 2008 issue of The Progressive. InfraGard was created in 1996. Membership now includes 350 of the nation's Fortune 500 companies. The group's 86 chapters coordinate with 56 FBI field offices nationwide. While FBI Director Robert Mueller has said he considers this segment of the private sector "the first line of defense," the American Civil Liberties Union issued a grave warning about the potential for abuse. "There is evidence that InfraGard may be closer to a corporate TIPS program, turning private-sector corporations ... into surrogate eyes and ears for the FBI. The FBI should not be creating a privileged class of Americans who get special treatment," stated Jay Stanley, public education director of the ACLU's technology and liberty program. And they are privileged: a DHS spokesperson told Rothschild that InfraGard members receive special training and readiness exercises. They're also privy to protected information that is usually shielded from disclosure under the trade secrets provision of the Freedom of Information Act. The information they have may be of critical importance to the general public, but first it goes to the privileged membership Source: "The FBI deputizes business," Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive , Feb. 7, 2008 . 4. ILEA: Is the US Restarting Dirty Wars in Latin America? (For full story, click here ) The School of the Americas [SOA] earned an unsavory reputation in Latin America after many graduates of the Fort Benning, Ga., facility turned into counterinsurgency death squad leaders. The International Law Enforcement Academy recently installed by the Unites States in El Salvador - which looks, acts, and smells like the SOA - is also drawing scorn. The school is funded with $3.6 million from the US Treasury and staffed with instructors from the DEA, ICE, and FBI. It's tasked with training 1,500 police officers, judges, prosecutors, and other law enforcement agents in counterterrorism techniques per year. It's stated purpose is to make Latin America "safe for foreign investment" by "providing regional security and economic stability and combating crime." ILEAs aren't new, but past schools located in Hungary, Thailand, Botswana, and Roswell, N.M., haven't been terribly controversial. Salvadoran human rights organizers take issue with the fact that, in true SOA fashion, the ILEA releases neither information about its curriculum nor a list of students and graduates. Additionally, the way the school slipped into existence without public oversight has raised ire. As Wes Enzinna noted in a North American Congress on Latin America report, "Members of the US Congress were not briefed about the academy, nor was the main opposition party in El Salvador." Now, after more than three years in operation, critics point out that Salvadoran police, who account for 25 percent of the graduates, have become more violent. A May 2007 report by Tutela Legal implicated Salvadoran National Police (PNC) officers in eight death squad-style assassinations in 2006. Sources: "Exporting US 'Criminal Justice' to Latin America," "Community in Solidarity with the people of El Salvador," Upside Down World, June 14, 2007 ; "Another SOA?" Wes Enzinna, NACLA Report on the Americas, March/April 2008 ; "ILEA funding approved by Salvadoran right wing legislators," CISPES, March 15, 2007 ; "Is George Bush restarting Latin America's 'dirty wars?'" Benjamin Dangl, AlterNet, Aug. 31, 200 7. 5. Seizing War Protesters' Assets (For full story, click here ) Protesting war could get you into big trouble, according to a critical read of two executive orders recently signed by President Bush. The first , issued July 17, 2007, and titled, "Blocking property of certain persons who threaten stabilization efforts in Iraq," allows the feds to seize assets from anyone who "directly or indirectly" poses a risk to the US war in Iraq. And, citing the modern technological ease of transferring funds and assets, the order states that no prior notice is necessary before the raid. On Aug. 1, Bush signed another order , similar but directed toward anyone undermining the "sovereignty of Lebanon or its democratic processes and institutions." In this case, the Secretary of the Treasury can seize the assets of anyone perceived as posing a risk of violence, as well as the assets of their spouses and dependents, and bans them from receiving any humanitarian aid. Critics say the orders bypass the right to due process and the vague language makes manipulation and abuse possible. Protesting the war could be perceived as undermining or threatening US efforts in Iraq. "This is so sweeping, it's staggering," said Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration official in the Justice Department who editorialized against it in the Washington Times . "It expands beyond terrorism, beyond seeking to use violence or the threat of violence to cower or intimidate a population." Sources: "Bush executive order: Criminalizing the antiwar movement," Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, July 2007 ; "Bush's executive order even worse than the one on Iraq," Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive , August 2007 . 6. The Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (For full story, click here ) On Oct. 23, 2007, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed - by a vote of 404-6 - the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act," designed to root out the causes of radicalization in Americans. With an estimated four-year cost of $22 million, the act establishes a 10-member National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism. The bill's author, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Los Angeles) said, "Free speech, espousing even very radical beliefs, is protected by our Constitution. But violent behavior is not." In a later press release Harman stated: "the National Commission [will] propose to both Congress and [DHS Secretary Michael] Chertoff initiatives to intercede before radicalized individuals turn violent." Which could be when they're speaking, writing, and organizing in ways that are protected by the First Amendment. This redefines civil disobedience as terrorism, say civil rights experts, and the wording is too vague. "What is an extremist belief system? Who defines this? These are broad definitions that encompass so much. It is criminalizing thought and ideology," said Alejandro Queral, executive director of the Northwest Constitutional Rights Center in Portland, Ore. The story didn't make it onto the CNN ticker, but enough independent sources reported on it that the equivalent Senate Bill 1959 has since stalled. After introducing the bill, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Me.), later joined forces with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on a report criticizing the Internet as a tool for violent Islamic extremism. Sources: "Bringing the war on terrorism home," Jessica Lee, Indypendent, Nov. 16, 200 7; "Examining the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act," Lindsay Beyerstein, In These Times , Nov. 2007 ; "The Violent Radicalization Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007," Matt Renner, Truthout, Nov. 20, 2007 . 7. Guest Workers Inc.: Fraud and Human Trafficking (For full story, click here ) Every year, about 121,000 people legally enter the United States to work with H-2 visas, a program legislators are touting as part of future immigration reform. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) called this guest worker program "the closest thing I've ever seen to slavery." The Southern Poverty Law Center likened it to "modern day indentured servitude." They interviewed thousands of guest workers and reviewed legal cases for a report released in March 2007, which concluded "Unlike US citizens, guest workers do not enjoy the most fundamental protection of a competitive labor market - the ability to change jobs if they are mistreated. If guest workers complain about abuses, they face deportation, blacklisting, or other retaliation." When visas expire, workers must leave the country, hardly making this the path to permanent citizenship legislators are looking for. Still, Mexicans are literally lining up for H-2B status, the stark details of which were reported by Felicia Mello in The Nation . Furthermore, thousands of illegal immigrants are employed throughout the country, providing cheap, unprotected labor and further undermining the scant provisions of the laws. Labor contractors who connect immigrants with employers are stuffing their pockets with cash, while the workers return home with very little money. The Southern Poverty Law Center outlined a list of comprehensive changes needed in the program, concluding, "For too long, our country has benefited from the labor provided by guest workers but has failed to provide a fair system that respects their human rights and upholds the most basic values of our democracy. The time has come for Congress to overhaul our shamefully abusive guest worker system." Sources: "Close to Slavery," Mary Bauer and Sarah Reynolds, Southern Poverty Law Center, March 2007 ; "Coming to America," Felicia Mello, The Nation , June 25, 2007 ; "Trafficking racket," Chidanand Rajghatta, Times of India , March 10, 2008 . 8. Executive Orders Can Be Changed Secretly (For full story, click here ) The Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice has been issuing classified legal opinions about surveillance for years. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) had access to the DOJ opinions on presidential power and had three declassified to show how the judicial branch has, in a bizarre and chilling way, assisted President Bush in circumventing its own power. According to the three memos : "There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order"; "The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President's authority under Article II"; and "The Department of Justice is bound by the President's legal determinations." As Whitehouse rephrased in a Dec. 7, 2007, Senate speech: "I don't have to follow my own rules, and I don't have to tell you when I'm breaking them. I get to determine what my own powers are. The Department of Justice doesn't tell me what the law is. I tell the Department of Justice what the law is." The issue arose within the context of the Protect America Act, which expands government surveillance powers and gives telecom companies legal immunity for helping. Whitehouse, a former US Attorney, legal counsel to Rhode Island's governor, and Rhode Island Attorney General who took office in 2006, went on to point out that Marbury vs. Madison , written by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803, established that it is "emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Sources: "In FISA Speech , Whitehouse sharply criticizes Bush Administration's assertion of executive power," Sheldon Whitehouse, Dec. 7, 2007 ; "Down the Rabbit Hole," Marcy Wheeler, The Guardian (UK), Dec. 26, 2007 . 9. Iraq and Afghanistan Vets Testify (For full story, click here ) Hearing soldiers recount their war experiences is the closest many people come to understanding the real horror, pain, and confusion of combat. One would think that might make compelling copy or powerful footage for a news outlet. But in March, when more than 300 veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan convened for four days of public testimony on the war, they were largely ignored by the media. Winter Soldier was designed to give soldiers a public forum to air some of the atrocities they witnessed. Winter Soldier was originally convened by Vietnam Vets Against the War in January 1971 when more than 100 Vietnam veterans described their war experiences, including rapes, torture, brutalities, and killing of non-combatants. The testimony was entered into the Congressional Record and shown at the Cannes Film Festival. Iraq Veterans Against the War hosted the 2008 reprise of the 1971 hearings. Former Marine Cpl. Jason Washburn said, "his commanders encouraged lawless behavior. 'We were encouraged to bring 'drop weapons.' In case we accidentally shot a civilian, we could drop the weapon on the body and pretend they were an insurgent.'" Interviews with 50 Iraq war veterans also revealed a general disregard for the traditional rules of war. Though most major news outlets sent staff to cover New York's Fashion Week, few made it to the Winter Soldier hearings. Fortunately, KPFA and Pacifica Radio broadcast the testimonies live. They were "deluged with phone calls, e-mails, and blog posts from service members, veterans, and military families thanking us for breaking a cultural norm of silence about the reality of war." Testimonies can be heard at www.ivaw.org . Sources: "Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan eyewitness accounts of the occupation," Iraq Veterans Against the War, March 13-16, 2008 ; "War comes home," Aaron Glantz, Aimee Allison, and Esther Manilla, Pacifica Radio, March 14-16, 2008 ; "US Soldiers testify about war crimes," Aaron Glantz, One World, March 19, 2008 ; "The Other War," Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian, The Nation , July 30, 2007 . 10. American Psychological Association Complicit in CIA Torture ( Full story here ) Psychologists have been assisting the CIA and US military with interrogation and torture of Guant?namo detainees - which the American Psychological Association [APA] has said is fine, despite objections from many of its 148,000 members. A 10-member APA task force was convened on the divisive issue in July 2005 and found that assistance from psychologists was making the interrogations safe. The task force was criticized by APA members for deliberating in secret, and later it was revealed that six of the 10 participants had ties to the armed services. Not only that, but as Katherine Eban reported in Vanity Fair , "Psychologists, working in secrecy, had actually designed the tactics and trained interrogators in them while on contract to the CIA." In particular, psychologists honed a classified military training program known as SERE [Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape] that teaches soldiers how to tough out torture if captured by enemies. Eban's story outlined how SERE tactics were spun as "science" despite a lack of data and the critique that building rapport works better than blows to the head. It's been misreported that CIA torture techniques got Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah to talk, when it was actually FBI rapport-building. In spite of this, SERE techniques became standards in interrogation manuals that eventually made their way to US officers guarding Abu Ghraib. Ongoing uproar within the APA resulted in a petition to make an official policy limiting psychologists' involvement in interrogations. Sources: "The CIA's torture teachers," Mark Benjamin, Salon , June 21, 2007 ; "Rorschach and awe," Katherine Eban, Vanity Fair , July 17, 2007 . [Note that a highly revealing essay by a leading psychiatrist details how many psychiatrists and even the former president of the APA were involved in government mind control programs.] Other Stories in the Top 25 11. El Salvador's Water Privatization and the Global War on Terror (For full story, click here ) El Salvador's new Anti-terrorism Law - based on the USA PATRIOT Act - criminalizes political expression and social protest. Close range shooting of rubber bullets and tear gas was used against community members for protesting the rising cost, and diminishing access and quality, of local water under privatization. Fourteen were arrested and charged with terrorism, a charge that can hold a 60-year prison sentence under the new Anti-Terrorism Law. 12. Bush Profiteers Collect Billions from No Child Left Behind (For full story, click here ) No Child Left Behind has consistently proven disastrous in the realm of education. Yet the architect, President Bush's first senior education advisor Sandy Kress, has turned the program into a huge success in the realm of corporate profiteering. 13. Tracking Billions of Dollars Lost in Iraq (For full story, click here ) Starting one month after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and continuing for over a year, the United States Federal Reserve shipped a total of $12 billion in U.S. currency to Iraq. The U.S. military delivered the bank notes to the Coalition Provisional Authority to be dispensed for Iraqi reconstruction. At least $9 billion of that amount is unaccounted for due to a complete lack of oversight. 14. Mainstreaming Nuclear Waste (For full story, click here ) Radioactive materials from nuclear weapons production sites are being dumped into regular public landfills and being used as recycled metals. The Nuclear Information and Resource Service has tracked the Department of Energy's (DOE) release of radioactive scrap to unaware and unprepared recipients such as landfills, businesses and recreation areas. Under the current system, the DOE releases contaminated materials directly, sells them at auctions or sends the materials to processors who can release them from radioactive controls. 15. Worldwide Slavery (For full story, click here ) Twenty-seven million slaves exist in the world today, more than at any time in human history. Globalization, poverty, violence and greed facilitate the growth of slavery, not only in the Third World, but in the most developed countries as well. Behind the fa?ade in any major town or city in the world today, one is likely to find a thriving commerce in human beings. 16. Annual Survey on Trade Union Rights (For full story, click here ) The first Annual Survey of Violations of Trade Union Rights to be published by the year-old International Trade Union Confederation documents enormous challenges to workers' rights around the world. The 2007 edition of the survey, covering 138 countries, shows an alarming rise in the number of people killed as a result of their trade union activities, from 115 in 2005 to 144 in 2006. Many more trade unionists around the world were abducted or "disappeared." 17. UN's Empty Declaration of Indigenous Rights (For full story, click here ) In September 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The resolution called for recognition of the world's 370 million indigenous peoples' right to self-determination and control over their lands and resources. Three months following the passage of the Universal Declaration, a delegation of indigenous peoples were forcibly barred from entering the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bali, despite the fact that the delegation was invited to attend. 18. Cruelty and Death in Juvenile Detention Centers (For full story, click here ) In states across the U.S., child advocates have harshly condemned conditions under which young offenders are housed - conditions that involve sexual abuse, physical abuse and even death. The U.S. Justice Department has filed lawsuits against facilities in 11 states for supervision that is either abusive or harmfully negligent. 19. Indigenous Herders & Small Farmers Fight Livestock Extinction (For full story, click here ) The industrial model of livestock production is causing the worldwide destruction of animal diversity. At least one indigenous livestock breed becomes extinct each month as a result of overreliance on select breeds imported from the United States and Europe. 20. Marijuana Arrests Set New Record (For full story, click here ) For the fourth year in a row, U.S. marijuana arrests set an all-time record, according to 2006 FBI Uniform Crime Reports. Marijuana arrests in 2006 totaled 829,627, an increase from 786,545 in 2005. 21. NATO Considers "First Strike" Nuclear Option (For full story, click here ) North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) officials are considering a first strike nuclear option to be used anywhere in the world a threat may arise. The authors of the plan insist "the first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction." 22. CARE Rejects US Food Aid (For full story, click here ) In August 2007, one of the biggest and best-known American charity organizations, CARE, announced it was turning down $45 million a year in food aid from the United States government. CARE claims the way U.S. aid is structured causes rather than reduces hunger in the countries where it is received. 23. FDA Complicit in Pushing Pharmaceutical Drugs (For full story, click here ) While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) turns a blind eye, drug companies are making false, unsubstantiated and misleading claims in their advertising, often withholding mandated disclosure of dangerous side effects. Though companies are required to submit their advertisements to the FDA, the agency does not review them before they are released to the public. [For a powerful two-page essay by a top U.S. physician on this key topic, click here ] 24. Japan Questions 9/11 and the Global War on Terror (For full story, click here ) Testimony in the Japanese parliament, broadcast live on Japanese television in January 2008, challenged the premise and validity of the Global War on Terror. Parliament member Yukihisa Fujita insisted that an investigation be conducted into the war's origin: the events of 9/11. [Watch a video with English subtitles of Fujita speaking to parliament available here ] 25. Bush's Real Problem with Eliot Spitzer (For full story, click here ) The exposure of New York State Governor Eliot Spitzer's tryst with a luxury call girl may have been the result of a planned event. Timing suggests that Spitzer was likely a target of a White House and Wall Street operation to silence one of its most dangerous and vocal critics of their handling of the current financial market crisis. [See the Washington Post article Spitzer wrote just weeks before the accusations against him emerged] Important: Top 20 Articles Ever Published Revealing Media Censorship For concise summaries of the top 20 most revealing articles ever published in the major media with links to the full articles on their major media websites, see www.WantToKnow.info/newsarticles . For some of the top stories ever which the press failed to cover, click here . And for an empowering website which specializes in providing fact-filled news articles and concise summaries of major cover-ups which impact our lives and world, see www.WantToKnow.info . All information is provided to inspire us to work together for a brighter future for us all. Final Note: WantToKnow.info believes it is important to balance disturbing cover-up information with inspirational writings which call us to be all that we can be and to work together for positive change. Please visit our Inspiration Center at http://www.WantToKnow.info/inspirational for an abundance of uplifting material. See our archive of revealing news articles at http://http://WantToKnow.info/indexnewsarticles Your tax-deductible donations, however large or small, help greatly to support this important work. To make a donation by credit card, check, or money order: http://www.WantToKnow.info/donationswtk Explore these empowering websites coordinated by the nonprofit PEERS network : http://www.momentoflove.org - Every person in the world has a heart http://www.WantToKnow.info - Reliable, verifiable information on major cover-ups http://www.inspiringcommunity.org - Building a Global Community for All http://www.weboflove.org - Strengthening the Web of Love that interconnects us all http://insightcourse.net - The Insight Course: Best of the Internet all in one free course Educational websites promoting transformation through information and inspiration To subscribe to or unsubscribe from the WantToKnow.info list (one email every few days): http://www.WantToKnow.info/subscribe From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Feb 4 12:55:47 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 11:55:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] EU to Israel: remove obstacles to entry of Gaza aid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <899143013.705841233777347000.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Reuters ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? February 4, 2009 EU to Israel: remove obstacles to entry of Gaza aid Jerusalem - The European Union has complained to Israel that it was obstructing the entry of needed supplies into the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, despite assurances the restrictions would be eased after the 22-day offensive. In a February 2 letter obtained by Reuters Wednesday, the EU presidency expressed "grave concern regarding the current humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip and the obstacles that we face in the delivery of aid." "Addressing the plight of ordinary people in Gaza and supporting the PA in its relief efforts are our priorities and, as we understand, also yours," EU leaders wrote, referring to President Mahmoud Abbas's Western-backed Palestinian Authority. "Your government gave us assurances regarding access of humanitarian aid and aid workers to the Gaza Strip... Since then we have not witnessed much improvement of the overall restrictions," they wrote. While Israel has opened Gaza's border crossings to larger amounts of food and medicine since last month's war, it has balked at letting in construction materials, including glass, steel and cement, needed to rebuild the thousands of Palestinian homes, roads and buildings destroyed or damaged. Israel has also blocked Abbas' government from transferring cash to the Gaza Strip to pay its workers, undercutting its reconstruction efforts, Palestinian and Western officials said. Israeli officials say building materials and cash could be used by Hamas to build rockets, bunkers and smuggling tunnels. EU leaders said the nearly 200 truckloads of aid currently entering Gaza each day were "far below the minimal requirements to answer the humanitarian and commercial needs" of Gaza's 1.5 million residents. They said 500 aid trucks were needed. In the letter, the EU leaders asked Israel to allow automatic entry of all humanitarian goods "with perhaps the exception of a very limited list of items that may be considered very 'sensitive.'" They said Israel should expand the capacity of its border crossings and not require "project by project" clearance to bring in goods. The letter was signed by Czech Foreign Minster Karel Schwarzenberg, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner, and EU Humanitarian Aid Commissioner Louis Michel. It was sent to Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defence Minister Ehud Barak and Humanitarian Aid Minister Isaac Herzog. (Reporting by Adam Entous; Editing by Samia Nakhoul) From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Feb 4 13:01:32 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 12:01:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] A people abandoned In-Reply-To: <1182653316.377051233708373610.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1512775769.708381233777692873.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://mondediplo.com/2009/02/01abandoned Le Monde Diplomatique ??????????????????????????????????????????????????? February 2009 A people abandoned By Serge Halimi By 14 January Israeli troops had killed more than a thousand Palestinians confined to a narrow strip of land and subjected to land, sea and air bombardment by one of the most formidable armies in the world. A Palestinian school converted into a United Nations refuge had been bombed?( 1 ), a resolution ? issued by the only organisation that really represents the ?international community? people are so fond of talking about ? had called in vain for a halt to the military operations in Gaza. So, on 14 January, the European Union showed just how firmly it was prepared to react to this mixed display of violence and arrogance. It decided to suspend the process of rapprochement with Israel! But to lessen the impact of what might, even so, have been seen as gentle reproach to Tel Aviv, it explained that this was a ?technical?measure, not a ?political?one. And that the decision was taken by ?both parties?. Israel is free to do as it likes. Its army had already destroyed most of the Palestinian infrastructure funded by the EU and there had been little or no reaction, no legal action, no call for reparations?( 2 ). It then imposed a blockade on people already living in poverty, with no water, food or medical supplies. Still no response, only endless admonitions and a general refusal to become involved in the argument, on the pretext that violence of the strong is not always accompanied by submission of the weak. So why should Israel suppose that it cannot continue to act with impunity? Twenty years ago, the Jewish state took the precaution of encouraging the rise of Hamas against the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). Hamas was a dream adversary, with a medieval charter, doubtful military potential and no inclination to ?communicate? with western public opinion. Having no ? partner for peace?is a perfect excuse to bomb and colonise ad lib. But even now, there are still newspaper editors in Europe complaining that Israel one day lose the moral high ground??( 3 ). The United States too has nothing against the Tel Aviv government?s plans. On 9 January, the House of Representatives passed a resolution recognising Israel?s ?right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza?. A few hours earlier the Senate had ?reaffirmed the United States? strong support for Israel in its battle with Hamas?. Perhaps with the idea of striking some sort of ?balance?, the House of Representatives resolution also expresses to innocent Israeli and Palestinian victims and their families?. That resolution was adopted by 390 votes to five. The Senate resolution was adopted unanimously. The US executive also held firm: a few hours after announcing a unilateral ceasefire, Ehud Olmert rang the US president to thank him for his support. Support also includes non-refundable aid amounting to $3 billion a year, which no-one including Obama has thought of questioning. With this sort of backing, the main Israeli parties? aim seems to be clear: to destroy any prospect of achieving the internationally recognised aim of establishing a genuine Palestinian state. The West Bank will continue to be an amorphous collection of homelands, criss-crossed with walls and roadblocks, dotted with settlements, and drip-fed by the European Union. And Gaza will be bombed whenever its neighbour has a mind to unleash a disproportionate ?response? to rocket or other attacks. In fact, after 60 years of defeat, humiliation, exile, violation of signed agreements, colonisation and internecine feuding, after governments all over the world have abandoned them to their fate and allowed international law, including international humanitarian law, to be ridden over roughshod, it is nothing short of a miracle that the Palestinians are still determined to assert their national identity in real terms. If they succeed, it will not be thanks to the Europeans, or to the Americans or to most Arab states. In Gaza, these powers have all conspired once again in the interminable spoliation of a nation. Translated by Barbara Wilson ( 1 ) Israeli government spokesman Avi Pazner admitted that there had been what he called ?a few blips? (France Inter, 8 January 2009). ( 2 ) See Pierre Avril, ?L?Europe paie, Isra?l d?truit?, Le Figaro , 16 January 2009. ( 3 ) Laurent Joffrin, ? Victimes ?, Lib?ration , 29 December 2008. From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Feb 4 13:02:03 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 12:02:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] The strange tale of Iran and Israel In-Reply-To: <1627524503.374441233708036111.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1362634928.708691233777723066.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Le Monde Diplomatique ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? February 2009 Imagined affinities, imagined enmities The strange tale of Iran and Israel The early Zionists never believed they would be accepted in the Arab world and pinned their hopes on the non-Arab periphery instead, particularly Iran. Israel reversed that policy by opening talks with a weakened Arafat in the early 1990s. But peace with the Palestinians did not happen and the ?radicals? grew more radical By Alastair Crooke ?We had very deep relations with Iran, cutting deep into the fabric of the two peoples,? said a high-ranking official at the Israeli foreign ministry just after the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Israeli (and US) officials then saw it as madness to view Iran as anything other than a natural interlocutor. Thirty years later, western policy-makers, and particularly Israelis, see Iran as a growing threat. Could this fear be based on a misreading of Iran?s revolution? David Ben-Gurion, Israel?s first prime minister, did not see Israel as part of the Middle East, but as part of Europe. From 1952, Ben-Gurion repeated that although Israelis were sitting in the Middle East, this was a geographical accident, for they were a European people. ?We have no connection with the Arabs,? he said. ?Our regime, our culture, our relations, is not the fruit of this region. There is no political affinity between us, or international solidarity??( 1 ). Ben-Gurion called for a concerted effort to persuade the United States that Israel could be a strategic asset in the Middle East. But President Dwight Eisenhower (1953-61) repeatedly declined Israel?s entreaties, believing that the US was better placed to manage US interests independently of Israeli assistance. As a result of these rebuffs, Ben-Gurion evolved the concept of the ?alliance of the periphery? which aimed to balance the vicinity of hostile Arab states by forming alliances with Iran, Turkey and Ethiopia. It was an attempt to strengthen Israeli deterrence, reduce Israel?s isolation and add to its appeal as an ?asset? to the US. In parallel, Ben-Gurion developed another idea: the ?alliance of the minorities?. He argued that the majority of the inhabitants of the Middle East were not Arab, referring not only to the Persians and the Turks, but also to religious minorities such as the Jews, Kurds, Druze and (Christian) Maronites of Lebanon. The aim was to foster nationalist aspirations among minorities in order to create islands of allies in the ocean of Arab nationalism. Iran emerged against this background in the late 1950s as a ?natural ally? of Israel. In Treacherous Alliance ?( 2 ) Trita Parsi has traced the cooperation with the Shah, such as the joint training and arming of Kurdish insurgents between 1970 and 1975 that was intended to weaken Iraq. Parsi also notes the empathy between Israel and Iran on account of the cultural superiority felt by the two peoples towards the Arabs ? even though the supposed affinity had its limits. Israelis were puzzled and irked at the Shah?s insistence on keeping the relationship quiet; Israel wanted it publicly acknowledged. The sense of close affinity persisted beyond the Iranian Revolution, and prompted even hard-headed Israeli politicians of the right ? including prime minister Menachem Begin ? to reach out to the new Iranian leadership. Ayatollah Khomeini?s pragmatism in foreign policy was read by Israelis as evidence that the revolution had been an aberration. Iran, surrounded by Arab hostility, understood only too well its need for Israeli friendship ? and the technological advantages it could bestow on its friends. Yossi Alpher, a former Mossad official, noted that the periphery doctrine was so ?thoroughly ingrained? in the Israeli mindset that it had become ?instinctive??( 3 ). It was out of this conviction that Israel inveigled the US to sell weapons to Iran in the mid-1980s, a prelude to the Iran-Contra scandal?( 4 ). Begin?s electoral victory in 1977 entrenched a more radical vision than that of the Labour Party, that of the Revisionist Zionist leader, Vladimir Jabotinsky. The latter had argued in his seminal ?Iron Wall? article in 1923 that there could never be agreement with the Arabs. Begin shared Jabotinsky?s view that ?only when there is no longer any hope of getting rid of us... will they drop their extremist leaders,? and moderates would emerge who would ?agree to mutual concessions? and could then benefit from the Zionist ?five hundred year cultural advance? on them. Relations with the periphery declined The right tried to put the strategy of the ?alliance of the minorities? into practice. In 1982, Ariel Sharon invaded Lebanon with the aim of ousting the Palestine Liberation Organisation and establishing a friendly Christian Maronite hegemony in Beirut ? so inflicting a devastating defeat on Syria, a major pillar of Arabism. It proved a miscalculation, for it precipitated the decline of the Maronites and encouraged Shia mobilisation in the south and in the Bekaa valley, from which a formidable new enemy, Hizbullah, emerged. At the same time as this failure in Lebanon, Israel?s relations with the periphery declined ? at least with Iran (which made a strategic alliance with Syria, a key Arab enemy). This was because of a misperception by Israel, shared by the US: the Iranian Revolution was seen in the West as no more than a discontinuity in the western narrative of a historical progression from backwardness to western-style secular modernity. It was an aberration, a reaction against modernity that would be corrected over time. The ideological basis to the revolution was seen as ?hollow?; ?pragmatists? would soon pull it back on to the path of western material progress, the only course that made sense in the western optic. This is why both Israel and the US have been so preoccupied by signs of pragmatism and an obsessive hunt for ?moderates?. And whenever Iran?s revolutionary leadership has shown any signs of pragmatism in its foreign policy, it reinforced the US and Israeli view that this would lead eventually to an alliance with Israel. In reality, it was the West?s materialist ?modernity?, on which Israel?s doctrine was justified, which repelled Iranian leaders the most. But though they were at odds with the US and Israel over their vision of society and their efforts to spread a culture of secular, materialist and free-market society across the region (which many Iranians saw in turn as archaic, and even colonialist), they did not want to defeat Israel militarily. The revolution was not conceived with an aggressive regional ambition; it did not threaten Israel or the US in conventional military terms. In 1988, after a messy, debilitating war lasting eight years, Iran reached a ceasefire with Iraq. But the years 1990-2 saw two events that changed the outlook for the whole region: the Soviet Union imploded and Saddam Hussein was defeated in the first Gulf war (1990-1). These events removed both the Russian threat to Iran and Iraq?s threat to Israel. It left Iran and Israel as unchallenged rivals for leadership and pre-eminence in the region, and it saw the US emerge as a unipolar, unchecked power. Israel?s main fear was to be seen as a liability by the US during the Gulf war, rather than a friend. At the same time the prospect of Iran emerging as a pre-eminent regional power threatened Israel?s hegemony by opening the possibility of a US-Iranian rapprochement that risked eclipsing Israel?s relationship with the US. More seriously, Israel risked its military deterrence: its survival depended on its military supremacy, which a resurgent Iran might remove. When the Labour government under Yitzhak Rabin, elected in 1992, decided to drop the strategy of wooing the periphery and instead opted to make peace with the Arabs, this was a radical reverse of strategy. This shift placed Israel and Iran on opposite sides in the new equation, and the change was as intense as it was unexpected: ?Iran has to be identified as Enemy No 1,? Yossi Alpher, at the time an adviser to Rabin, told the New York Times four days after Bill Clinton?s election victory. And Shimon Peres, the other most senior Labour figure, warned the international community in an interview in 1993 that Iran would be armed with a nuclear bomb by 1999?( 5 ). Exaggerated nuclear threat? But many inside the Clinton administration felt the Iranian threat was exaggerated, as did many within the Israeli establishment. Shlomo Brom, a senior member of the Israeli intelligence apparatus, told Parsi mockingly: ?Remember, the Iranians are always five to seven years from the bomb. Time passes, but they are always five to seven years from the bomb.? In 2009, the Iranians are, according to US intelligence estimates, still ?five to seven years away from the bomb??( 6 ). Israel, therefore, began to cut a deal with Yasser Arafat, greatly weakened by the Gulf war. Rabin and Peres then used the demonisation of Iran as a lever with which to divert the US Jewish Lobby: the Lobby could focus on the existential threat from Iran rather than turn their anger on Israel?s leaders for betraying Jabotinsky by supping with the enemy ? Arafat and the Arabs. The US was devising a parallel strategy too: a realignment of pro-western Arab states against enemies lying beyond the periphery ? barbarians bearing down on the values, institutions and liberties of western civilisation, led by Iran. US power had become the instrument that would ?spell the death knell for the Iranian revolution? as William Kristol, a leading US conservative, wrote in May 2003. The defeat of Iran had become the means to deliver a double blow to the Arab and Muslim psyche as well as to the Islamist resistance. The Arabs would become docile, and the Middle East would succumb, like so many dominoes. Not surprisingly, despite Iran?s cooperation with Washington during the war in Afghanistan (2002) and Iraq (2003), its attempts to reach a so-called ?grand bargain? with the US were all rebuffed or undercut by senior members of the Bush administration. The 2003 proposal to open talks with the US that appeared to acknowledge US security concerns ? including the demand for an end to Iran?s support for Hizbullah and Hamas and to its nuclear programme, and recognition of Israel ? has become a part of legend. But to assume that pressure caused Iran to offer to sever its links to the resistance and come to terms with Israel is to misread Iran?s intent. Iran?s offer was a nuanced reformulation of an earlier proposal for partnership and a discussion of all issues in contention. To interpret the 2003 episode as a signal that ?pressure works?, and that more pressure on Iran will yield these and further concessions, may lead to a catastrophic error of policy. The US swing towards a Manichaean vision of pro-western moderation versus Islamist extremism has taken regional polarisation well beyond Ben-Gurion?s more modest objective of creating a balance of forces and deterrence. In their aim to break the resistance throughout the Muslim world to a secular, liberal vision for the future, the US and its European allies have instead provoked mass mobilisation against their own project, as well as radicalisation and hostility to the West. Original text in English Alastair Crooke is a consultant; he was special adviser to?Javier Solana (1999-2003) and a member of the Mitchell Commission set up by President Clinton to report on the causes for the second intifada (2000-1) ( 1 ) Cited by Avi Shlaim in ?Israel, the Great Powers and the Middle East Crisis of 1958?, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History , London, May 1999. ( 2 ) Trita Parsi, Treacherous Alliance: The secret dealings of Israel, Iran, and the US , Yale University Press, New Haven, 2007. ( 3 ) Trita Parsi, op cit, page 91. ( 4 ) This scandal shook the Reagan administration in the mid-1980s, bringing to light the illegal sale of American arms to Iran and the financing of the Nicaraguan Contras. The scandal became a profound embarrassment, however, when it emerged that US officials had illegally siphoned off the profits from these Iranian sales in order to buy arms for the ?Contra? guerrillas. ( 5 ) Shimon Peres, interview on France 3, October 1992. ( 6 ) Trita Parsi, op cit, page 167. From fentona at shaw.ca Wed Feb 4 13:09:15 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 12:09:15 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Conservatives' Budget Skimps on Stimulus Message-ID: ECONOMY-CANADA: Conservatives' Budget Skimps on Stimulus By Paul Weinberg http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45671 TORONTO, Feb 4 (IPS) - Canada's reluctance to institute a full stimulus package in the recent federal government budget has international parallels, says Armine Yalnizyan, a senior economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. "Many of the governments that were very quick to act to restore credit to the system have been much slower to roll out money to respond to the need to replace the jobs that are being shed," she told IPS. The longer time that governments take to implement a full stimulus package to create jobs and encourage citizens to spend money in their respective countries, the greater the likelihood of "something that is far worse than it needs to be" in the world economy, Yalnizyan said. She observed that it is hard for most national governments, including Canada's right-leaning Conservative-led minority administration in Ottawa, to wean themselves from the philosophical path known as the Washington Consensus. "It is very difficult to turn that around because government has been perceived for almost 30 years now as the problem and the market as the solution. And it is very difficult to change a very firm mindset among the governing elites that it is not serving people very well," she said. Nevertheless, Tuesday's passage of the budget in the House of Commons in a 214 to 84 vote with the reluctant support of the Liberals, the major opposition party, was inevitable, given the promised spending of 28.3 billion dollars over two years on everything from income tax cuts and help for home renovations to enhanced jobless benefits and funds for urban reconstruction. Given the weariness of the Canadian public towards the notion of another federal election - Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives were just reelected with an increased minority government last October - there was little appetite for having the federal budget, albeit not entirely perfect, turned down and forcing a national vote in the process, says Chantal Herbert in a column for the Toronto Star. "In their quest for parliamentary survival, the Conservatives have cut and pasted a lot of old-style Liberal spending initiatives and spread them pretty much across the board. It is hard to think of a constituency, friendly or hostile to the Conservatives, that will not get a piece of the multibillion-dollar stimulus package the government has cobbled together," Herbert said, adding, "Environmentalists are the possible exception. True to Conservative form, the notion of adjusting Canada's economy to the realities of climate change comes across as an afterthought." The Conservatives were almost ousted last November when they introduced an economic statement that contained no stimulus package and also included measures to reduce election financing for political parties, which particularly threatened the defeated Liberals - in debt from the last election. Herbert adds that Harper and his government appeared to have learned their lesson this time and introduced a budget minus the noxious measure that was designed to win the support of the bruised Liberals, ill-prepared to fight another election so soon under a new leader. Nevertheless, the Liberals could have legally helped to defeat the Conservative minority government under Canadian parliamentary rules and taken over the country with the support of two other opposition parties in some form of coalition, commented Nelson Wiseman, a University of Toronto political scientist. But with no political precedent of that ever happening before in Canadian history, this was not a real option, given the regional divisions that might have resulted - with the Conservatives strong in western Canada and the Liberals more of a force in the east, he continued. "The coalition idea however has now taken root and I expect it to sprout," Wiseman told IPS. A formal coalition led by the Liberals joined to the hip with the social democratic NDP is not ruled out by Wiseman down the road with minority governments becoming the norm in a four-party Canadian parliament. "As the economy continues to weaken," added Wiseman, "[Canadians] will be more disenchanted with whoever is in charge, and that happens to be the Conservatives and Harper." One of the concerns of the mayors of Canada's major cities is that much of the promised 3.2 billion dollars in urban infrastructure spending under the Building Canada Fund will be held up by regulation and that little of the funds will flow immediately to needy areas such as public transit. Toronto Mayor David Miller has complained of delays in the past in the availability of previously promised financial assistance by the same government. "Placing rigid requirements on funds like this does not work. The dollars need to be invested, not written down on paper. This is full of red tape," he told reporters. Insufficient infrastructure spending to spur new jobs and the resistance by the current Conservative government in its latest budget to ease up on the tight regulations to access jobless benefits could prove disastrous in the coming months when six out of 10 Canadians will find themselves ineligible for income support and be forced to live on their savings instead, warns Yalniziyan. "Far more serious and far more grave is the fact that this government is looking at the hundreds of thousands of jobs that were lost in the last few months and full knowledge that many more hundreds of thousands will be lost in the coming year," she said. Leo Panitch, a Canada research chair of comparative political economy at York University, observes that Canada's economic stimulus package amounts to only one percent of gross national product, compared to the five percent about to be invested in comparable moves in the U.S. by the administration of Barack Obama. He also noted that the Canadian government's "rosy" predictions of 2.4 percent initial growth followed by a further advance have been contradicted by the International Monetary Fund - which forecast a mere 1.6 percent growth for Canada. Panitch is not sure that the Canadian strategy of maintaining a tightly regulated banking system, a reliance on the high demand for its commodities, particularly oil, and economic integration with the U.S. will save this country from the economic downturn. "People had been saying that Canada will suffer least from this recession because at least we were doing very well in commodity prices. But now commodity prices and oil prices have tanked," he said. (END/2009) From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Feb 4 13:04:25 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 12:04:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Why the George Bush/Gordon Brown/Barack Obama bank strategy is doomed to fail In-Reply-To: <1019578936.362131233706384815.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <521806554.709881233777865569.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/02/02/2009-02-02_a_bad_bank_is_a_very_bad_idea.html New York Daily News ????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? February 2, 2009 A bad bank is a very bad idea by Rolfe Winkler, CFA When rumors surfaced on Wednesday that the Obama administration may create a "bad bank" to buy toxic assets, financial stocks soared. Of course bank shareholders were happy; the plan is likely to be a titanic taxpayer hand-out. It has to be to achieve the administration's goal of keeping banks in private hands. To understand the banking crisis, and Obama's emerging solution, all you need to know is one equation: Assets = Liabilities + Equity. This equation explains why banks are dropping like flies. A bank's assets are the loans it makes to borrowers. Its liabilities are the dollars it borrows from lenders and depositors to fund those loans. Shareholder equity is what's left over. During the bubble, banks made loans for houses at vastly inflated prices. Say, for instance, a bank lent $1 million to a borrower buying a Miami condo in 2006. The borrower promised to repay $1 million over the life of the loan, so the bank valued this asset at $1 million.? Flash forward to 2009, and the condo is now worth $500,000. The borrower defaults because he'd rather lose the condo than pay a million-dollar mortgage on a property now worth half that. The bank forecloses on the condo and sells it for what it can get, the current market value of $500,000. The bank's asset, the loan, has fallen from $1 million, which the borrower owed, to $500,000, the amount recovered. A 50% loss. If borrowers default en masse, then the value of the bank's assets drops precipitously. Its liabilities, however, are fixed. The bank still owes its lenders and depositors the amount it borrowed. So bank shareholders, literally the owners of the bank's equity, have to absorb the losses. In our equation above, one side must equal the other. Since liabilities are fixed, assets and equity decline by a like amount. If losses are too big and the bank's equity cushion too small, bank shareholders are wiped out.? Losses systemwide are, of course, huge. According to the Case-Shiller index released this week, home prices have fallen 25% in the nation's biggest metro areas since their peak. And bank equity cushions are tiny. Citigroup, for instance, had over $50 of assets (by another calculation over $200) for every $1 of tangible common equity. With leverage that high, assets need only fall 2% for equity to be wiped out entirely. Is it any surprise that Citi's stock has dropped more than 90% from its high? The Western world's entire financial system is suffering this sickness - huge asset losses and no equity to absorb them. Normally when a bank fails, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. resolves the issue. But the severity of the downturn and the degree of leverage on big bank balance sheets mean all of them have effectively collapsed. It would appear the government has no choice but to nationalize them. Unless, miraculously, bank asset values go back up, wiping out losses. But how can this happen? Our Miami condo is not going to sell for $1 million, so who on Earth would buy the loan for that much? It appears taxpayers will. The administration's "bad bank" would buy up the bad assets clogging bank balance sheets. Shareholders are thrilled because Sheila Bair, head of the FDIC and the likely CEO-in-waiting of the bad bank, has made clear her intention to overpay for the assets. Take our example above. The government might buy the million-dollar loan for close to a million dollars - even though the condo itself is still worth just $500,000. But that's no longer the bank's problem. Since taxpayers now own the asset, they take the half-million dollar loss. While government reports suggest the bad bank will spend $1 trillion to $2 trillion to buy toxic assets, Goldman Sachs estimates that $4 trillion may ultimately be needed. And banks are likely to sell their most toxic trash to the bad bank, meaning the public's losses will be massive - certainly hundreds of billions of dollars, based on current fair value estimates. With taxpayers in line to absorb so much bad debt, is it any wonder bank stocks soared? The problem at the core of all this is the administration's goal: It wants to avoid nationalizing banks at all costs, even if that requires a huge transfer of wealth from the public in order to inflate asset prices artificially. But this solves nothing. Unless assets are marked down, they won't trade and the economy will calcify. Marking down assets means losses have to be recognized. A better solution than forcing them onto taxpayers would be to nationalize the banks outright, wiping out shareholders and forcing bank creditors to absorb their share of losses. Yes, such a solution would be very painful, but it would be a solution. Bailing out banks - not to mention borrowing $1 trillion to fund "stimulus" and endless money-printing by the Fed - are not solutions. All of these simply represent more borrowing to re-inflate a debt bubble that sooner or later needs to deflate. The American economy is collapsing under the weight of too much debt. We will not rescue it by piling on more. From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Feb 4 13:03:37 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 12:03:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Afghanistan: chaos central In-Reply-To: <1059772418.373721233707963020.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <2059168621.709471233777817646.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Le Monde Diplomatique ??????????????????????????????????????????????????? February 2009 As the US ponders doubling its troops, the Taliban rules again Afghanistan: chaos central A correspondent looks back at the deterioration across the country over the past three years: the resurgence of both the Taliban and the old corrupt elites, the failure of the occupation forces, and the worsening conditions of life for everybody else By Chris Sands As the summer of 2005 faded, everyone in Kabul had forgotten there was a war on. American soldiers bought carpets in Chicken Street bazaar; mercenaries downed vodka in restaurants before wandering upstairs to sleep with Chinese prostitutes. The brothels were in the same neighbourhoods as the mansions that militia commanders were building themselves with CIA funds and drug money. Back then, this city was ideal for post-conflict profiteering. Hastily created NGOs continued to flood in, so did journalists eager to write about the local golf course and the suave president. Victory had been declared. But the Taliban knew their time was coming again. The warning signs were around for anyone who cared to look. I?d been in Afghanistan under a week when aid groups revealed that deteriorating security threatened their projects. Soon after, the governor of Maidan Wardak, a province bordering Kabul, told me all was okay there. Then the PR finished and he said a new generation of militants had shown its face, young men disillusioned with the occupation, some trained in Pakistan. Trouble was evident near Jalalabad, where a villager complained that his cousin had vanished after being arrested by the Americans three years earlier. We talked in a dirt yard full of kids and they were the only ones who expected his return. Kandahar is the spiritual heartland of the Taliban, and in late 2005, the movement was drawing strength from its birthplace. There I saw a reality our politicians had made us believe did not exist. A man working at the football stadium reminisced about the executions on the pitch. If capital punishment was still common, he said, the new government wouldn?t be so crooked. (I heard this repeatedly until it was said across the country.) The police were the worst offenders, looking for bribes to supplement their low wages. Another Kandahari had joined the Taliban as a teenager in the 1990s. ?At that time we were very happy,? he said. ?It was like we were very poor and had suddenly found a lot of money.? Insurgent attacks and violent crime were already a problem in Kandahar, yet the Taliban were rarely the subject of people?s fury; they blamed the government and its allies. Taliban on the rise In the spring of 2006, Kabul?s imams complained publicly that officials were corrupt and alcohol was easily available. They were also angry at house raids by foreign soldiers in rural areas and accused them of molesting women. Most said the time for jihad was approaching. When rioters tore through Kabul on 29?May, it was no big surprise. The spark was a fatal traffic accident involving US troops, but the explosion had been primed long before. Protesters shouted ?Death to America?. The situation was now ripe for the Taliban to harness national discontent. They were soon fighting pitched battles with British soldiers in Helmand, and in areas close to Kabul, people warned the government might collapse. I couldn?t find anyone in Ghazni who admitted to taking the insurgents? side: they said poverty and a lack of reconstruction caused people to rebel. Looking at the broken roads and crumbling homes, I saw what they meant. Police had tried to stop the Taliban?s favourite mode of transport by banning motorbikes in one district. The militants responded by imposing travel restrictions on everybody; in the mosques they would tell worshippers not to drive. The more the Taliban turned to violence, the more they were seen as a force that could not be stopped. The bloodshed made people long for the stability of the old regime, if not its repressive laws. Villagers across the south and east had gained almost nothing from the US-led invasion, and many had lost good security. Among people in Logar, bordering Kabul, the anger was palpable. ?Our biggest problem is with the foreigners ? we just hate them. Our families, our children, our women ? everyone hates them,? said an elder. ?Let?s pretend I?m a young man,? said another. ?I have graduated from school, but I can?t go to university and there is no factory to work in. So how can I feed myself? I can just join the insurgents ? it?s easy.? The Taliban first rose up in 1994 when Afghanistan was controlled by warlords who previously had CIA support. Mullah Wakil Ahmad Mutawakil lost his father during the Soviet occupation and joined the Taliban ?to give the country freedom?. He went on to become Mullah Omar?s spokesman and later his foreign minister. We talked in January?2007 when Mutawakil was being kept under watch in Kabul. He knew his government had made mistakes, letting jihadis from across the world train and fight here. But he was adamant that the international community?s decision to isolate the regime had only made it more extreme. Kandahar was frightening in the spring of 2007. The police were accused of kidnappings and robberies, and the scars of suicide bombings pockmarked the streets. Residents admired the Taliban: the alternatives were dire. Democracy meant anarchy and, in the villages, a brutal occupation. ?If I sit at a table with an American and he says he has brought us freedom, I will tell him he has fucked us,? said a father-of-two. He had fled Kandahar during the Taliban government because he was against its restrictions on education. ?But I was never worried about my family,? he added. ?Every single minute of the last three years I have been very worried.? A religious leader from the district of Panjwayi described how 18 of his relatives had been killed in an air strike. Reports of civilians bombed from above were frequent. First villagers or local officials would say innocent people were dead and Nato or US-led coalition would deny it. Then all parties would agree civilian blood had been spilt, but argue over casualty figures. Hamid Karzai kept demanding that the carnage stop, but it never did. Ceasefire called In Kabul, a senator from Helmand said it was killing the entire country. He was among members of parliament?s upper chamber who had called for a ceasefire and negotiations with insurgent groups. They had also said a date should be set for the withdrawal of foreign forces. By then the parliament was a symbol of the Taliban?s resurgence. Police in riot gear stood watch and the building was falling to pieces. Not only was there sympathy for the militants inside, there were also men whose viciousness had caused the discontent that helped create the movement. Most Afghans wanted the warlords brought to justice, but the international community had let them stand for election, and here they were showing off their power. Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef used to serve as the Taliban?s ambassador to Pakistan and, after a spell in Guantanamo, lived under constant surveillance in Kabul. He said men with blood on their hands were now the West?s great hope. ?At the time of the Taliban, if someone killed another person it was possible to capture him, send him to court, punish him and execute him. Today, if someone goes to a village and kills 100?people, tomorrow he is given more privileges by the government. The Americans and the world community brought the warlords to power.? Poor forced out of areas By summer?2007, suicide bombings were the weapon of choice and they frightened Afghans, who had never seen them during the Soviet occupation. Men who hated the Taliban were starting to resemble them. A former Northern Alliance commander from the province of Badakhshan said: ?Now when any foreigner is killed, every Afghan says ?praise be to God?.? We were chatting at his home in an area of Kabul where the poor had been forced out so warlords and foreign contractors could move in. Afghanistan?s Sikh and Hindu community had been about 50,000 before 1992. Now it was down to 5,000. The exodus had been instigated by the Mujahideen, not the Taliban. With the same old faces back in power again, no one was happy. ?The Taliban told us we had to do all our religious ceremonies in private, but they did not stop us from doing them. It was a government that was not recognised by the world, but it was better than now,? said a Sikh. Female MPs said they felt ashamed for not being able to help their constituents. One said she was sure the time was approaching when she would be a prisoner in her own home again. ?For all this I blame America. When the Russians were here, the people picked up guns to fight them. Now people are picking up guns to fight the Americans,? she said. ?Soon my daughter will finish school and then she wants to start private education,? said another. ?But I cannot let her because I cannot give her a bodyguard.? Some are above the law A judge at the Supreme Court told me that some people here are above the law. He would not name names, but described the control that warlords have over his colleagues as ?totally ordinary?. Immediately after, the Taliban attacked a luxury hotel. A friend of mine reassured me that, as a Pashtun, he would offer me protection. ?Mullah Omar destroyed Afghanistan because of Osama bin Laden, but he didn?t give him up,? he said. A day later a Taliban commander from Helmand described how the resistance had struggled to find support in the early years. But after innocent people had been detained or killed, the jihad had burst into life. Now even the Afghan army secretly gave them bullets and treated their wounded. In April I drove from Kabul to Paghman and found a pile of burnt trash where the offices of Zafar Radio used to be. Masked men had torched the premises for being ?un-Islamic?. In July, a car bomber attacked the Indian embassy, scattering corpses. People were angry with the government, saying it was unable to provide security. In an area of the capital where Hamid Karzai had narrowly escaped assassination, a doctor sold samosas from a roadside stall; it was the only job he could get. Last year was the grimmest since the invasion. The US military?s total of 113 killed up to September was two more than for the whole of 2007. As for civilians, 1,445 were killed from January to August 2008, according to the UN. Now in 2009, the Taliban?s strength is growing on Kabul?s doorstep, in Maidan Wardak and Logar. The main highway south is impossibly risky. In the east, the rebels have taken new ground as they move freely across the border. In the north, warlords are reasserting their dominance. Kabul is a claustrophobic, paranoid place. More foreign troops are due. But they risk the same backlash as the Soviets, and the long-term aim remains unclear. Original text in English Chris Sands is a journalist From fentona at shaw.ca Wed Feb 4 13:11:40 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 12:11:40 -0800 Subject: [R-G] U.S.: More Troops, More Worries, Less Consensus on Afghanistan Message-ID: <312BB0E6-8067-40F4-BA58-D13DC7D6FB6F@shaw.ca> U.S.: More Troops, More Worries, Less Consensus on Afghanistan Analysis by Jim Lobe* http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45663 WASHINGTON, Feb 3 (IPS) - Even as U.S. President Barack Obama prepares to deploy more military forces to Afghanistan - what he has called "the central front" in former President George W. Bush's "global war on terror" - a consensus on overall U.S. strategy there remains elusive. Even Washington's precise war aims in Afghanistan more than seven years after U.S.-backed forces chased the Taliban out of the country appear subject to continuing debate, as, in the face of what virtually all analysts and officials concede is a deteriorating situation, the Pentagon is actively downgrading the Bush administration's hopes of ushering in a thriving democracy to something far less ambitious. That was made abundantly clear last week when Defence Secretary Robert Gates warned Congress "to be very careful about the nature of the goals we set for ourselves in Afghanistan. If we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of Central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose, because nobody in the world has that kind of time, patience, and money," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee. And while Gates insisted that Washington faces a "long slog" to achieve even its minimal aims, fears that Afghanistan could become a "new Vietnam", a deadly quagmire in which already overstretched U.S. forces could become bogged down in an unwinnable war, have gained sudden new currency in the mass media. Indeed, the cover story in the latest edition of 'Newsweek' magazine is headlined, "Obama's Vietnam: The analogy isn't exact. But the war in Afghanistan is starting to look disturbingly familiar." Public statements about the current situation by senior Pentagon officials, including Gates, have been grim. A Pentagon report released Monday noted that last spring and summer saw the "highest levels of violence" since the U.S. intervention in 2001, and that 132 U.S. troops were killed last year, up from 82 in 2007. "You all have been covering recent events in Afghanistan long enough to know that the situation there grows increasingly perilous every day," the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, told foreign reporters at the top of a special briefing here last week. "Suicide and IED (improvised explosive device) attacks are up, some say as much as 40 percent over the last year," he went on. "The Taliban grows bolder implanting fear and intimidating the Afghan people, and the flow of militants across the border with Pakistan continues." The U.S. has about 33,000 U.S. troops currently deployed to Afghanistan. These are augmented by another 30,000 troops from other NATO countries, of which, however, only British, Canadian, and Dutch contingents are fully cleared for combat in largely Pashtun areas in the east and south where the Taliban and its allies are strongest. Commanders in the field, led by U.S. Gen. David McKiernan, have requested an additional 30,000 U.S. troops over the next six to nine months, a figure that Mullen echoed during last week's press briefing. Gates has taken a more cautious approach, telling senators last week that 10,000 to 12,000 troops - or the two to three brigades that Obama said were necessary during his presidential campaign - are likely to be deployed over the next six months. At the same time, he said he would be "deeply sceptical" of further increases, adding that Washington expected the Afghan military (currently about 100,000 troops) and police to take a stronger role. The new administration is also hoping that other NATO members, which were repeatedly pressed by the Bush administration for more support, will provide more troops - for both combat and accelerated training of Afghan forces. Obama is sending a high-powered delegation led by Vice President Joe Biden; Obama's national security adviser, Gen. James Jones; and his special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, former Amb Richard Holbrooke, to Munich next week in the first of a series of international meetings culminating in NATO's 60th anniversary summit in April in Strasbourg where he hopes to secure new commitments. But, despite all the goodwill generated abroad by Obama's election, public opinion both in Canada and Europe is running strongly against new deployments, according to recent surveys there, and analysts here warn that Washington is likely to be disappointed by the response. Meanwhile, Holbrooke, working with the chief of the U.S. Central Command (Centcom), Gen. David Petraeus, as well as Washington's new ambassador-designate to Kabul, ret. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, who has served two tours of duty in Afghanistan, will take part in a comprehensive review of U.S. strategy that is unlikely to be concluded before April. The review is aimed at both defining U.S. short- and long-term goals in Afghanistan and elaborating a strategy to achieve them. The one goal on which virtually all policy-makers and analysts are agreed is that expressed by Gates during last week's hearing: "To prevent Afghanistan from being used as a base for terrorists and extremists to attack the United States and its allies." But how to achieve even that minimal goal - given obvious constraints on resources and the secure bases that the Taliban continue to enjoy in Pakistan's frontier areas - remains the subject of considerable debate. The dominant view for now is that increasing security for the civilian population, particularly in the Pashtun areas where the Taliban is strongest - much as the U.S. "surge" of 30,000 additional U.S. troops purportedly accomplished in Iraq - is essential. Success should deprive the Taliban of much of its popular support and persuade "reconcilable" leaders to negotiate with the government and reduce the level of violence. In addition, pressure on President Hamid Karzai to address the corruption that has become endemic under his administration and renewed efforts to persuade - in part through significantly enhanced training - the Pakistani military to conduct an effective counter- insurgency campaign against its home-grown Taliban in the frontier areas, as well as the al Qaeda leadership that is based there, are also seen as indispensable. But critics, of which there are a growing number, are sceptical. Among other things, they question comparisons between Iraq and Afghanistan, noting, among other things, that, even if 30,000 troops are added to the existing deployment in Afghanistan, the ratio of troops - both foreign and indigenous - to people will remain substantially below the ratio in Iraq, and far below the ratio recommended by conventional counter-insurgency doctrine. There is also disagreement - even within the military itself - over how best to deploy those troops: whether close to the rugged Pakistan border to try to block supply and infiltration routes; or in cities, towns, and villages to provide "security" to the population, as the Surge purportedly did in Iraq. In a new report released Tuesday by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Gilles Dorronsoro, a French expert on South Asia, argued that adding troops would actually be counter-productive because the mere presence of foreign soldiers in Pashtun areas has fueled the Taliban's resurgence and that the best way to weaken it is to reduce military confrontations. In that respect, "the only meaningful way to halt the insurgency's momentum is to start withdrawing troops." Indeed, Dorronsoro argues, as do other critics, that most effective way to ensure that Afghan territory is not used as a base to attack the U.S. is to "de-link" the Taliban from al Qaeda, "which is based mostly in Pakistan." "We will be in a much better position to fight al Qaeda if we don't have to fight the Afghans," he said. "We have to stop fighting the Taliban because it is the wrong enemy." *Jim Lobe's blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/ . (END/2009) From fentona at shaw.ca Wed Feb 4 13:25:04 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 12:25:04 -0800 Subject: [R-G] FAIR challenges CBC Ombud's Report Message-ID: <53225E1A-2025-4553-BEB3-CA25A181D262@shaw.ca> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Isabel Macdonald Communications Director FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) 212 633 6700 x 310 imacdonald at fair.org http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3714 FAIR challenges CBC Ombud's Report FEBRUARY 4, NYC--The U.S. media watch group FAIR is challenging the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for making false and biased claims after a campaign by groups that advocate for uncritical coverage of Israel. The campaign was launched in response to CBC?s October 23, 2008 airing of the 2003 educational documentary Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land. The film cited a FAIR report on U.S. media coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict, prompting the CBC's French-language radio ombud Julie Miville-Dech?ne to question the independence ofFAIR?s research, referring to the organization as a ?pro-Palestinian? and ?militant group.? FAIR is an independent nonprofit group whose research is widely cited by respected media scholars in both the U.S.and Canada. Its spokespersons have appeared on several occasions on the CBC to discuss issues ranging from media coverage of the Kosovo War to radio host Rush Limbaugh. Faulting the film for "failure to account for the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip," Miville-Dech?ne also cited a 2001 FAIR study that found only 4 percent of U.S. network news reports "concerning Gaza or the West Bank mention that these are occupied territories" as an example of an "anachronism" in the documentary, because Israel had subsequently withdrawn military forces and settlements from Gaza. Under international law, however, Gaza remains an occupied territory, because Israel continues to control its borders.FAIR's finding of a chronic failure by leading American media organizations to mention the occupation is actually even more true today: a search of the Lexis Nexis database during the most recent war (12/2/08-1/18/09) reveals that the percentage of network news programs about Gaza or the West Bank that mentioned the occupation has fallen from 4 to only 2 percent. While the ombud said FAIR?s 2001 finding that only 4 percent of U.S. news reports mentioned the occupation was ?shocking,? the coverage on CBC?s own evening newscast, The National, from the same period was roughly equivalent, with only 5 percent of reports concerning Gaza or the West Bank referring to occupation. FAIR contributing writer Seth Ackerman, who authored the report, today issued a response to the president of the CBC, which is available online at: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3712. (It is also pasted in full below.) *** Dear Mr. Lacroix, I was surprised and a bit puzzled to read the remarks concerning Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (where I am now a contributing writer) in a recent report from the CBC Radio-Canada Ombudsman. The ombudsman's report, which deals with the Middle East documentary Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land, had this to say about FAIR and the use of our research by the film: This proximity between militant groups and documentary filmmakers is disconcerting. For example, one shocking item of information featured in the documentary is that only four percent of televised news reports mention that the West Bank and Gaza are ?occupied.? A small note at the bottom of the screen attributes this statistic from 2001 to the group ?Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, FAIR.? This is a pro- Palestinian media watch group, the counterpart of pro-Israeli groups likes CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in the Middle East Reporting in America) and HonestReporting, which is involved in the bulk of complaints to my office against this documentary. It is not a case of independent research.? I will address the "shocking" factual issue raised in this passage, but first I can't help but express my puzzlement at the characterization of FAIR as a "militant group," a "pro-Palestinian" pressure organization whose analyses don't constitute "independent research." I distinctly recall that in 2000, as a FAIR media analyst, I was invited by CBC Radio, along with former Canadian ambassador James Bissett and others, to analyze news coverage of the Kosovo war in a post-broadcast panel discussion of Sandra Bartlett and Michael McAuliffe's prize-winning Kosovo documentary The Road to Racak. Other FAIR spokespeople have appeared on CBC to discuss everything from Rush Limbaugh to media coverage of the Afghanistan war. Evidently the CBC ought to be more careful about screening out the extremist groups it invites on the air to discuss international affairs. It is also hard to understand why, after trying to cast a cloud of doubt over FAIR as the source of the cited statistic about TV news coverage of the West Bank and Gaza, the ombudsman apparently never attempted to discover whether the statistic was actually accurate or not. Had the ombudsman's office done so, it might have learned that this fact is easily verifiable. As the report notes, the statistic came from a November 3, 2000 online FAIR analysis (which I wrote). The analysis stated: The three major networks' evening news broadcasts-- ABC's World News Tonight, NBC Nightly News and the CBS Evening News--aired 99 stories mentioning the West Bank or the Gaza Strip from the outbreak of fighting on September 28 through November 2 [2000]. But only four of these stories informed viewers that Israeloccupies those lands. It would have been a simple matter to confirm that all of this is true. If you go to the Nexis news database, you can ascertain the number of stories containing the words "West Bank" or "Gaza" that aired on the three above-named newscasts within the specified dates, by entering the following search string: show (World News Tonight or NBC Nightly News or CBS Evening News) and date (is aft 9/27/2000 and bef11/3/2000) and West Bank or Gaza When you do so, 99 stories come up. You can then find how many of these stories mentioned that the territories are occupied simply by adding the term "and occup!" to the search string. This brings up all of the stories within these 99 that contain any variation of the word "occupied" (?occupation,? ?occupy,? ?occupying,? etc.) There are six such stories, two of which are false positives. (One refers to the occupation of Lebanon while the other refers narrowly to contested control of a specific holy site in Nablus.) Thus, it is a fact that during the first month or so of the Second Intifada, only four out of the 99 stories mentioning the West Bank or Gaza on the three main U.S. evening newscasts reported that the territories are occupied ? approximately 4%. I find it amusing that even the ombudsman's office thinks this omission on the part of the U.S. networks is "shocking." If the ombudsman?s office believes this to be an issue worth pursuing further, it might consider airing a documentary on CBC investigating pro-Israel bias in the news media. From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Feb 4 13:20:48 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 12:20:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Mapping Israeli Settlements on the West Bank Message-ID: <204446140.717641233778848893.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/mapping-israeli-settlements-on-the-west-bank/?ref=opinion ? The New York Times ??????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????? February 4, 2009 ? The Opinionator ? Mapping Israeli Settlements on the West Bank ? By Eric Etheridge ? Last Friday, Haaretz broke the news that for the last four years, the Israeli government has been compiling a database on Jewish settlements on the West Bank . The paper reports that the information ? known as the Spiegel report, after the name of the Israeli general who led the effort ? was gathered to enable the government ?to contend with legal actions brought by Palestinian residents, human rights organizations and leftist movements challenging the legality of construction in the settlements and the use of private lands to establish or expand them.? ? According to the paper?s analysis of the Spiegel report: [I]n the vast majority of the settlements ? about 75 percent ? construction, sometimes on a large scale, has been carried out without the appropriate permits or contrary to the permits that were issued. The database also shows that, in more than 30 settlements, extensive construction of buildings and infrastructure (roads, schools, synagogues, yeshivas and even police stations) has been carried out on private lands belonging to Palestinian West Bank residents. ? Haaretz also published the report online, and a reader of the blog Mondoweiss has begun taking information from the database and mapping the settlements onto a Google map, reproduced below. Click on any blue marker on the map (or view a larger map ) to see the information about each settlement from the Spiegel report. ? View Larger Map ? Writing at MondoWeiss, Adam Horowitz says the primary takeaway from the report is this: ? [W]henever you read or see a story where the Israeli government is presented as a counter balance to the ?radical settler movement? you now know this is false. The Israeli government has been supporting and expanding the settlement project in the occupied territories all along, and it is now documented. The settlements have long been viewed as an exception, out of the government?s control, an issue that will be dealt with later. They should now be viewed as the rule. From fentona at shaw.ca Wed Feb 4 14:39:15 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 13:39:15 -0800 Subject: [R-G] US plan to arm militias scares some in Afghanistan Message-ID: <417934CB-28C5-4D90-ADF3-AD5B29061EB7@shaw.ca> US plan to arm militias scares some in Afghanistan By KATHY GANNON ? 9 hours ago MAIDAN SHAHR, Afghanistan (AP) ? A U.S.-backed plan to create militias and give them guns to fight the Taliban is drawing criticism from local authorities in areas where the first units are being rolled out, raising questions as to whether the effort can succeed in Afghanistan. The militias have been compared to the U.S.-fostered Awakening Councils in Iraq, which have often been credited with reducing violence there, and are similar to neighboring Pakistan's tribal armies which also have been touted as a success. On Saturday, Afghanistan's interior minister announced the program had begun, and that the United States would be paying for all aspects, including buying Kalashnikov automatic rifles for members of the Afghan Public Protection Force. One skeptical Afghan official said only criminals would join because most citizens wouldn't want to face the Taliban in combat. And critics question the wisdom of handing out weapons to Afghans when the government and U.N. have been trying to reduce the number of arms in the country. They fear the plan could stoke rivalries between ethnic groups with a bloody past. "One of the causes of violence in Afghanistan is because most people do not give up their weapons. Now you want to again give weapons to the villages?" said Mohammed Hussain Fahimi, the deputy of the provincial council in Wardak, where officials say the units will be first deployed. "We never learn our lessons." Wardak lies southwest of the capital of Kabul and is increasingly falling under Taliban control, illustrating the growing influence of the Islamic insurgents in the years since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. Fahimi was one of several government officials and residents interviewed in Wardak by The Associated Press last week, all of whom expressed skepticism about the plan. President Barack Obama has said stabilizing Afghanistan will be a U.S. priority and plans to nearly double the number of American troops from the roughly 34,000 in the country today. He has not commented on the militia plan, but it has been endorsed by Gen. David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command and the former top commander in Iraq whose outreach to Sunni sheiks helped oust militants from key areas and sharply decreased attacks. Officials say the force will be guarding highways, schools, clinics and other government institutions. It is still not clear how large and widespread the militias will be. Col. Greg Julian, the U.S. military's spokesman in Afghanistan, said the United States will mentor, train and give back-up to the new village forces, but Afghanistan's interior ministry is in charge of the program. While Iraq's Awakening Councils are made up along tribal lines, officials say the militias in Afghanistan are to be drawn up by the local councils who are being told to make their choices based on character, not tribal affiliations. Yet few Afghans believed tribal loyalties can be avoided, with many fearful the new force would fall under the control of local warlords who could even join with the Taliban. Another council member, Mohammed Mukhlis, predicted only thieves and criminals would join the force, mostly because no one would risk being killed by the Taliban to defend the discredited government. "For the last seven years, the government didn't do anything for the nation, so people in the districts don't trust them," he said. Mukhlis's home of Saydabad will be one of the first areas to get the militias he opposes. Overrun by Taliban, Mukhlis can no longer go to his home and has moved to a walled compound closer to Kabul. "Right now I am safe here, but I don't know if in another few months I will have to move again, even closer to Kabul, to escape Taliban," he said. Wrangling by Afghanistan's various non-Pashtun ethnic groups has also marred the establishment of the village militias, officials said. The tribes in Afghanistan's east and south ? where the militias will be needed the most ? are almost exclusively Pashtun, the majority ethnic group in Afghanistan. Non-Pashtuns balk at arming ethnic Pashtuns while disarming the rest of the country. Saleh Mohammed Registani, an ethnic Tajik member of parliament, warned that a newly armed Pashtun militia would create deeper fissures between Afghanistan's Pashtun and non-Pashtun people, who are struggling to heal from decades of retaliatory attacks and discrimination. "If this goes ahead, the south will become a no-go place for non- Pashtuns and it will encourage other people to find weapons to defend themselves," Registani said. "As a non-Pashtun, if I know someone has weapons, I won't go there. These militias will eventually come together with Taliban because they are all Pashtuns and they will not fight against each other." History also suggests the militias may not work. In the 1980s, the communist government of President Najibullah, besieged by U.S.-backed mujahedeen fighters, put the job of securing villages in the hands of village militias. That backfired because villagers, frustrated by the heavy-handedness of the militias, turned to the mujahedeen for security. The United Nations has been struggling since the collapse of the Taliban to disarm Afghanistan's myriad militias, many of the gunmen loyal to warlords. The U.N. has spent millions of dollars on its Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration program, which was launched within months of the Taliban's ouster ? although some say it really got going two years late. The plan included collecting weapons and integrating warlords' private militias into army and police units. But while thousands of pieces of weaponry have been handed in, much of it is said to be antiquated. Many warlords, meanwhile, have retained their militias. "When you give everyone weapons, everyone will think they are king," said Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, who was the Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "It's not just a mistake, it is stupid." Joanna Nathan, an Afghan analyst with the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, called the militias a "quick fix" to a deteriorating security situation by both the international forces and the government of President Hamid Karzai. A similar project in 2006 armed thousands of "auxiliary police." It was soon disbanded, Nathan said, with a third joining the police and the rest disappearing ? along with their weapons. "It's a constant cycle of quick fixes," she said. Part the problem is the regular turnover of international officials who want to show some improvement during their watch and offer up new proposals. "Every few years, another set of foreigners come in and they all need to demonstrate real change in their time." Nathan said money and training should be invested in Afghanistan's police as the "absolute priority at the district level." She also said there should be an effort at "really cleaning up the Interior Ministry." "We are going to have to grit our teeth and focus on the long term," Nathan added. "There are no quick solutions." From fentona at shaw.ca Wed Feb 4 15:19:46 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:19:46 -0800 Subject: [R-G] New rules govern cleanup of tailings ponds Message-ID: <5F4F501A-E53D-45A0-9C7A-A586D0BC4F00@shaw.ca> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090204.POND04/TPStory/Environment ENVIRONMENT New rules govern cleanup of tailings ponds KATHERINE O'NEILL February 4, 2009 EDMONTON -- A controversial byproduct of oil-sands operations at the centre of an environmental scandal last spring involving 500 dead ducks will be subjected to tougher rules by Alberta's energy regulator. Tailings ponds - the toxic, watery waste left over from bitumen processing - must be cleaned up and better managed under new targets and timelines for oil-sands producers. The rules released yesterday by the Energy Resources Conservation Board were denounced by some environmental groups as too weak, while the oil-sands industry called them too tough. According to the ERCB, the changes have been in the works for about five years. However, it was only last June that a draft of the new regulations for tailings ponds was first proposed and circulated to interested groups, including oil-sands companies. This type of oil-sands pollution made international headlines last April when 500 birds died after landing on a snow-covered tailings pond at a Syncrude Canada Ltd.'s plant near Fort McMurray, Alta. Environment Canada and the Alberta government are both probing the matter, which could result in charges or hefty fines. "What happened at Syncrude really underlies the need for us to have firm goals to have tailings ponds remediated as quickly as possible," said Davis Sheremata, an ERCB spokesman. Since the late 1960s, oil-sands companies had been allowed to manage tailings ponds on a voluntary basis. Jake Irving, executive director of the Oil Sands Developers Group, said the industry has been working on the tailings ponds issue for some time, but that the new rules will be tough to meet. Alberta's oil-sands producers have until Sept. 30 to file plans with the ERCB on how they intend to comply with the new rules, including one that all tailings ponds be "trafficable" - dried out and ready for reclamation - within five years of being deemed inactive. The shallow, lake-sized tailings ponds occupy a combined area of 130 square kilometres in Northern Alberta. Shawn Davis, a Suncor Energy Inc. spokeswoman, said the company is reviewing the new rules. "It's our understanding that it's a tough directive, but that we'll absolutely be able to meet the directive and we're going to have to find ways to do it," she said. Companies that don't obey the new regulations could face sanctions, including being forced to close parts or all of their multibillion- dollar facilities. Environmental groups are concerned the rules don't go far enough. "This government should have regulated tar-sands companies to cease producing wet toxic tailings given the tremendous impacts on fish, bird, animal and potentially human populations," said Mike Hudema, a Greenpeace Canada spokesman. With a report from Nathan VanderKlippe in Calgary From shniad at sfu.ca Wed Feb 4 15:16:56 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:16:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Palestinian University Suspends Contacts With Israeli Academics In-Reply-To: <4DB7F3084C2045828C1E5A6BE850B23A@twubby.com> Message-ID: <1702775378.770791233785816829.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://chronicle.com/news/article/5908/palestinian-university-suspends-contacts-with-israeli-academics Chronicle of Higher Education ??? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? February 3, 2009 Palestinian University Suspends Contacts With Israeli?Academics Jerusalem ? The only Palestinian university to maintain ties with Israeli colleges and also to oppose international calls for a boycott of Israeli academics has suspended contacts with Israeli universities in the wake of the war in Gaza. Al Quds University, with 10,000 students on campuses in the West Bank towns of El Bireh, Abu Dis, and East Jerusalem, had been noted for its ties to Israeli academe despite years of conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. But on Sunday it froze all projects with Israeli colleges for six months, pending a policy review. The unanimous decision was prompted by Al Quds faculty members, who said they were disappointed that their joint projects with Israeli colleagues had failed to produce any tangible results and had caused friction with other Palestinian universities. The Al Quds president, Sari Nusseibeh, who in the past has opposed boycotting Israel and has called for ?cooperation based on mutual respect,? persuaded his colleagues not to break off ties permanently, but to suspend cooperation for a limited period instead. Al Quds faculty members told The Chronicle that some Arab donors, notably Kuwait, had refused to provide funds to the university because of its policy of dialogue and cooperation with Israel. Al Quds has about 60 joint projects with Israeli institutions, with a combined budget of about $5-million. ?If the two-state solution is as far away today as it was 10 years ago, there is no justification for continued academic cooperation based on reaching that solution,? said a statement issued by the Al-Quds University board and reported by the International Middle East Media Center. ?And there is no justification for continued official and nonofficial cooperation in other fields, foremost security coordination between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. Ending academic cooperation is aimed at, first of all, pressuring Israel to abide by a solution that ends the occupation, a solution that has been needed for far too long and that the international community has stopped demanding.? The report linked the decision to rising calls for an academic boycott of Israel in Canada and the United States following the recent fighting in Gaza, in which several Palestinian universities suffered millions of dollars in damage. The university board expressed disappointment over the absence of serious protest from Israeli academics, in particular, and civil-society organizations, in general, as well as the failure of those groups to ?understand the injustice that Palestinians are suffering from.? The board called on local, international, and regional academics to support the university?s stance by halting academic cooperation with Israeli institutions, the Ma?an News Agency reported. ?Matthew Kalman From fentona at shaw.ca Wed Feb 4 15:33:37 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:33:37 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Canada urged to improve human rights record Message-ID: <9712B3AA-642D-4FA6-9CF0-362CD0D052BC@shaw.ca> Canada urged to improve human rights record http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2009/02/03/europe/OUKWD-UK-UN-RIGHTS.php Reuters Tuesday, February 3, 2009 By Laura MacInnis Canada should strengthen its domestic violence laws and stop religious discrimination against Muslims, a U.N. body heard on Tuesday. Germany, Russia, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and China are among the other countries facing a review this month, under a less than year-old process that is meant to ensure all U.N. members are held to account for their rights records. In its first examination under the Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review, Canada was also urged to do more to improve the welfare of its aboriginal citizens and to review its policies on police use of Taser weapons, following the 2007 death of an unarmed Polish man at the Vancouver airport. The Canadian delegation told the 47-member state forum "no country, including Canada, has a perfect human rights record." "It is important that every country open their human rights records to scrutiny, both domestically and internationally," Canada's deputy justice minister John Sims told the session in Geneva, where both the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and Human Rights Council are based. The reviews could help the nearly three-year-old Human Rights Council gain credibility as a watchdog for wrongdoings. Since its launch in 2006, the Council has held special sessions on Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan's Darfur crisis, and Israel. The Council's predecessor, the U.N. Human Rights Commission, was seen to be largely ineffective. Canada faced questions about its anti-terrorism laws, including a controversial "special advocate" measure in which a court-appointed lawyer with high security clearance stands in the place of certain detainees in their hearings. Sims said the practice was meant to protect highly sensitive information while ensuring detainees get fair treatment. "This programme special advocates will be challenged and will work its way through the Canadian court system. It will, in this way, be tested for how well the government has struck this important balance," he said. On racial and religious profiling, he said that it was not used as it was contrary to the law. Canada's "bias-free" recruitment of police meant its force included racial or ethnic minorities less likely to engage in such practices, he said. Addressing the concerns raised that it should ratify more human rights treaties, Sims said that Canada chose not to join the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in September 2007 because it was too vague on some issues. "We are aware that Canada's position has generated a number of adverse reactions. I wish to stress, however, that Canada remains committed to fulfilling its human rights commitments to aboriginal peoples in Canada," he said. The U.N. panel also said Canada ought to accede to U.N. treaties on enforced disappearances, the rights of migrant workers, and an optional protocol to the anti-torture pact. (Editing by Stephanie Nebehay) From fentona at shaw.ca Wed Feb 4 15:35:28 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:35:28 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Harper government anti-Muslim, letter charges Message-ID: <58F4A8D5-11E0-484C-A5BD-964633E9F3DB@shaw.ca> http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/581618 Harper government anti-Muslim, letter charges 185 groups and individuals sign letter seeking return of Omar Khadr February 03, 2009 Tonda MacCharles Ottawa Bureau OTTAWA ?Advocates seeking the return of Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadrsought to pressure the Conservative government today with the release of a letter signed by 185 groups and individuals, representing a range of Canadian community leaders, academics, human rights advocates and civil liberties organizations. Khadr, a Canadian citizen charged in the death of a U.S. army medic during a gunfight in Afghanistan, is the only remaining Westerner still imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, the military prison that U.S. President Barack Obama is shutting down. An open letter released today by the Canadian Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN) urges Prime Minister Stephen Harper to respond to the move by Obama with an offer to repatriate Khadr in order to rehabilitate him and re-integrate him into Canadian society. The letter is copied to the leaders of the three Opposition parties as well. Signed by Muslim and non-Muslim lawyers, academics, and public policy commentators, the letter says Harper's silence and inaction on Khadr's case is much different than his approach to other cases, and suggests it is motivated by a lack of regard for Muslim Canadians. "Silence is no longer an option. We believe that your inaction with regards to this important case, compared to your active involvement in other cases (such as the repatriation of Brenda Martin from Mexico), has been, rightly or wrongly, interpreted by the Muslim community as indicative that your government considers Canadian Muslims to be second-class citizens." The letter, signed by CAIR-CAN's executive director Ihsaan Gardee on behalf of a long list of signatories, says Harper should counter the "growing perception within the Muslim community" and seek Khadr's return. The signatories to the letter say there is "no doubt" Khadr was a child soldier at the time he was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. They counter the government's repeated insistence that the allegations against Khadr are "very serious" with the observation that "revelations about the evidence against him cast more and more doubt as to the veracity of those allegations." The letter says it is "now clear that Omar Khadr has been tortured and abused, in Afghanistan and at Guant?namo Bay, by his American captors for over six years." With an executive order that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp will close, and offers by European countries to take individuals who are non-citizens, the signatories state the Harper government's stance is "in stark contrast to that spirit of generosity." "We do hope that your government will reverse its position immediately and ask for Omar Khadr's repatriation to Canada without any further delay. He deserves rehabilitation and justice and he can only receive them in his country of citizenship." Among the groups which signed are Arab Canadian Lawyers Association, Canadian Arab Federation, Canadian Islamic Congress, Canadian Muslim Civil Liberties Association, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group and the Salaheddin Islamic Centre. Individual signatories include: Amnesty International Canada's Alex Neve, and three of four other Canadians once detained and tortured in Syria - Ahmad Abou-Elmaati, Maher Arar, and Muayyed Nuredin. Also signing the letter are NDP MP Libby Davies, former UN ambassador Stephen Lewis, University of Windsor law professor David Tanovich, Queen's University professor Don Stuart, former B.C. Human Rights commission director Kathleen Ruff, and several lawyers involved in other national security cases. From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Feb 4 20:10:29 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 21:10:29 -0600 Subject: [R-G] RCMP agent concedes key role in set-up, running of terrorist training camp Message-ID: (Our taxpayer dollars at work....) RCMP agent concedes key role in set-up, running of terrorist training camp COLIN FREEZE Globe and Mail Update January 31, 2009 at 2:11 AM EST BRAMPTON, ONT. - Mubin Shaikh always had the makings of becoming the great Canadian spy. In his teens, he was a drill sergeant in the cadets. While still in his early 20s, he started volunteering information to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. A few years ago, at age 30, the Canadian-born Muslim was publicly advocating for sharia law while privately making $1,500 a month for informing on Islamic extremists. He submitted an application to be a CSIS intelligence officer, but was not upset when turned down. "I was happy it did not work out," Mr. Shaikh, now 33, testified Friday in a Brampton court. "I was interested in a more central role." Defence lawyers put him on the stand Friday alleging he played a central role - and then some - in unfurling Canada's most high-profile terrorism conspiracy. Calling Mr. Shaikh an "agent provocateur" they suggested that, in the cause of fighting terrorism, he committed terrorist offences himself. Ten adults have yet to face trial in the 2006 conspiracy, whose key elements now notoriously involve a winter training camp, an alleged bomb plot and some chatter by would-be jihadists about storming Parliament and beheading politicians. While trials are far off for the people accused of being the ringleaders, a young man whose case was peripheral, but proceeded faster, was found guilty last fall of being part of a terrorist group. The landmark verdict was hailed as an important bellwether for the wider case and test of Canada's counterterrorism laws. The conviction has not technically been registered, pending the outcome of the defence's abuse-of-process motion to have the charges stayed. The defence has argued this week that without Mubin Shaikh, there would have been no terrorist conspiracy. The young man's lawyers called Mr. Shaikh this week to recap his work infiltrating a group of young extremists, first as a CSIS informant, but ultimately as a police agent. Posing as a committed jihadist, he gave the group tips on countersurveillance, led paramilitary training exercises, and even bought a rifle for a ringleader (before getting rid of it, unfired). "I thought that if the RCMP didn't tell me I couldn't do it, I inferred that I could do it," Mr. Shaikh testified. But Mitchell Chernovsky, the lawyer for the defendant, now 21, plans to argue that the police agent committed more illegal acts than his client, found guilty of participating in terrorist training led by Mr. Shaikh. The lawyer is arguing that police agents cannot commit crimes to unfurl wider conspiracies - at least not unless special strictures are followed. Beyond, that Mr. Chernovsky suggests, federal agents have a moral obligation not to entrap vulnerable youth. "Did you ever tell anyone clearly and unambiguously terrorism was wrong," he asked Mr. Shaikh. The agent replied, "not so much." The voluble witness agreed he played his role "to the hilt," becoming a mentor, a role model and drill sergeant to young recruits. Unlike ringleaders whom he said were demonstrably dangerous, he characterized the younger recruits as sheep who were easily manipulated. Regardless, "I could not come out and say terrorism is against Islam. . I had to play my role," Mr. Shaikh said. He added that he tried to drop hints aimed at turning the teen away from terrorism, at least when no one else was watching. "I liken it to the breadcrumbs of Hansel and Gretel," he said. "I tried to leave a trail where I could." Charges were stayed long ago against other teenagers who were accused of peripheral involvement. The youth at hand, a zealous convert arrested shortly before his 18th birthday, remains the only non-adult offender before the courts. A publication ban shields the identity of all accused. Mr. Shaikh testified that he understood himself to be a police agent at the time he led training exercises. This is an important distinction for the legal argument, and it's anticipated that next week, Crown witnesses, including Mr. Shaikh's police and CSIS handlers, will try to rebut it. ============== Fresh Ink is an alternative news service and sister project of Booksinternationale.com. Join us! http://booksinternationale.info/mailman/listinfo/freshink ============== From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Feb 4 20:20:27 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 21:20:27 -0600 Subject: [R-G] South African Dock Workers Won't Unload Israeli Goods Message-ID: South African Dock Workers Won't Unload Israeli Goods Associated Press February 4, 2009 JOHANNESBURG South African dock workers won't unload ships carrying goods from Israel in solidarity with the Palestinians, a union leader said Wednesday. Randall Howard, general secretary of the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union, said it appeared a ship carrying goods from Israel was nearing Durban's port. If once the ship docks its cargo is determined to be Israeli, he said, union workers won't unload it. "We will make that contribution," he said. "The historic and heroic struggle of the Palestinian people for self-determination ... is a struggle that SATAWU supports." Last year, South African dock and freight workers refused to unload a ship carrying weapons for Zimbabwe to protest Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's rule of the neighboring country. In the case of Israeli goods, Howard said, it did not matter whether they were weapons of vegetables. "If it's an Israeli product, we're going to boycott it, plain and simple," he said. In Israel, Foreign Minister spokesman Yigal Palmor said: "If these people think that by refusing to unload shipments from Israel they are promoting peace they should go back to school because they have misread the situation in the Middle East big time." Israel's three-week military offensive against Gaza, which killed hundreds of civilians before ending last month, sparked protests in South Africa. Israel says the operation was aimed at halting Hamas rocket fire from Gaza. Howard, decrying Palestinian as well as Israeli violence, says Israeli attacks were "extremely disproportionate." Strong South Africa-Israel ties cultivated by the white government in the apartheid era have been maintained since the onset of majority rule. South Africa also has a close relationship with Palestinians, thanks to long- standing connections between the governing African National Congress and the Palestinian Liberation Organization. ------ Associated Press Writer Aron Heller in Jerusalem contributed to this report. ============== Fresh Ink is an alternative news service and sister project of Booksinternationale.com. Join us! http://booksinternationale.info/mailman/listinfo/freshink ============== From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Thu Feb 5 03:44:44 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:44:44 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] An Introduction to the Employer of Last Resort Proposal Message-ID: <498AC31C.6000600@ashisuto.co.jp> A New WPA? by Ryan A Dodd Dollars & Sense magazine (March / April 2008) Dark clouds are now looming over America's economic future. As first the stock market boom and then the housing boom have come to an end, along with the fountains of cheap credit that were their mainspring, the perennial gale of unemployment is blowing in. The president and Congress have addressed the downturn with tax rebates and talk of "debt relief". Meanwhile, public infrastructure is crumbling. Workers' wages are stagnating while their work hours are rising. Health insurance is becoming less and less affordable for the typical family. And as US military spending escalates, government spending on essential services is drastically reduced. All of these facts serve to remind us that capitalist economies are inherently unstable and structurally incapable of creating full employment at decent wages and benefits. While tax rebates and debt relief may provide some minor protection from the coming economic storm, these measures are temporary - and inadequate - responses to a perpetual problem. As an alternative to these ad hoc policies or, worse yet, the free-market fundamentalism still widely preached in Washington, some economists and policymakers, in the United States and abroad, are touting a policy that seeks to end unemployment via a government promise to provide a job to anyone ready, willing, and able to work. Argentina's Experiment in Direct Job Creation In early December 2001, following nearly two decades of neoliberal restructuring, the Argentine economy collapsed. Apparently, two decades of privatization, liberalization, and government austerity, ushered in by Argentina's brutal military junta (in power from 1976 to 1983), were not enough to sate the appetites of global financial capital: earlier that year the International Monetary Fund had withheld $1.3 billion in loans the country needed to service its $142 billion external debt. In response to the IMF's action, the government froze all bank accounts (although many wealthy Argentines managed to relocate their funds abroad before the freeze) and drastically cut government spending. As a consequence, the economy experienced a severe depression as incomes and expenditures fell through the floor. The unemployment rate shot up to a record 21.5% by May 2002, with over fifty percent of the population living in poverty. The popular response to the crisis was massive. Protests and demonstrations erupted throughout the country. The government went through five presidents in the course of a month. Workers eventually reclaimed dozens of abandoned factories and created democratically run cooperative enterprises, many of which are still in operation today and are part of a growing co-op movement. Reclaiming factories was a lengthy and difficult process, however, and the immediate problem of unemployment remained. In response, in April 2002 the Argentine government put into place a direct job creation program known as Plan Jefes de Hogar ("Heads-of-Household Plan"), which promised a job to all heads of households satisfying certain requirements. In order to qualify, a household had to include a child under the age of eighteen, a person with a disability, or a pregnant woman; the household head had to be unemployed; and each household was generally limited to only one participant in the program. The program provided households with 150 pesos a month for four hours of work a day, five days a week. Program participants mainly engaged in the provision of community services and/or participated in worker training programs administered by local nonprofits. While limited in scope and viewed by many in the government as an emergency measure, the program was incredibly successful and popular with its workers. It provided jobs and incomes to roughly two million workers, or thirteen percent of Argentina's labor force, as well as desperately needed goods and services - from community gardens to small construction projects - to severely depressed neighborhoods. The entry of many women into the program, while their husbands continued to look for jobs in the private sector, had a liberating effect on traditional family structures. And by some accounts, the program helped facilitate the cooperative movement that subsequently emerged with the takeover of abandoned factories. Not surprisingly, as Argentina's economy has recovered from the depths of the crisis, the government has recently made moves to discontinue this critical experiment in direct job creation. "Employer of Last Resort" The Argentine experience with direct job creation represents a real-world example of what is often referred to as the employer of last resort (ELR) proposal by a number of left academics and public policy advocates. Developed over the course of the past two decades, the ELR proposal is based on a rather simple idea. In a capitalist economy, with most people dependent on private employment for their livelihoods, the government has a unique responsibility to guarantee full employment. This responsibility has been affirmed in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which includes a right to employment. A commitment to full employment is also official US government policy as codified in the Employment Act of 1946 and the Humphrey-Hawkins Act of 1976. Although many versions of the ELR proposal have been put forward, they all revolve around the idea that national governments could guarantee full employment by providing a job to anyone ready, willing, and able to work. The various proposals differ mainly on the wage and benefit packages they would provide to participants. The most common proposal calls for paying all participants a universal basic wage and benefit package, regardless of skills, work experience, or prior earnings. This wage and benefit package would then form the effective minimum for both the public and private sectors of the economy. After fixing a wage and benefit package, the government would allow the quantity of workers in the program to float, rising and falling in response to cyclical fluctuations in private-sector employment. As with Argentina's program, ELR proposals typically call for participants to work in projects to improve their local communities - everything from basic infrastructure projects to a Green Jobs Corps. Most ELR proponents also advocate a decentralized approach similar to Argentina's, with local public or nonprofit institutions planning and administering the projects, though it is essential that the program be funded at the national level. This raises an important question: How will governments pay for such a large-scale program? Wouldn't an ELR program require significantly raising taxes or else result in exploding budget deficits? Can governments really afford to employ everyone who wants a job but cannot find one in the private economy? Advocates of ELR address the issue of affordability in different ways, but all agree that the benefits to society vastly outweigh the expense. Many ELR advocates go even further, arguing that any talk of "costs" to society misrepresents the nature of the problem of unemployment. The existence of unemployed workers represents a net cost to society, in terms of lost income and production as well as the psychological and social stresses that result from long spells of unemployment. Employing them represents a net benefit, in terms of increased incomes and enhanced individual and social wellbeing. The real burden of an ELR program, from the perspective of society, is thus effectively zero. Most estimates of the direct cost of an ELR program are in the range of less than one percent of GDP per year. For the United States, this was less than $132 billion in 2006, or about five percent of the federal budget. (By way of comparison, in 2006 the US government spent over $120 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - and that figure does not include the cost of lives lost or ruined or the future costs incurred, for example, for veterans' health care.) Furthermore, an ELR program provides benefits to society in the form of worker retraining, enhanced public infrastructure, and increased social output (for example, cleaner parks and cities, free child care, public performances, et cetera). By increasing the productivity of those participants who attend education or training programs, an ELR program would also decrease real costs throughout the economy. Estimates of program costs take into account a reduction in other forms of social assistance such as food stamps, cash assistance, and unemployment insurance, which would instead be provided to ELR participants in the form of a wage and benefit package. Of course, those who cannot work would still be eligible for these and other forms of assistance. Today, the ELR idea is mostly confined to academic journals and conferences. Still, proponents can point to a number of little known real-world examples their discussions have helped to shape. For example, the Argentine government explicitly based its Jefes de Hogar program on the work of economists associated with the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability (CFEPS) at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Daniel Kostzer, an economist at the Argentine Ministry of Labor and one of the main architects of the program, had become familiar with the CFEPS proposal and was attempting to create such a program in Argentina a few years before the collapse provided him with the necessary political support. Similar experiments are being considered or are currently underway in India, France, and Bolivia. Advocates of ELR proposals can also be found at the Levy Economics Institute (US), the Center for Full Employment and Equity (Australia), and the National Jobs for All Coalition (US). The Case for Direct Job Creation Involuntary unemployment is a fundamental and inherent feature of a capitalist economy left to its own devices. In a society where most people depend on employment in the private sector for their livelihood, the inability of a capitalist economy to consistently create enough jobs for all who seek work is deeply troubling, pointing to the need for intervention from outside of the private sector. ELR advocates view national governments - with their unique spending ability, and with their role as, in principle, democratically accountable social institutions - as the most logical institutions for collective action to bring about full employment. In addition, government job creation is viewed as the simplest and most direct means for overcoming the problem of involuntary unemployment in a capitalist economy. The standard mainstream response to the problem of unemployment is to blame the victims of capitalism for lacking the necessary talents, skills, and effort to get and keep a job. Hence, the mainstream prescription is to promote policies aimed at enhancing the "human capital" of workers in order to make them more "competitive" in a rapidly globalizing economy. The response of ELR advocates is that such policies, if they accomplish anything at all, simply redistribute unemployment and poverty more equitably. For example, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of unemployed workers (including so-called "discouraged" and "underemployed" workers) in August 2007 was 16.4 million, while the number of job vacancies was 4.1 million. No amount of investment in human capital is going to change the fact that there simply aren't enough jobs to go around. Advocates of ELR also consistently reject the Keynesian rubric, with its focus on demand-management strategies - that is, policies aimed at increasing aggregate demand for the output of the economy. This approach has been pursued either directly, through government spending on goods and services (including transfer payments to households), or indirectly, largely through policies intended to increase private investment. Such an approach exacerbates inequality by biasing policy in favor of the already well-to-do, through tax cuts and investment credits to wealthy individuals and powerful corporations. These policies also tend to privilege the more highly skilled and better-paid workers found in the industries that generally benefit from the government's largesse (often arms manufacturers and other military-related companies). For example, much of the increase in government spending during the Cold War era went into the high-tech, capital-intensive, and oligopolized sectors of the economy. Capital-intensive industries require relatively small amounts of labor, and, thus, produce little employment growth per dollar of government expenditure. Under this policy approach, the most that lower-paid or unemployed workers could hope for would be to snatch a few crumbs from the great corporate feast as the economy expanded over time. In contrast to both the human-capital and demand-management approaches, ELR provides a means for rapidly achieving zero involuntary unemployment. By definition, anyone who is unemployed and chooses not to accept the ELR offer would be considered voluntarily unemployed. Many individuals with sufficient savings and decent job prospects may forgo the opportunity to participate in the ELR program, but ELR always provides them with a backup option. In addition to the immediate effects of ELR on employment, the program acts as an "automatic stabilizer" in the face of cyclical fluctuations in the private sector of the economy. During a recession, the number of participants in the program can be expected to grow as people are laid off and/or find it increasingly difficult to find private-sector employment. The opposite happens during the recovery phase of the business cycle, as people find it easer to find private-sector employment at wages above the ELR minimum. As a result, ELR advocates argue, the existence of such a program would dampen fluctuations in private-sector activity by setting a floor to the decline in incomes and employment. A final and less discussed benefit of the program is its socializing effect. The example of Argentina is instructive in this respect. The nature of employment in the Jefes program, oriented as it was toward community rather than market imperatives, created a sense of public involvement and responsibility. Participants reported increases in morale and often continued to work beyond the four hours a day for which they were getting paid; they appreciated the cooperative nature of most of the enterprises and their focus on meeting essential community needs as opposed to quarterly profit targets. By expanding the public sphere, the Jefes program created a spirit of democratic participation in the affairs of the community, unmediated by the impersonal relations of market exchange. These are the kinds of experiences that are essential if capitalist societies are to move beyond the tyranny of the market and toward more cooperative and democratic forms of social organization. Some economists and advocates have pressed for a similar proposal, the basic income guarantee (BIG). Instead of guaranteeing jobs, under this proposal the government would guarantee a minimum income to everyone by simply giving cash assistance to anyone earning below that level, in an amount equal to the gap between his or her actual income and the established basic income. (Hence this proposal is sometimes referred to as a "negative income tax".) BIG is an important idea deserving wider discussion than it has so far received. But ELR advocates have a number of concerns. One is that a BIG program is inherently inflationary: by providing income without putting people to work, it creates an additional claim on output without directly increasing the production of that output. Another is that BIG programs are less politically palatable - and hence less sustainable - than ELR schemes, which benefit society at large through the provision of public works and other social goods, and which avoid the stigma attached to "welfare" programs. Finally, a job offers social and psychological benefits that an income payment alone does not: maintaining and enhancing work skills, keeping in contact with others, and having the satisfaction of contributing to society. When, for instance, participants in Argentina's Jefes program were offered an income in place of a job, most refused; they preferred to work. Consequently, ELR programs meet the same objectives as basic income guarantee schemes and more, without the negative side effects of inflation and stigmatization. Nonetheless, a BIG program may be appropriate for those who should not be expected to work. Learning from the Past The idea that the government in a capitalist economy should provide jobs for the unemployed is not new. In the United States, the various New Deal agencies created during the Great Depression of the 1930s offer a well-known example. Organizations such as the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps were designed to deal with the massive unemployment of that period. Unemployment peaked at almost 25% of the civilian labor force in 1933 and averaged over seventeen percent for the entire decade. These programs were woefully inadequate, largely due to their limited scale. It ultimately took the massive increases in government expenditure precipitated by the Second World War to pull the US economy out of depression. The onset of the postwar "Golden Age" and the dominance of Keynesian economics sounded the death knell of direct job creation as a solution to unemployment. The interwar public employment strategy was replaced with a "demand-management" strategy - essentially a sort of trickle-down economics in which various tax incentives and government expenditure programs, mainly military spending, were used to stimulate private investment. Policymakers believed that this would spur economic growth. The twin problems of poverty and unemployment would then be eliminated since, according to President Kennedy's famous aphorism, "a rising tide lifts all boats". In the mid-1960s, the civil rights movement revived the idea of direct job creation as a solution to the problems of poverty and unemployment. Although the Kennedy and Johnson administrations had declared a so-called War on Poverty, the movement's call for direct job creation fell on deaf ears as the Johnson administration, at the behest of its Council of Economic Advisers, pursued a more conservative approach based on the standard combination of supply-side incentives to increase private investment and assorted strategies to "improve" workers' "human capital" so as to make them more attractive to private employers. The rise to dominance of neoliberalism since the mid-1970s has resulted in a full-scale retreat from even the mildly social democratic policies of the early postwar period. While a commitment to full employment remains official US economic policy, the concerns of central bankers and financial capitalists now rule the roost in government circles. This translates into a single-minded obsession with fighting inflation at the expense of all other economic and social objectives. Not only is fighting inflation seemingly the only concern of economic policy, it is seen to be in direct conflict with the goal of full employment (witness the widespread acceptance among economists and policymakers of the NAIRU, or "non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment" theory, which posits that the economy has a set-point for unemployment, well above zero, below which rapidly rising inflation must occur). Whenever falling unemployment leads to concerns about "excessive" wage growth, central banks are expected to raise interest rates in an attempt to force slack on the economy and thereby decrease inflationary pressures. The resulting unemployment acts as a kind of discipline, tempering the demands of working-class people for higher wages or better working conditions in favor of the interests of large commercial and financial institutions. The postwar commitment to full employment has finally been sacrificed on the altar of price stability. ELR and Capitalism As demonstrated by the history of public employment programs in the United States and the example of Argentina, direct job-creation programs do not happen absent significant political pressure from below. This is the case whether or not those calling for change explicitly demand an ELR program. Given the hegemonic position of neoliberal ideology, there are many powerful forces today that would be hostile to the idea of governments directly creating jobs for the unemployed. These forces represent a critical barrier to the implementation of an ELR program. In fact, these forces represent a critical barrier to virtually any project for greater social and economic justice. The purpose of initiating a wider discussion of ELR proposals is to build them into more comprehensive programs for social and economic justice. As is always the case, this requires the building of mass-based social movements advocating for these and other progressive policies. A significant objection to the ELR proposal remains: it's capitalism, stupid. If you don't like unemployment, poverty, and inequality - not to mention war, environmental destruction, and alienating and exploitative work - then you don't like capitalism, and you should seek alternatives instead of reformist employment policies. ELR advocates would not disagree. In the face of the overlapping and myriad problems afflicting a capitalist economy, the achievements of even a full-scale ELR program would be limited. The political difficulties involved in establishing an ELR program in the first place, in the face of opposition from powerful elements of society, would be immense. And certainly, the many experiments in non-capitalist forms of economic and social organization currently being carried out, for example, in the factories of Argentina and elsewhere, should be championed. But it is fair to ask: shouldn't we also champion living wage laws, a stronger social safety net for those who cannot or should not be expected to work, and universal health care - as well as an end to imperialist wars of aggression, environmentally unsustainable practices, and the degradation of work? In sum, shouldn't we seek to alleviate the symptoms of capitalism, even as we work toward a better economic system? _____ Ryan A. Dodd is a PhD student in economics and a research associate at the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, both at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Sources: Joseph Halevi, "The Argentine Crisis", Monthly Review (April 2002); Pavlina Tcherneva, "Macroeconomic Stabilization Policy in Argentina: A Case Study of the 2002 Currency Collapse and Crisis Resolution through Job Creation" (Bard College Working Paper, 2007); L Randall Wray, Understanding Modern Money: The Key to Full Employment and Price Stability (Edward Elgar, 1998); Congressional Research Service, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11, updated 7/07; National Jobs for All Coalition, September 2007 Unemployment Data; Nancy Rose, "Historicizing Government Work Programs: A Spectrum from Workfare to Fair Work" (Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, Seminar Paper No 2, March 2000); Judith Russell, Economics, Bureaucracy and Race: How Keynesians Misguided the War on Poverty (Columbia University Press, 2004); Fadhel Kaboub, "Employment Guarantee Programs: A Survey of Theories and Policy Experiences" (Levy Economics Institute, Working Paper No 498, May 2007). Copyright (c) 2009 Economic Affairs Bureau, Inc. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0308dodd.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Feb 5 04:26:49 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 05:26:49 -0600 Subject: [R-G] Restructuring the U.S. Transport System: The Potential of High-Speed Rail Message-ID: <627A7A1B31274BAE9FE8C7D1431904A4@agingCHS072729> http://www.earthpolicy.org/Books/Seg/PB3ch11_ss5.htm Book Bytes RESTRUCTURING THE U.S. TRANSPORT SYSTEM: THE POTENTIAL OF HIGH-SPEED RAIL Lester R. Brown Aside from the overriding need to stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels to stabilize climate, there are several other compelling reasons for countries everywhere to restructure their transport systems, including the need to prepare for falling oil production, to alleviate traffic congestion, and to reduce air pollution. The U.S. car-centered transportation model, with three cars for every four people, that much of the world aspires to will not likely be viable over the long term even for the United States, much less for everywhere else. The shape of future transportation systems centers around the changing role of the automobile. This in turn is being influenced by the transition from a predominantly rural global society to a largely urban one. By 2020 close to 55 percent of us will be living in cities, where the role of cars is diminishing. In Europe, where this process is well along, car sales in almost every country have peaked and are falling. With world oil output close to peaking, there will not be enough economically recoverable oil to support a world fleet expansion along U.S. lines or, indeed, to sustain the U.S. fleet. Oil shocks are now a major security risk. The United States, where 88 percent of the 133 million working people travels to work by car, is dangerously vulnerable. Beyond the desire to stabilize climate, drivers almost everywhere are facing gridlock and worsening congestion that are raising both frustration and the cost of doing business. In the United States, the average commuting time for workers has increased steadily since the early 1980s. The automobile promised mobility, but after a point its growing numbers in an increasingly urbanized world offer only the opposite: immobility. While the future of transportation in cities lies with a mix of light rail, buses, bicycles, cars, and walking, the future of intercity travel over distances of 500 miles or less belongs to high-speed trains. Japan, with its high-speed bullet trains, has pioneered this mode of travel. Operating at speeds up to 190 miles per hour, Japan's bullet trains carry almost a million passengers a day. On some of the heavily used intercity high-speed rail lines, trains depart every three minutes. Beginning in 1964 with the 322-mile line from Tokyo to Osaka, Japan's high-speed rail network now stretches for 1,360 miles, linking nearly all its major cities. One of the most heavily traveled links is the original line between Tokyo and Osaka, where the bullet trains carry 117,000 passengers a day. The transit time of two hours and 30 minutes between the two cities compares with a driving time of eight hours. High-speed trains save time as well as energy. Although Japan's bullet trains have carried billions of passengers over 40 years at high speeds, there has not been a single casualty. Late arrivals average 6 seconds. If we were selecting seven wonders of the modern world, Japan's high-speed rail system surely would be among them. While the first European high-speed line, from Paris to Lyon, did not begin operation until 1981, Europe has made enormous strides since then. As of early 2007 there were 3,034 miles (4,883 kilometers) of high-speed rail operating in Europe, with 1,711 more miles to be added by 2010. The goal is to have a Europe-wide high-speed rail system integrating the new eastern countries including Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, into a continental network by 2020. Once high-speed links between cities begin operating, they dramatically raise the number of people traveling by train between cities. For example, when the Paris-to-Brussels link, a distance of 194 miles that is covered by train in 85 minutes, opened, the share of those traveling between the two cities by train rose from 24 percent to 50 percent. The car share dropped from 61 percent to 43 percent, and CO2-intensive plane travel virtually disappeared. Carbon dioxide emissions per passenger mile on Europe's high-speed trains are one third those of its cars and only one fourth those of its planes. In the Plan B economy, CO2 emissions from trains will essentially be zero, since they will be powered by green electricity. In addition to being comfortable and convenient, these rail links reduce air pollution, congestion, noise, and accidents. They also free travelers from the frustrations of traffic congestion and long airport security lines. Existing international links are being joined by links between Paris and Stuttgart, Frankfurt and Paris, and a link from the Channel Tunnel to London that cuts the London-Paris travel time to scarcely two hours and 20 minutes. On the newer lines, trains are operating at up to 200 miles per hour. There is a huge gap in high-speed rail between Japan and Europe on one hand and the rest of the world on the other. The United States has the Acela Express that links Washington, New York, and Boston, but neither its speed nor its reliability comes close to the trains in Japan and Europe. China is beginning to develop high-speed trains linking some of its major cities. The one introduced in 2007 from Beijing to Shanghai reduced travel time from 12 to 10 hours. China now has 3,750 miles of high-speed track and plans to double this by 2020. In the United States, the need both to cut carbon emissions and to prepare for shrinking oil supplies calls for a shift in investment from roads and highways to railways. In 1956 U.S. President Eisenhower launched the interstate highway system, justifying it on national security grounds. Today the threat of climate change and the insecurity of oil supplies both argue for the construction of a high-speed electrified rail system, for both passenger and freight traffic. The relatively small amount of additional electricity needed could come from renewable sources, mainly wind farms. The passenger rail system would be modeled after those of Japan and Europe. A high-speed transcontinental line that averaged 170 miles per hour would mean traveling coast-to-coast in 15 hours, even with stops in major cities along the way. There is a parallel need to develop an electrified national rail freight network that would greatly reduce the need for long-haul trucks. Any meaningful global effort to cut transport CO2 emissions begins with the United States, which consumes more gasoline than the next 20 countries combined, including Japan, China, Russia, Germany, and Brazil. The United States-with 238 million vehicles out of the global 860 million, or roughly 28 percent of the world total-not only has the largest automobile fleet in the world but is near the top in miles driven per car and near the bottom in fuel efficiency. Three initiatives are needed in the United States. One is a meaningful gasoline tax. Phasing in a gasoline tax of 40? per gallon per year for the next 12 years and offsetting it with a reduction in income taxes would raise the U.S. gasoline tax to the $4-5 per gallon prevailing today in Europe. Combined with the rising price of gas itself, such a tax should be more than enough to encourage a shift to more fuel-efficient cars. The second measure is raising the fuel-efficiency standard from the 22 miles per gallon of cars sold in 2006 to 45 miles per gallon by 2020, a larger increase than the 35 miles per gallon approved by Congress in late 2007. This would help move the U.S. automobile industry in a fuel-efficient direction. Third, reaching CO2 reduction goals depends on a heavy shift of transportation funds from highway construction to urban transit and intercity rail construction. For more information on restructuring transport systems, including the use of buses, bicycles, and congestion charging, see Chapter 10, "Designing Cities for People," in Lester Brown's latest book, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, available on-line at www.earthpolicy.org/Books/PB3/index.htm. Adapted from Chapter 11, "Raising Energy Efficiency," in Lester R. Brown, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008), available for free downloading and purchase at www.earthpolicy.org/Books/PB3/index.htm Released February 3, 2009 Earth Policy Institute Email: epi at earth-policy.org ============== Fresh Ink is an alternative news service and sister project of Booksinternationale.com. Join us! http://booksinternationale.info/mailman/listinfo/freshink ============== From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Feb 5 04:53:58 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 05:53:58 -0600 Subject: [R-G] A Canadian Ecosocialist at the World Social Forum Message-ID: http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=618 A Canadian Ecosocialist at the World Social Forum February 3, 2009 Cy Gonick, publisher and co-ordinating editor of Canada's longest-running left-wing magazine, Canadian Dimension ( http://www.canadiandimension.com/index.php ), was in Belem, Brazil, last week, for the World Social Forum. The following are excerpts from his emails from Belem. The full text of Cy's letters can be found on the Canadian Dimension Blog. http://www.canadiandimension.com/blog/ Day One An estimated hundred thousand delegates opened the 2009 World Social Forum with a spirited march down the main street of this northern port city of Belem in the heart of the Amazon. An equal number of local residents lined the streets observing the carnival-like demonstration and cheering on the boisterous marchers along with their drummers, banners and chanters. . This veteran marcher/activist had never before been surrounded by such a sea of humanity as committed as himself to changing the world. I can say that the feeling was exhilarating, bordering on jubilation -knowing all the work in organizing, capacity building and struggles of so many diverse movements that brought these people together but with the usual caution that so much more needs to be done. Day Two For me the most exciting thing that happened at the WSF today was the moment the roof collapsed with the ceiling fan crashing down a few feet from where I was sitting in a meeting room along with 60 others listening intently to a presentation against the principle of compensation for environmental damage. This was the first of a series of presentations on ecosocialism at the 2009WSF, the ones I especially came here to participate in. The concept we were introduced to is that no level of compensation is sufficient to cover the forever damage to nature inflicted by giant resource corporations in the course of their everyday operations. The only acceptable remedy is one of fully repairing the damage/loss so that the land/waters/air is left in the same shape as it was prior to so-called development. It was just at the point that Terisa Turner (of the University of Guelph and an occasional contributor to Canadian Dimension) rose to ask how very poor indigenous peoples faced with an offer of a large cash compensation could turn it down, that the roof caved in! Fortunately no one was injured. Day Three This session, sub-titled "The Significance of the WSF of the Participation of the Indigenous Peoples of the World" examined the WSF's special effort to include indigenous peoples in the planning as well as the content of the Forum. It was explained to us by J'ai Sen who chaired the session, that the first few years of the Forum were planned as "white settler" events with virtually no provision for first peoples. That began to change as the WSF shifted from Brazil to Nairobi and Mumbai. But it was only at this 2009 WSF in Belem that a real effort was to be made to not only have a strong indigenous presence at the Forum but their involvement in its planning. Presentations were made by indigenous representatives from Columbia, India, Peru (Hugo Blanco) and Canada (Ben Powers). The meeting was conducted in classic participatory style with statements invited from the audience being responded to by the main speakers. Hugo Blanco, the remarkably vigorous revolutionary peasant leader, now in his mid 80s, is the leader of the Campesino Confederation of Peru. He added a strong anti-capitalist flavour to the session and his perspective seemed to be fully supported by the other speakers. The most insightful presentation was provided by the Canadian, Ben Powers of the Indigenous Environmental Movement. Ben also acted as translator for Blanco and other speakers. More than a thousand indigenous peoples, mainly from within Brazil, made their way to Belem, a two week journey for many of them. Day 4 The three hour session I attended was really interesting. Sponsored by the Ecosocialist International Network, an organization I'm active in, the session featured a discussion on indigenous peoples and ecosocialism with presentations mainly by Brazilian ecosocialists. The session was chaired by Beatriz Leandro of the Brazilian Network of Socialists. The session opened with Ana Isla, a South American scholar now teaching at Brock University and on the editorial Board of Capitalism, Socialism, Nature, summarizing her research on the impact of the development of the rainforest in Costa Rica that eats up the soil and robs the people of the trees that produce their food and livelihood, eventually displacing them into the cities where women are forced into the sex trade. Adilson Viera, Secretary General of the Workers Union of the Amazon, described how the resource workers he represents, like fishermen, are ecosocialists in everything but name, resisting the encroachment of capital that destroys their livelihood. In his history of ecosocialism in Brazil, Mauricius Laxe (Brazilian Network of Ecosocialists) described how it started back in 1991 with the ecosocialist manifesto for Brazil that attracted over a hundred supporters back then. A year later in response to the UN's Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, regarded by them as capital's response to the environmental crisis, they organized the march of the oppressed. In 1996 the association of socialists and environmentalists of northern Brazil was formed and signed onto the first ecosocialist manifesto drawn up by Joel Kovel and Michael Lowy on the occasion of the 2003 World Social Formation. A second ecosocialist manifesto has been drafted for this 2009 WSF meeting. During the discussion following the presentation, Laxe said that the term 'socialist' is a drawback especially among peasants and indigenous peoples, and suggested that ecosocialism be replaced by ecopolitics. That generated awide ranging discussion. We were informed that the ultra violent Shining Path Maoist group has given socialism a very bad name in Peru. Joel Kovel intervened to say that in the old USSR, Leon Trotsky expressed total contempt for rural existence, resulting in a troubled legacy for socialism among peasants everywhere. Joel went on to give a short discourse on how in his last ten years, Marx began to re-evaluate his theses that all peoples had to pass through several stages of history and that none could be skipped and in particular, that capitalism could not be skipped to arrive at the socialist stage. He hinted towards the end of his life that communal societies might not have to go through capitalism. Joel suggested that ecosocialists need to return to this question as it relates to indigenous peoples in the age of globalization. By this time the ageless Peruvian revolutionary Hugo Blanco joined the session and offered a number of points including that the two features indigenous peoples "from Canada to Chile" have in common are collectivism and love of nature and that in their 500 year resistance to capitalist encroachment on their lands they are natural ecosocialists. Day Five The three hour session on ecosocialism featured two very good talks one by Joel Kovel, author of the fabulous book, The Enemy of Nature; the other by Terisa Turner, a prof at Guelph University in Canada. Both Joel and Terisa have contributed articles to Canadian Dimension sometime in the past two or three years. Joel Kovel is really the father of ecosocialism. He described how this was the second gathering of ecosocialists from around the world, the first having taken place in Paris in 2007. There, a small group of mainly northern intellectuals decided that it was important that the second gathering include a large contingent of indigenous people from the global south. That?s why they chose to meet in Belem, smack in the middle of the Amazon. Joel boldly stated that the only way to save the planet is to end capital?s compulsion to grow. Some form of world government is necessary to impose limits to growth which, if effective, would collapse the capitalist system since its existence requires endless accumulation. But societies will only transcend capitalism with ecosocialism which he defined as production based on free association of workers combined with ecocentric means and ends. Whereas absentee owners can easily damage the environment, when workers come to own the means of production they work with, they are much less likely to damage, let alone destroy nature which they are part of, depending upon it for both their survival and their comforts. In his concluding remarks Joel said that, inspired by the ecosocialist measures of Cuba and Bolivia under Evo Morales, he is convinced that ecosocialists have no alternative but to intervene in state formations as they currently exist starting with a mass intervention at Copenhagen, site of the UN meeting to reformulate the Kyoto Protocol. Secondly, he urged the development of autonomous zones within capitalist societies that would establish islands of freely associated labour as capitalism lurches from crisis to crisis. Thirdly, he said that what?s needed now is a mass mobilization of society to demand a series of structural reforms to prevent climate change, reforms that capitalism cannot endure. Terisa Turner offered the most optimistic prognosis of our immediate future. She described several examples of grass roots movements successfully stopping resource multinational corporations and keeping fossil fuel in the ground. She argued for a joint global strategy of all out support for these efforts of halting resource development combined with consumer boycott campaigns - which would deprive capital of energy and resources and markets. And direct trade deals that cut out the multinatinationals in place of capitalist trade/investment agreements, citing the arrangement between Cuba and Venezuela oil for medical services. She asked, who is engaged in these efforts? Indigenous peoples with women in the foreground. What is their means? Direct action to shut-down production and keep fossil fuel in the ground. She ended her presentation with a call for a people?s charter on climate change in opposition to the Kyoto Protocal and sanctions against governments and corporations that violate its measures. As for Copenhagen December 2009, she called for a mass organization to stop the proceedings, like Seattle 1999. [Coming soon: As soon as we receive it, Climate and Capitalism will publish a report on the Ecosocialist International Network meeting that was held in Belem immediately after the World Social Forum.] ============== Fresh Ink is an alternative news service and sister project of Booksinternationale.com. Join us! http://booksinternationale.info/mailman/listinfo/freshink ============== From fentona at shaw.ca Thu Feb 5 08:59:17 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 07:59:17 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Serbia's Dismemberment Continues Message-ID: February 5, 2009 Not Done Yet Serbia's Dismemberment Continues by Nebojsa Malic http://www.antiwar.com/malic/?articleid=14192 One of the many absurdities of Imperial policy in the Balkans is the notion of "integrations," a cute euphemism for the expansion of EU and NATO southward and eastward. If Brussels and Washington are so eager to integrate, why have they consistently supported disintegration ? first of Yugoslavia, then of Serbia? In 1992, the nascent EU murdered Yugoslavia by declaring that the country had simply ceased to exist, and recognizing several separatist governments as independent states (e.g. Croatia, Bosnia). Then it explicitly ruled out secession from those states, and insisted on their territorial integrity. Unless, that is, the state in question was Serbia ? in which case secession was not only approved, but encouraged (Kosovo). In February 2008, the Albanian provisional government in NATO-occupied Kosovo declared independence, contrary to international law. They were immediately recognized by the U.S. and its client regimes, and most of the EU. The expected resistance from Serbia failed to materialize; a massive media campaign that took far more money than was officially reported helped re-elect president Boris Tadic, a steadfast supporter of the Empire. By the summer of 2008, Tadic held near-absolute power in Serbia, through a coalition government secretly engineered after the general elections. Though he has continued to talk tough about Kosovo and defending Serbia, Tadic's regime has effected a complete and total capitulation to Imperial interests. However, it appears that not even that will be enough to save Serbia from further dismemberment. Never Small Enough Several years back, one Serbian writer asked, only half in jest, "How small should Serbia be before it's not considered too big?" For almost two decades, propaganda in the West has clamored about "Greater Serbia," allegedly the secret goal of a conspiracy centered on Slobodan Milosevic. The entire case the Hague Inquisition made against Milosevic rested on this myth. Not surprisingly, Milosevic demolished it in the courtroom. Only his unexplained death before the trial's conclusion saved the Inquisitors from further embarrassment. The myth of "Greater Serbia" has survived, though, along with the obsession with solving the "Serbian Question" by reducing Serbia to borders from 1878. In April 2007, German ambassador to Belgrade Andreas Zobel tried to argue for an independent Kosovo by claiming that leaving it unresolved could open Serbia up to separatism in Vojvodina. Kosovo, Zobel argued, only became a part of Serbia in 1912, and Vojvodina only in 1918. If Serbia were destabilized, "Hungary could insist on Vojvodina," he said (translation here). "This is not a threat, it's an analysis," he tried to qualify. Zobel was not expelled. Belgrade didn't so much as send a protest note to Berlin. The whole thing was shrugged off after letting some government and opposition officials vent in the media. Recent events, however, compel one to wonder whether Zobel's words were a lapse in judgment, or a slip of the tongue, an inadvertent announcement of what was to come. Statute for Statehood Zobel was wrong in two important details. First, even though the government in Belgrade is about as stable and obedient as a client regime could be, the issue of Vojvodina was raised anyway. Secondly, it wasn't Hungary that raised it, but the homegrown Serbophobic separatists ? within the president's own party, in fact. It seems incongruous for a country dealing with a brutal land grab endorsed by its "partners" (EU) and "friends" (U.S.) to encourage separatism. Yet that is precisely what President Tadic's government has done, by drafting a Statute for the northern province of Vojvodina. The current Serbian Constitution, adopted in late 2006, provides a somewhat ambiguous framework for local and regional autonomy. However, nowhere does it allow for a possibility of a pseudo-state within Serbian borders ? yet that is precisely what this new Statute would establish. From Hapsburgs to Communism Vojvodina and Kosovo are both a legacy of the Communist obsession with "Greater Serbian bourgeois imperialism" and their belief that effective control of Yugoslavia was only possible if Serbia were partitioned and weak. Yet from its inception, Vojvodina was fundamentally Serbian in character. Following the Ottoman defeat at the gates of Vienna in 1683, Serbs rebelled against Ottoman occupation and sought Austrian help. As the Austrian expeditionary force was defeated, however, tens of thousands of Serbs sought refuge across the Danube. Emperor Leopold issued a declaration welcoming them to the Hapsburg Empire, and granted them lands along the border, in exchange for military service. The precedent for this was the Military Frontier, already settled by numerous Serb refugees over the previous centuries. The fortunes of Serbs under Austrian rule varied with political exigencies of the times. Whenever their arms were needed to fight off the Turks or suppress Hungarian revolts, they would receive charters of rights and privileges ? which would be revoked as soon as the danger abated. During the revolution of 1848, the frontier Serbs proclaimed their duchy ? Srpska Vojvodina. The following year, it was transformed by imperial decree into a crown province of "Serbian Duchy and Banat of Tamish" (Die serbische Wojwodschaft und das temeser Banat), ruled by the Emperor himself as the Grand Duke (Gro?woiwode). The Duchy was abolished in 1860 and turned over to Hungary, as part of a process that culminated in the Ausgleich of 1867. In 1918, much of the territory of the Duchy joined the Kingdom of Serbia; the border with Hungary was settled by the 1920 Treaty of Trianon. Following the Nazi-led invasion in 1941, the Banat region was administered by Germany, Backa and Baranja were annexed to Hungary, and Srem was given to the "Independent State of Croatia." The occupiers committed numerous atrocities against the local Serbs and Jews. With the Communist victory in 1945, local Germans were expelled in droves. Vojvodina was established as an autonomous province and, like Kosovo, gained de facto statehood with the 1974 Constitution. A Sinister Agent Simmering dissatisfaction with this crippling arrangement propelled to power a maverick Communist named Slobodan Milosevic. In 1988, the separatist regimes in Vojvodina and Kosovo were forced out by popular revolts, and in 1990 a new Serbian constitution restored Serbia's sovereignty over the provinces. Of course, this was described in the West as "stripping of autonomy" and "Serbian imperialism." Milosevic was deposed in 2000, in a coup that presented itself as popular revolt, but was organized and managed by the CIA and the National Endowment for Democracy. Among the twenty parties cobbled together into the Democratic Opposition of Serbia (DOS) were several that advocated "greater autonomy" for Vojvodina. Hungarian parties have taken a back seat on the autonomy bus, however. At the wheel is Nenad Canak, a porcine politician of Serb ancestry ? though it may be just a matter of time before he declares himself a "Vojvodinian" or some such. He's a consummate rabble-rouser, styling himself an intrepid opponent of "fascism" (to the point of inventing it) and stoking the fires of hatred towards Belgrade and Serbia as "thems that take our money." Canak has also cynically spun tales of ethnic violence in Vojvodina, helping some supporters of Kosovo separation in Washington to blow them out of proportion. Canak's party has in the past printed "Vojvodinian" passports (!) and this Christmas they published a calendar with a map of "Republic of Vojvodina." Both times Canak claimed that this was "just some youths fooling around" and that it was just an innocent marketing stunt. There was nothing innocent about it, though. Even now, Canak is positioning himself as an opponent of the new Statute, claiming it does concede enough to his pet project. Nothing short of an "Independent State of Vajdasag" would. Backdoor Secession Canak and his minuscule party may be the extremist fringe, but like many other pocket parties, NGOs and "independent unions" of professional defenders of human rights, he enjoys disproportionate and favorable media coverage (most media in Serbia are pro-government, and almost all are foreign-funded). While Canak and other, even more marginal and militant separatists make noise and coerce the public opinion to see things their way, the government does their work quietly, in the mainstream. After all, it was the Democrats, not Canak, who wrote the new Statute ? which experts and analysts already call a return to 1974. Premier Serbian political analyst Slobodan Antonic published a lengthy investigative report in mid-December, warning that the autonomists were forging a "Vojvodinian" identity, "not as a sense of regional belonging but as a non-Serb, even anti-Serb, quasi-national identity." It is the same kind of incremental sundering, he says, that was used to manufacture a separate "Montenegrin" nation. Antonic has also pointed out that the work of the most militant autonomists is funded by U.S. taxpayers, through the National Endowment for Democracy. He specifically mentions the so-called "Independent union of Vojvodina journalists," which maintains the openly secessionist site autonomija.info. Sure enough, the site is headlined "Vojvodinian Identity" and the NED logo is prominently displayed at top right. All too many pieces fit together entirely too neatly for this to be simple coincidence. It really does appear that Andreas Zobel spoke the truth; that the Empire is not done dismembering Serbia just yet, and that "Republic of Vojvodina" (or something else, since Vojvodina is such a Serb word) is intended to follow in the footsteps of the "Independent state of Kosovo." True, this is an existential problem primarily for the remaining Serbian patriots. But given the present economic crisis and demands on U.S. taxpayers that are already spiraling out of control ? a billion here, a trillion there, and soon we're talking about a real bailout ? it is worth wondering if it really makes sense to bankroll another banana republic, another new "nation," another useless client regime in an already-conquered and completely irrelevant part of the world. Does the Obama administration have nothing better to do than build a sandbox for Nenad Canak and call it a state? We'll find out soon enough. From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Feb 5 13:03:39 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:03:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Imagine the outrage if Hamas made a comparable call In-Reply-To: <904394975.829361233792981969.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1576345664.1297611233864219064.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 04/02/2009 Minister Boim: Only way to stop Gaza rockets is to kill Haniyeh Housing and Construction Minister Ze'ev Boim on Wednesday said that Israel must assassinate Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh in order to stop the continuation of rocket fire, Army Radio reported. "As long as Hamas rules in Gaza and carries out terror from there, not just against Israel but against the civilian population in the strip, rockets will continue to strike Israel," Boim said. According to Boim, killing Haniyeh could bring about a similar response to the one that followed the assassination of another group leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in 2004. While that attack brought about fierce international criticism, it also brought about a long period of perplexity, Boim said. A public call such as Boim's could contribute to serious security threats and could also cause Haniyeh and other Hamas leaders to go deeper into hiding, making it more difficult for Israel to target them. Former Israel Defense Forces chief of staff Moshe Ya'alon lambasted Boim for making such a declaration. "We have many options, and in Boim's place, I would not have brought them into the public eye," he told Army Radio. Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz has also threatened to assassinate Hamas Haniyeh and other Hamas leaders, as Kadima kicked off its election campaign in Sderot late last month. "As long as [abducted Israeli soldier] Gilad Shalit doesn't see the light of day, you won't see the light of day. As long as Shalit doesn't go free, you and your friends will not be free. We won't hesitate to send you on the the way we sent Yassin and Rantissi," he said, referring to previous Hamas leaders. Shalit has been in Palestinian captivity since he was seized by militants from Gaza, including Hamas, in a cross-border raid in June 2006. Mofaz's hard-line stance is part of Kadima's efforts to improve its image in the campaign, following Kadima leader and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's decline in the polls after the war in Gaza. From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Feb 5 13:05:04 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:05:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Iraq's Shocking Human Toll In-Reply-To: <2077628961.780371233786884642.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1440362673.1298311233864304993.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/123818/ Iraq's Shocking Human Toll About 1 Million Killed, 4.5 Million Displaced, 1-2 Million Widows, 5 Million Orphans By John Tirman, The Nation, February 2, 2009 Now that Bush is gone, perhaps we can honestly face the damage we have wrought and the responsibilities we must accept from it. We are now able to estimate the number of Iraqis who have died in the war instigated by the Bush administration. Looking at the empirical evidence of Bush's war legacy will put his claims of victory in perspective. Of course, even by his standards -- "stability" -- the jury is out. Most independent analysts would say it's too soon to judge the political outcome. Nearly six years after the invasion, the country remains riven by sectarian politics and major unresolved issues, like the status of Kirkuk. We have a better grasp of the human costs of the war. For example, the United Nations estimates that there are about 4.5 million displaced Iraqis -- more than half of them refugees -- or about one in every six citizens. Only 5 percent have chosen to return to their homes over the past year, a period of reduced violence from the high levels of 2005-07. The availability of healthcare, clean water, functioning schools, jobs and so forth remains elusive. According to Unicef, many provinces report that less than 40 percent of households have access to clean water. More than 40 percent of children in Basra, and more than 70 percent in Baghdad, cannot attend school. The mortality caused by the war is also high. Several household surveys were conducted between 2004 and 2007. While there are differences among them, the range suggests a congruence of estimates. But none have been conducted for eighteen months, and the two most reliable surveys were completed in mid-2006. The higher of those found 650,000 "excess deaths" (mortality attributable to war); the other yielded 400,000. The war remained ferocious for twelve to fifteen months after those surveys were finished and then began to subside. Iraq Body Count, a London NGO that uses English-language press reports from Iraq to count civilian deaths, provides a means to update the 2006 estimates. While it is known to be an undercount, because press reports are incomplete and Baghdad-centric, IBC nonetheless provides useful trends, which are striking. Its estimates are nearing 100,000, more than double its June 2006 figure of 45,000. (It does not count nonviolent excess deaths -- from health emergencies, for example -- or insurgent deaths.) If this is an acceptable marker, a plausible estimate of total deaths can be calculated by doubling the totals of the 2006 household surveys, which used a much more reliable and sophisticated method for estimates that draws on long experience in epidemiology. So we have, at present, between 800,000 and 1.3 million "excess deaths" as we approach the six-year anniversary of this war. This gruesome figure makes sense when reading of claims by Iraqi officials that there are 1-2 million war widows and 5 million orphans. This constitutes direct empirical evidence of total excess mortality and indirect, though confirming, evidence of the displaced and the bereaved and of general insecurity. The overall figures are stunning: 4.5 million displaced, 1-2 million widows, 5 million orphans, about 1 million dead -- in one way or another, affecting nearly one in two Iraqis. By any sensible measure, it would be difficult to describe this as a victory of any kind. It speaks volumes about the repair work we must do for Iraqis, and it should caution us against the savage wars we are prone to. Now that Bush is gone, perhaps the United States can honestly face the damage we have wrought and the responsibilities we must accept from it. From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Feb 5 13:04:09 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:04:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] =?utf-8?q?Religious_groups_are_=E2=80=98penetrating?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99_Israeli_army?= In-Reply-To: <1130407657.812101233790991211.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <2005725592.1297901233864249800.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090204/FOREIGN/407279653/1002 The National????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? February 4, 2009 Religious groups are ?penetrating? Israeli army By Jonathan Cook, Foreign Correspondent Nazareth?-- Extremist rabbis and their followers, bent on waging holy war against the Palestinians, are taking over the Israeli army by stealth, according to critics. In a process one military historian has termed the rapid ?theologisation? of the Israeli army, there are now entire units of religious combat soldiers, many of them based in West Bank settlements. They answer to hardline rabbis who call for the establishment of a Greater Israel that includes the occupied Palestinian territories. Their influence in shaping the army?s goals and methods is starting to be felt, said observers, as more and more graduates from officer courses are also drawn from Israel?s religious extremist population. ?We have reached the point where a critical mass of religious soldiers is trying to negotiate with the army about how and for what purpose military force is employed on the battlefield,? said Yigal Levy, a political sociologist at the Open University who has written several books on the Israeli army. The new atmosphere was evident in the ?excessive force? used in the recent Gaza operation, Dr Levy said. More than 1,300 Palestinians were killed, a majority of them civilians, and thousands were injured as whole neighbourhoods of Gaza were levelled. ?When soldiers, including secular ones, are imbued with theological ideas, it makes them less sensitive to human rights or the suffering of the other side.? The greater role of extremist religious groups in the army came to light last week when it emerged that the army rabbinate had handed out a booklet to soldiers preparing for the recent 22-day Gaza offensive. Yesh Din, an Israeli human rights group, said the material contained messages ?bordering on racist incitement against the Palestinian people? and might have encouraged soldiers to ignore international law. The booklet quotes extensively from Shlomo Aviner, a far-right rabbi who heads a religious seminary in the Muslim quarter of East Jerusalem. He compares the Palestinians to the Philistines, the Biblical enemy of the Jews. He advises: ?When you show mercy to a cruel enemy, you are being cruel to pure and honest soldiers ? This is a war on murderers.? He also cites a Biblical ban on ?surrendering a single millimetre? of Greater Israel. The booklet was approved by the army?s chief rabbi, Brig Gen Avichai Ronsky, who is reportedly determined to improve the army?s ?combat values? after its failure to cush Hizbollah in Lebanon in 2006. Gen Ronsky was appointed three years ago in a move designed, according to the Israeli media, to placate hardline religious elements within the army and the settler community. Gen Ronsky, himself a settler in the West Bank community of Itimar, near Nablus, is close to far-right groups. According to reports, he pays regular visits to jailed members of Jewish terror groups; he has offered his home to a settler who is under house arrest for wounding Palestinians; and he has introduced senior officers to a small group of extremist settlers who live among more than 150,000 Palestinians in Hebron. He has also radically overhauled the rabbinate, which was originally founded to offer religious services and ensure religious soldiers were able to observe the sabbath and eat kosher meals in army canteens. Over the past year the rabbinate has effectively taken over the role of the army?s education corps through its Jewish Awareness Department, which co-ordinates its activities with Elad, a settler organisation that is active in East Jerusalem. In October, the Haaretz newspaper quoted an unnamed senior officer who accused the rabbinate of carrying out the religious and political ?brainwashing? of troops. Dr Levy said the army rabbinate?s power was growing as the ranks of religious soldiers swelled. Breaking the Silence, a project run by soldiers seeking to expose the army?s behaviour against Palestinians, said the booklet handed out to troops in Gaza had originated among Hebron?s settlers. ?The document has been around since at least 2003,? said Mikhael Manekin, 29, one of the group?s directors and himself religiously observant. ?But what is new is that the army has been effectively subcontracted to promote the views of the extremist settlers to its soldiers.? The power of the religious right in the army reflected wider social trends inside Israel, Dr Levy said. He pointed out that the rural cooperatives known as kibbutzim that were once home to Israel?s secular middle classes and produced the bulk of its officer corps had been on the wane since the early 1980s. ?The vacuum left by their gradual retreat from the army was filled by religious youngsters and by the children of the settlements. They now dominate in many branches of the army.? According to figures cited in the Israeli media, more than one-third of all Israel?s combat soldiers are religious, as are more than 40 per cent of those graduating from officer courses. The army has encouraged this trend by creating some two dozen hesder yeshivas, seminaries in which youths can combine Biblical studies with army service in separate religious units. Many of the yeshivas are based in the West Bank, where students are educated by the settlements? extremist rabbis. Ehud Barak, the defence minister, has rapidly expanded the programme, approving four yeshivas, three based in settlements, last summer. Another 10 are reportedly awaiting his approval. Mr Manekin, however, warned against blaming the violence inflicted on Gaza?s civilians solely on the influence of religious extremists. ?The army is still run by the secular elites in Israel and they have always been reckless with regard to the safety of civilians when they wage war. Jewish nationalism that justifies Palestinian deaths is just as dangerous as religious extremism.? jcook at thenational.ae From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Feb 5 13:04:38 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:04:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Irish civil society calls for boycott of Israel In-Reply-To: <715186070.769911233785719848.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <2054867134.1298131233864278635.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10263.shtml Electronic Intifada ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 3 February 2009 Irish civil society calls for boycott of Israel Open letter, various undersigned, 3 February 2009 The following letter was published in a full-page advertisement in The Irish Times on 31 January 2009. The original ad, including signatures may be downloaded here . [PDF] Israel's bombardment of Gaza killed over 1,300 Palestinians, a third of them children. Thousands have been wounded. Many victims had been taking refuge in clearly marked UN facilities. This assault came in the wake of years of economic blockade by Israel. This blockade, which is illegal under international humanitarian law, has destroyed the Gaza economy and condemned its population to poverty. According to a World Bank report last September, "98 percent of Gaza's industrial operations are now inactive." The most recent attack on Gaza is only the latest phase in Israel's oppression of the Palestinian people and appropriation of their land. Israel has never declared its borders. Instead, it has continuously expanded at the expense of the Palestinians. In 1948, it took over 78 percent of Palestine, an area much larger than that suggested for a Jewish state by the UN General Assembly in 1947. Contrary to international law, Israel expelled over 750,000 Palestinians from their homes. These refugees and their descendants, who now number millions, are still dispersed throughout the region. They have the right, under international law, to return to their homes. This right has been underlined by the UN General Assembly many times, starting with Resolution 194 in 1948. In 1967, Israel occupied the remaining 22 percent of Palestine: the West Bank and Gaza. Contrary to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel has built, and continues to build, settlements in these occupied territories. Today, nearly 500,000 Israeli settlers live in the illegal settlements in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), and the number grows daily as Israel expands its settler program. Israel has resisted pressure from the international community to abide by the human rights provisions of international law. It has refused to comply with UN Security Council demands to cease building settlements and remove those it has built (Resolutions 446, 452 and 465) and to reverse its illegal annexation of East Jerusalem (252, 267, 271, 298, 476 and 478). Since September 2000, over 5,000 Palestinians, almost 1,000 of them minors, have been killed by the Israeli military. Eleven-thousand Palestinians, including hundreds of minors, languish in Israel jails. Hundreds are detained without trial. In addition, Israel is breaking international law by imprisoning them outside the occupied territories, thereby making it almost impossible for their families to visit them. Every year, hundreds of Palestinian homes are demolished. The Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza livesw imprisoned by walls, barriers and checkpoints that prevent or impede access to shops, schools, workplaces, hospitals and places of worship. They are subjected to restrictions of every kind and to daily ritual humiliation at the hands of occupation soldiers and checkpoint guards. Invasion, occupation and plantation of their land is the reality that Palestinians have faced for decades and still face on a daily basis, as their country is reduced remorselessly. Unless, and until, this Israeli aggression is halted, and the democratic rights of the Palestinian people are vindicated, there will be no justice or peace in the Middle East. Israel's 40-year occupation of the West Bank and Gaza must be ended. The occupation can end if political and economic pressure is placed on Israel by the international community. Recognizing this, the Palestinian people continually call on the international community to intervene. We, the signatories, call for the following: ? The Irish Government to cease its purchase of Israeli military products and services and call publicly for an arms embargo against Israel. ? The Irish Government to demand publicly that Israel reverse its settlement construction, illegal occupation and annexation of land in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions and to use its influence in international fora to bring this about. ? The Irish Government to demand publicly that the Euro-Med Agreement under which Israel has privileged access to the EU market be suspended until Israel complies with international law. ? The Irish Government to veto any proposed upgrade in EU relations with Israel. ? The Irish people to boycott all Israeli goods and services until Israel abides by international law. From fentona at shaw.ca Thu Feb 5 13:22:00 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:22:00 -0800 Subject: [R-G] =?iso-8859-1?q?Haiti_bill_calling_for_investigation_of_U=2E?= =?iso-8859-1?q?S=2E_role_in_2004_Coup_d=27=C9tat?= Message-ID: Haiti bill calling for investigation of U.S. role in 2004 Coup d'?tat http://www.haitiaction.net/News/HA/2_5_9/2_5_9.html Haiti Action.net - Rep. Barbara Lee and ten other members of Congress re-introduced a bill calling for an investigation of the Bush Administration's role in the 2004 Coup d'?tat of Haiti. The original bill, known as the TRUTH Act, has been referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs at every session since Lee first made the case for a congressional investigation in March of 2004: "We do not teach people to overthrow our US government, and the Bush Administration must not participate in the overthrow of other democratically-elected governments. The United States must stand firm in its support of democracy and not allow a nascent democracy like Haiti to fall victim to the Bush Administration's apparent policy of regime change." At a heated Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere hearing in March 2004, Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA) and other Democrats questioned a panel of Bush Administration officials about their role in the coup d'?tat carried out against the democratically-elected Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Lee summed up her disgust with the Bush Administration's actions by accusing then Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega and the Bush Administration of "aiding and abetting" the overthrow of the Aristide Government. "Regime change takes a variety of forms, and this looks like a blatant form of regime change to me," Lee told Noriega. With the political shift in Washington this year the bill H.R. 331 is expected to make the congressional calendar for review. The bill's current co-sponsors include: Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] Full text of bill "To establish the Independent Commission on the 2004 Coup d'Etat in the Republic of Haiti" here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-331 From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Feb 5 13:22:16 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:22:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Combating Globalization: Confronting the Impact of Neoliberal Free Trade Policies on Labor and the Environment In-Reply-To: <36F0ACA317244A859ADB2367C8C298CA@twubby.com> Message-ID: <132181816.1307441233865336543.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://combatingglobalization.com/articles/combating_globalization.html From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Feb 5 14:25:17 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 13:25:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Letter Carriers' Resolution Demanding Immediate Opening of Border Crossings into Gaza In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <622075099.1336621233869117526.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> San Francisco National Association of Letter Carriers, Local?214 Resolution?adopted February 4, 2009 ? Resolution Demanding Immediate Opening of Border Crossings into Gaza ? Whereas, the U.N. Security Council has called for ?the opening of border crossings? into Gaza, in order to meet ?the serious humanitarian and economic needs of the people of Gaza?; and Whereas, there can be no relief from this humanitarian emergency in Gaza without opening all border crossings into Gaza. As the Financial Times reported, ?lifting the Israeli closure of the Gaza Strip is necessary for the reconstruction and relief effort; much of the territory's civilian infrastructure has been destroyed during the three-week Israeli offensive and without building materials and supplies, there is little hope of rebuilding the water, sewage and power networks, as well as private homes and key government buildings.? (source: Tobias Buck, "Israel Warns It Will Keep Gaza Crossings Closed," Financial Times, Jan. 23, 2009); and Whereas, governments the world over, as well as international human rights organizations -- from the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), to Amnesty International, to major human rights organizations in Israel itself -- are calling for the immediate opening of Israel's borders to Gaza to allow the reconstruction and relief efforts to proceed; and Whereas, the Palestine General Federation of Trade Unions has appealed to the world labor movement for funds to meet the bare necessities of food and medicine for the people of Gaza; Therefore be it resolved, that Golden Gate Branch 214 of the National Association of Letter Carriers call on the governments of Israel and Egypt to open immediately the border crossings into Gaza, and keep them open, so that urgently needed humanitarian and reconstruction assistance can avert further pain and suffering by the Palestinian people in Gaza. From fentona at shaw.ca Thu Feb 5 14:43:51 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 13:43:51 -0800 Subject: [R-G] =?iso-8859-1?q?Fwd=3A_Venezuela=3A_New_Report_Examines_Econ?= =?iso-8859-1?q?omy_and_Social_Indicators_During_the_Ch=E1vez_Decade?= References: <892985689.1196612553@org.orgDB.mail.democracyinaction.org> Message-ID: <6BF6F932-1F58-4EF5-8277-66B72CE13AAE@shaw.ca> Begin forwarded message: > > Press Release > > Report Examines Economy and Social Indicators During the Ch?vez > Decade in Venezuela > > For Immediate Release: February 5, 2009 > Contact: Dan Beeton, 202-239-1460 > > Washington, D.C. - The Center for Economic and Policy Research > (CEPR) released a report today on the Venezuelan economy on the > tenth anniversary of President Hugo Ch?vez's tenure, which began in > February 1999. > > "Looking at the economic data and social indicators, it's not > difficult to see why Ch?vez remains popular and has won so many > elections, despite overwhelmingly hostile media coverage," said Mark > Weisbrot, Co-Director of CEPR and lead author of the report, "The > Ch?vez Administration at 10 Years: The Economy and Social > Indicators." > > Among the highlights: > > The current economic expansion began when the government got control > over the national oil company in the first quarter of 2003. Since > then, real (inflation-adjusted) GDP has nearly doubled, growing by > 94.7 percent in 5.25 years, or 13.5 percent annually. > > Most of this growth has been in the non-oil sector of the economy, > and the private sector has grown faster than the public sector. > > During the current economic expansion, the poverty rate has been cut > by more than half, from 54 percent of households in the first half > of 2003 to 26 percent at the end of 2008. Extreme poverty has fallen > even more, by 72 percent. These poverty rates measure only cash > income, and do not take into account increased access to health care > or education. > > Over the entire decade, the percentage of households in poverty has > been reduced by 39 percent, and extreme poverty by more than half. > > There have been substantial gains in education, especially higher > education, where gross enrollment rates more than doubled from > 1999-2000 to 2007-2008. > > Over the past decade, the number of social security beneficiaries > has more than doubled. > > Real (inflation-adjusted) social spending per person more than > tripled from 1998-2006. > The report also examines the current economic situation and how the > country will be affected by lower oil prices. It concludes that > because of Venezuela's large accumulation of foreign exchange > reserves, it is unlikely to run into balance of payments problems > even if oil prices remain depressed for much longer than analysts > and oil futures markets are anticipating. The most important and > immediate challenge for Venezuela, according to the analysis in this > report, will be to implement a timely and adequate fiscal stimulus > package to counteract the effects of the global recession. Over the > long run, the analysis also sees a need for a more competitive > exchange rate in order to diversify away from oil. > > > ## > > > The Center for Economic and Policy Research is an independent, > nonpartisan think tank that was established to promote democratic > debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect > people's lives. CEPR's Advisory Board includes Nobel Laureate > economists Robert Solow and Joseph Stiglitz; Janet Gornick, > Professor at the CUNY Graduate School and Director of the Luxembourg > Income Study; Richard Freeman, Professor of Economics at Harvard > University; and Eileen Appelbaum, Professor and Director of the > Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University. > > Center for Economic and Policy Research, 1611 Connecticut Ave, NW, > Suite 400, Washington, DC 20009 > Phone: (202) 293-5380, Fax: (202) 588-1356, Home: www.cepr.net > > Subscribe ? Unsubscribe ? Update Subscriptions ? RSS > From shniad at sfu.ca Thu Feb 5 14:59:09 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 13:59:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision In-Reply-To: <1574009895.331281233702714671.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <894927233.1351881233871149750.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45640 InterPress Service ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ? February 2, 2009 Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision Gareth Porter* Washington - CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21. But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting. Obama's decision to override Petraeus's recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy. A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision. Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, "Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama." Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise. Gates and Mullen had discussed the relabeling scheme with Obama as part of the Petraeus-Odierno plan for withdrawal they had presented to him in mid-December, according to a Dec. 18 New York Times story. Obama decided against making any public reference to his order to the military to draft a detailed 16-month combat troop withdrawal policy, apparently so that he can announce his decision only after consulting with his field commanders and the Pentagon. The first clear indication of the intention of Petraeus, Odierno and their allies to try to get Obama to amend his decision came on Jan. 29 when the New York Times published an interview with Odierno, ostensibly based on the premise that Obama had indicated that he was "open to alternatives". The Times reported that Odierno had "developed a plan that would move slower than Mr. Obama's campaign timetable" and had suggested in an interview "it might take the rest of the year to determine exactly when United States forces could be drawn down significantly". The opening argument by the Petraeus-Odierno faction against Obama's withdrawal policy was revealed the evening of the Jan. 21 meeting when retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, one of the authors of the Bush troop surge policy and a close political ally and mentor of Gen. Petraeus, appeared on the Lehrer News Hour to comment on Obama's pledge on Iraq combat troop withdrawal. Keane, who had certainly been briefed by Petraeus on the outcome of the Oval Office meeting, argued that implementing such a withdrawal of combat troops would "increase the risk rather dramatically over the 16 months". He asserted that it would jeopardise the "stable political situation in Iraq" and called that risk "not acceptable". The assertion that Obama's withdrawal policy threatens the gains allegedly won by the Bush surge and Petraeus's strategy in Iraq will apparently be the theme of the campaign that military opponents are now planning. Keane, the Army Vice-Chief of Staff from 1999 to 2003, has ties to a network of active and retired four-star Army generals, and since Obama's Jan. 21 order on the 16-month withdrawal plan, some of the retired four-star generals in that network have begun discussing a campaign to blame Obama's troop withdrawal from Iraq for the ultimate collapse of the political "stability" that they expect to follow U.S. withdrawal, according to a military source familiar with the network's plans. The source says the network, which includes senior active duty officers in the Pentagon, will begin making the argument to journalists covering the Pentagon that Obama's withdrawal policy risks an eventual collapse in Iraq. That would raise the political cost to Obama of sticking to his withdrawal policy. If Obama does not change the policy, according to the source, they hope to have planted the seeds of a future political narrative blaming his withdrawal policy for the "collapse" they expect in an Iraq without U.S. troops. That line seems likely to appeal to reporters covering the Iraq troop withdrawal issue. Ever since Obama's inauguration, media coverage of the issue has treated Obama' s 16-month withdrawal proposal as a concession to anti-war sentiment which will have to be adjusted to the "realities" as defined by the advice to Obama from Gates, Petreaus and Odierno. Ever since he began working on the troop surge, Keane has been the central figure manipulating policy in order to keep as many U.S. troops in Iraq as possible. It was Keane who got Vice President Dick Cheney to push for Petraeus as top commander in Iraq in late 2006 when the existing commander, Gen. George W. Casey, did not support the troop surge. It was Keane who protected Petraeus's interests in ensuring the maximum number of troops in Iraq against the efforts by other military leaders to accelerate troop withdrawal in 2007 and 2008. As Bob Woodward reported in "The War Within", Keane persuaded President George W. Bush to override the concerns of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about the stress of prolonged U.S. occupation of Iraq on the U.S. Army and Marine Corps as well its impact on the worsening situation in Afghanistan. Bush agreed in September 2007 to guarantee that Petraeus would have as many troops as he needed for as long as wanted, according to Woodward's account. Keane had also prevailed on Gates in April 2008 to make Petraeus the new commander of CENTCOM. Keane argued that keeping Petraeus in the field was the best insurance against a Democratic administration reversing the Bush policy toward Iraq. Keane had operated on the assumption that a Democratic president would probably not take the political risk of rejecting Petraeus's recommendation on the pace of troop withdrawal from Iraq. Woodward quotes Keane as telling Gates, "Let's assume we have a Democratic administration and they want to pull this thing out quickly, and now they have to deal with General Petraeus and General Odierno. There will be a price to be paid to override them." Obama told Petraeus in Baghdad last July that, if elected, he would regard the overall health of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps and the situation in Afghanistan as more important than Petraeus's obvious interest in maximising U.S. troop strength in Iraq, according to Time magazine's Joe Klein. But judging from Petraeus's shock at Obama's Jan. 21 decision, he had not taken Obama's previous rejection of his arguments seriously. That miscalculation suggests that Petraeus had begun to accept Keane's assertion that a newly-elected Democratic president would not dare to override his policy recommendation on troops in Iraq. *Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006. (END/2009) From fentona at shaw.ca Thu Feb 5 16:22:44 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:22:44 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Pentagon boosts spending on PR Message-ID: <79FB7FCC-2AB7-4593-A8F1-41013A0C26BE@shaw.ca> AP Impact: Pentagon boosts spending on PR By CHRIS TOMLINSON ? 1 hour ago WASHINGTON (AP) ? As it fights two wars, the Pentagon is steadily and dramatically increasing money spent on winning what it calls "the human terrain" of world public opinion. In the process, concerns have been raised that this is spreading propaganda at home in violation of federal law. An Associated Press investigation found that over the past five years, the money the military spends on winning hearts and minds at home and abroad has grown by 63 percent, to at least $4.7 billion this year, according to Department of Defense budgets and other documents. That's almost as much as it spent on body armor for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2004 and 2006. This year, the Pentagon will employ 27,000 people just for recruitment, advertising and public relations ? almost as many as the total 30,000-person work force in the State Department. "We have such a massive apparatus selling the military to us, it has become hard to ask questions about whether this is too much money or if it's bloated," says Sheldon Rampton, research director for the Committee on Media and Democracy, which tracks the military's media operations. "As the war has become less popular, they have felt they need to respond to that more." Yet the money spent on media and outreach still comes to only 1 percent of the Pentagon budget, and the military argues it is well- spent on recruitment and the education of foreign and American audiences. Military leaders say that at a time when extremist groups run Web sites and distribute video, information is as important a weapon as tanks and guns. "We have got to be involved in getting our case out there, telling our side of the story, because believe me, al-Qaida and all of those folks ... that's what they are doing on the Internet and everywhere else," says Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., who chairs the Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee. "Every time a bomb goes off, they have a story out almost before it explodes, saying that it killed 15 innocent civilians." ___ On an abandoned Air Force base in San Antonio, Texas, editors for the Joint Hometown News Service point proudly to a dozen clippings on a table as examples of success in getting stories into newspapers. What readers are not told: Each of these glowing stories was written by Pentagon staff. Under the free service, stories go out with authors' names but not their titles, and do not mention Hometown News anywhere. In 2009, Hometown News plans to put out 5,400 press releases, 3,000 television releases and 1,600 radio interviews, among other work ? 50 percent more than in 2007. The service is just a tiny piece of the Pentagon's rapidly expanding media empire, which is now bigger in size, money and power than many media companies. In a yearlong investigation, The Associated Press interviewed more than 100 people and scoured more than 100,000 pages of documents in several budgets to tally the money spent to inform, educate and influence the public in the U.S. and abroad. The AP included contracts found through the private FedSources database and requests made under the Freedom of Information Act. Actual spending figures are higher because of money in classified budgets. The biggest chunk of funds ? about $1.6 billion ? goes into recruitment and advertising. Another $547 million goes into public affairs, which reaches American audiences. And about $489 million more goes into what is known as psychological operations, which targets foreign audiences. Staffing across all these areas costs about $2.1 billion, as calculated by the number of full-time employees and the military's average cost per service member. That's double the staffing costs for 2003. Recruitment and advertising are the only two areas where Congress has authorized the military to influence the American public. Far more controversial is public affairs, because of the prohibition on propaganda to the American public. "It's not up to the Pentagon to sell policy to the American people," says Rep. Paul Hodes, D-N.H., who sponsored legislation in Congress last year reinforcing the ban. Spending on public affairs has more than doubled since 2003. Robert Hastings, acting secretary of defense, says the growth reflects changes in the information market, along with the fact that the U.S. is now fighting two wars. "The role of public affairs is to provide you the information so that you can make an informed decision yourself," Hastings says. "There is no place for spin at the Department of Defense." But on Dec. 12, the Pentagon's inspector general released an audit finding that the public affairs office may have crossed the line into propaganda. The audit found the Department of Defense "may appear to merge inappropriately" its public affairs with operations that try to influence audiences abroad. It also found that while only 89 positions were authorized for public affairs, 126 government employees and 31 contractors worked there. In a written response, Hastings concurred and, without acknowledging wrongdoing, ordered a reorganization of the department by early 2009. Another audit, also in December, concluded that a public affairs program called "America Supports You" was conducted "in a questionable and unregulated manner" with funds meant for the military's Stars and Stripes newspaper. The program was set up to keep U.S. troops informed about volunteer donations to the military. But the military awarded $11.8 million in contracts to a public relations firm to raise donations for the troops and then advertise those donations to the public. So the program became a way to drum up support for the military at a time when public opinion was turning against the Iraq war. The audit also found that the offer to place corporate logos on the Pentagon Web site in return for donations was against regulations. A military spokesman said the program has been completely overhauled to meet Pentagon regulations. "They very explicitly identify American public opinion as an important battlefield," says Marc Lynch, a professor at George Washington University. "In today's information environment, even if they were well-intentioned and didn't want to influence American public opinion, they couldn't help it." In 2003, for example, initial accounts from the military about the rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch from Iraqi forces were faked to rally public support. And in 2005, a Marine Corps spokesman during the siege of the Iraqi city of Fallujah told the U.S. news media that U.S. troops were attacking. In fact, the information was a ruse by U.S. commanders to fool insurgents into revealing their positions. ___ The fastest-growing part of the military media is "psychological operations," where spending has doubled since 2003. Psychological operations aim at foreign audiences, and spin is welcome. The only caveats are that messages must be truthful and must never try to influence an American audience. In Afghanistan, for example, a video of a soldier joining the national army shown on Afghan television is not attributed to the U.S. And in Iraq, American teams built and equipped media outlets and trained Iraqis to staff them without making public the connection to the military. Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, director of strategic communications for the U.S. Central Command, says psychological operations must be secret to be effective. He says that in the 21st century, it is probably not possible to win the information battle with insurgents without exposing American citizens to secret U.S. propaganda. "We have to be pragmatic and realistic about the game that we play in terms of information, and that game is very complex," he says. The danger of psychological operations reaching a U.S. audience became clear when an American TV anchor asked Gen. David Petraeus about the mood in Iraq. The general held up a glossy photo of the Iraqi national soccer team to show the country united in victory. Behind the camera, his staff was cringing. It was U.S. psychological operations that had quietly distributed tens of thousands of the soccer posters in July 2007 to encourage Iraqi nationalism. With a new administration in power, it is not clear what changes may be made. Obama administration officials have said they intend to go through the Department of Defense budget closely to trim bloated spending. The emphasis on influence operations started with former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. In 2002, Rumsfeld established an Office of Strategic Influence that brought together public affairs and psychological operations. Critics accused him of setting up a propaganda arm, and Congress demanded that the office be shut down. Rumsfeld has declined to speak to the press since leaving office, but while defense secretary he spoke bluntly about his desire to revamp the Pentagon's media operations. "I went down that next day and said, 'Fine, if you want to savage this thing, fine, I'll give you the corpse,'" Rumsfeld said on Nov. 18, 2002, according to Defense Department transcripts of a speech he delivered. "'There's the name. You can have the name, but I'm gonna keep doing every single thing that needs to be done and I have.'" In 2003, Rumsfeld issued a secret Information Operations Roadmap setting out a plan for public affairs and psychological operations to work together. It noted that with a global media, the military should expect and accept that psychological operations will reach the U.S. public. "I can tell you there wouldn't be a single American disappointed with anything that we've done that might be out there, that they don't know about," says Col. Curtis Boyd, commander of the 4th PSYOP Group, the largest unit of its kind. "Frankly, they probably wouldn't care because maybe they are safer as a result of it." In January 2008, a new report by the Defense Science Board recommended resurrecting the Office of Strategic Influence as the Office of Strategic Communications. But Congress refused to fund the program. In February, the Army released a new eight-chapter field manual that puts information warfare on par with traditional warfare. The title of an entire chapter, Chapter 7: "Information Superiority." Associated Press investigative researcher Randy Herschaft in New York contributed to this report. On the Net: * Hometown News Service: http://hq.afnews.af.mil/hometown/ From news at ckut.ca Thu Feb 5 17:25:53 2009 From: news at ckut.ca (CKUT Community News Collective) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:25:53 -0500 Subject: [R-G] CKUT radio: media voices on Gaza Message-ID: <498B8391.10705@ckut.ca> CKUT radio: media voices on Gaza featuring leading journalists addressing the recent Israeli attack on the Gaza Strip. ---------------------------- FRIDAY FEBRUARY 6th 17h00 - 18h00 live broadcast on CKUT Radio, 90.3fm tune-in globally via live stream at www.ckut.ca ---------------------------- http://www.tadamon.ca/post/2990 A special edition on Off the Hour, CKUT radio's daily news and current affairs program, hosted by Tadamon! Montreal, providing space for a critical discussion on international media coverage on the recent war in Gaza with journalists from Montreal and around the world. Progressive journalists and media institutions have critiqued the selective coverage on Palestinian suffering in Gaza broadcast by major media institutions that fails to present the horrific reality of colonial violence that defines the Israeli occupation. Join us for a special live discussion featuring leading independent media journalists; * Maureen Clare Murphy, the managing editor of the Electronic Intifada * Sharif Abdel Kouddous, producer at Democracy Now! * Derrick O?Keefe, editor for rabble.ca * Jooneed Khan, international affairs reporter for La Presse This special edition of Off the Hour is attempting to provide some critical media analysis on the recent war in Gaza and is being hosted by Tadamon!?s a Montreal-based collective which works in solidarity with struggles for self-determination, equality and justice in the ?Middle East? and in diaspora communities in Montreal and beyond. Tadamon! Montreal tel: 514 664 1036 email: info[at]tadamon.ca --- From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Thu Feb 5 18:41:58 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:41:58 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] US and UK on Brink of Debt Disaster Message-ID: <498B9566.2010707@ashisuto.co.jp> by John Kemp Reuters (January 20 2009) The United States and the United Kingdom stand on the brink of the largest debt crisis in history. While both governments experiment with quantitative easing, bad banks to absorb non-performing loans, and state guarantees to restart bank lending, the only real way out is some combination of widespread corporate default, debt write-downs and inflation to reduce the burden of debt to more manageable levels. Everything else is window-dressing. To understand the scale of the problem, and why it leaves so few options for policymakers, take a look at Chart 1, which shows the growth in the real economy (measured by nominal GDP) and the financial sector (measured by total credit market instruments outstanding) since 1952 {1}. In 1952, the United States was emerging from the Second World War and the conflict in Korea with a strong economy, and fairly low debt, split between a relatively large government debt (amounting to 68 percent of GDP) and a relatively small private sector one (just sixty percent of GDP). Over the next 23 years, the volume of debt increased, but the rise was broadly in line with growth in the rest of the economy, so the overall ratio of total debts to GDP changed little, from 128 percent in 1952 to 155 percent in 1975. The only real change was in the composition. Private debts increased (7.8 times) more rapidly than public ones (1.5 times). As a result, there was a marked shift in the debt stock from public debt (just 37 percent of GDP in 1975) towards private sector obligations (117 percent). But this was not unusual. It should be seen as a return to more normal patterns of debt issuance after the wartime period in which the government commandeered resources for the war effort and rationed borrowing by the private sector. From the 1970s onward, however, the economy has undergone two profound structural shifts. First, the economy as a whole has become much more indebted. Output rose eight times between 1975 and 2007. But the total volume of debt rose a staggering 20 times, more than twice as fast. The total debt-to-GDP ratio surged from 155 percent to 355 percent. Second, almost all this extra debt has come from the private sector. Take a look at Chart 2 {2}. Despite acres of newsprint devoted to the federal budget deficit over the last thirty years, public debt at all levels has risen only 11.5 times since 1975. This is slightly faster than the eight-fold increase in nominal GDP over the same period, but government debt has still only risen from 37 percent of GDP to 52 percent. Instead, the real debt explosion has come from the private sector. Private debt outstanding has risen an enormous 22 times, three times faster than the economy as a whole, and fast enough to take the ratio of private debt to GDP from 117 percent to 303 percent in a little over thirty years. For the most part, policymakers have been comfortable with rising private debt levels. Officials have cited a wide range of reasons why the economy can safely operate with much higher levels of debt than before, including improvements in macroeconomic management that have muted the business cycle and led to lower inflation and interest rates. But there is a suspicion that tolerance for private rather than public sector debt simply reflected an ideological preference. The Debt Mountain The data in Table 1 makes clear the rise in private sector debt had become unsustainable {3}. In the 1960s and 1970s, total debt was rising at roughly the same rate as nominal GDP. By 2000-2007, total debt was rising almost twice as fast as output, with the rapid issuance all coming from the private sector, as well as state and local governments. This created a dangerous interdependence between GDP growth (which could only be sustained by massive borrowing and rapid increases in the volume of debt) and the debt stock (which could only be serviced if the economy continued its swift and uninterrupted expansion). The resulting debt was only sustainable so long as economic conditions remained extremely favorable. The sheer volume of private-sector obligations the economy was carrying implied an increasing vulnerability to any shock that changed the terms on which financing was available, or altered the underlying GDP cash flows. The proximate trigger of the debt crisis was the deterioration in lending standards and rise in default rates on subprime mortgage loans. But the widening divergence revealed in the charts suggests a crisis had become inevitable sooner or later. If not subprime lending, there would have been some other trigger. Wrongheaded Policies The charts strongly suggest the necessary condition for resolving the debt crisis is a reduction in the outstanding volume of debt, an increase in nominal GDP, or some combination of the two, to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio to a more sustainable level. From this perspective, it is clear many of the existing policies being pursued in the United States and the United Kingdom will not resolve the crisis because they do not lower the debt ratio. In particular, having governments buy distressed assets from the banks, or provide loan guarantees, is not an effective solution. It does not reduce the volume of debt, or force recognition of losses. It merely re-denominates private sector obligations to be met by households and firms as public ones to be met by the taxpayer. This type of debt swap would make sense if the problem was liquidity rather than solvency. But in current circumstances, taxpayers are being asked to shoulder some or all of the cost of defaults, rather than provide a temporarily liquidity bridge. In some ways, government is better placed to absorb losses than individual banks and investors, because it can spread them across a larger base of taxpayers. But in the current crisis, the volume of debts that potentially need to be refinanced is so large it will stretch even the tax and debt-raising resources of the state, and risks crowding out other spending. Trying to cut debt by reducing consumption and investment, lowering wages, boosting saving and paying down debt out of current income is unlikely to be effective either. The resulting retrenchment would lead to sharp falls in both real output and the price level, depressing nominal GDP. Government retrenchment simply intensified the depression during the early 1930s. Private sector retrenchment and wage cuts will do the same in the 2000s. Bankruptcy or Inflation The solution must be some combination of policies to reduce the level of debt or raise nominal GDP. The simplest way to reduce debt is through bankruptcy, in which some or all of debts are deemed unrecoverable and are simply extinguished, ceasing to exist. Bankruptcy would ensure the cost of resolving the debt crisis falls where it belongs. Investor portfolios and pension funds would take a severe but one-time hit. Healthy businesses would survive, minus the encumbrance of debt. But widespread bankruptcies are probably socially and politically unacceptable. The alternative is some mechanism for refinancing debt on terms which are more favorable to borrowers (replacing short term debt at higher rates with longer-dated paper at lower ones.) The final option is to raise nominal GDP so it becomes easier to finance debt payments from augmented cash flow. But counter-cyclical policies to sustain GDP will not be enough. Governments in both the United States and the United Kingdom need to raise nominal GDP and debt-service capacity, not simply sustain it. There is not much government can do to accelerate the real rate of growth. The remaining option is to tolerate, even encourage, a faster rate of inflation to improve debt-service capacity. Even more than debt nationalization, inflation is the ultimate way to spread the costs of debt workout across the widest possible section of the population. The need to work down real debt and boost cash flow provides the motive, while the massive liquidity injections into the financial system provide the means. The stage is set for a long period of slow growth as debts are worked down and a rise in inflation in the medium term. Links: {1} https://customers.reuters.com/d/graphics/USDEBT1.pdf {2} https://customers.reuters.com/d/graphics/USDEBT2.pdf {3} https://customers.reuters.com/d/graphics/USDEBT3.pdf More Information on Social and Economic Policy http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/index.htm More Information on US Trade and Budget Deficits, and the Fall of the Dollar http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/tradedeficit/index.htm More Information on Bubble Capitalism and the World Economic Crisis http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/index.htm FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 USC Section. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/tradedeficit/2009/0120brink.htm TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From fentona at shaw.ca Thu Feb 5 23:16:10 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 22:16:10 -0800 Subject: [R-G] [Pro-Palestine] email earns Bloc Quebecois MP rebuke Message-ID: <8476CD9F-4C60-4C5A-A164-6A10985E170B@shaw.ca> Anti-Israel email earns Bloc Quebecois MP rebuke 1 day ago OTTAWA ? A Bloc Quebecois MP was upbraided for sending all of her colleagues in the House of Commons an anti-Israel email that paid tribute to groups listed in Canada as terrorist organizations. Maria Mourani forwarded all 308 MPs an email with links to numerous articles and images that accuse the Jewish state of terrorism, question its legitimacy and glorify violence against it. The note earned her a rebuke Wednesday from Prime Minister Stephen Harper, from the Jewish-rights organization B'nai Brith and a caution from her leader to be more careful. In one video link there's a graphic of a heart surrounding the image of the political leader of Hamas, while other videos show numerous flattering images of people draped in the group's iconic green bandana. Canada's list of terrorist organizations includes three groups - Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade - that receive laudatory treatment in the linked messages. Mourani explained that she had not examined the entire contents of the email, which included hundreds of pictures, along with a handful of videos, newspaper articles and blog entries. After her email raised eyebrows on Parliament Hill, Mourani sent her colleagues a more personal note in which she offered no apologies. She stressed in an interview with a Montreal newspaper, however, that she did not support what she described as hateful propaganda. "My goal was to show the impact not only on the people but also on the imagination of a large part of the population," the Montreal MP wrote to her colleagues. "This violence feeds tension and extremism and cannot lead to a lasting solution. "As some people have noted . . . violent and hateful propaganda is emerging that unfortunately is spreading throughout the Middle East and around the world." Bloc officials said Mourani would have more to say Thursday in a speech to the Commons. Harper raised the issue twice Wednesday in response to questions from her party leader. Gilles Duceppe twice complained about a lack of federal loan guarantees for struggling forestry companies - and the prime minister twice turned the debate to Mourani. "The Bloc leader should condemn his own members for having circulated propaganda which promotes terrorist organizations," Harper said. "The Bloc leader should unequivocally state that singing the praises of terrorist groups isn't part of Quebec's values." Duceppe said his MP should have checked the email's contents more carefully, but he said he would not discipline her and he considered the matter closed. "She distanced herself from those hateful remarks," Duceppe said. "She clearly did not support the things mentioned there. However, I think she should have displayed a little more rigour." Mourani forwarded an email that was intended to help solicit charitable donations for food, medicine and shelter for the people in Gaza. More than 1,300 Gazans were killed - over half of them civilians - and thousands more were wounded in an Israeli offensive aimed at halting Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. The email contains hundreds of images of the carnage in Gaza, including severed limbs, bombed-out buildings, and the bodies of dead children being held by grieving parents. One dead baby is draped in Hamas green. Also clad in green are other children in one of the numerous images showing people tossing rocks at Israeli tanks. The email includes a blog entry that argues that the Israeli offensive fit the definition of terrorism because it used violence to pressure Palestinian civilians into renouncing Hamas. The Lebanese-Canadian MP has been an ardent and controversial critic of Israel. She was forced to apologize in 2006 when she accused Israel of committing war crimes during the bombing of Lebanon. B'nai Brith Canada said Mourani should be more responsible in the future. "Maria Mourani has admitted that she failed to watch all the videos that were linked to the email she disseminated to fellow parliamentarians," said Frank Dimant, the group's executive vice president. "This irresponsible action makes her an unwitting tool in the spread of dangerous hate propaganda." From fentona at shaw.ca Thu Feb 5 23:21:05 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 22:21:05 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Hawks gunning for more military money Message-ID: Front Page Feb 6, 2009 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/KB06Aa03.html Hawks gunning for more military money By Jim Lobe WASHINGTON - Despite a shrinking national economy and a record defense budget, United States neo-conservatives and other right-wing hawks are mounting a spirited - if misleading - campaign to persuade Congress that the military should get a bigger slice. They are calling on Congress and President Barack Obama to boost military spending next year even beyond the projections made by the administration of former president George W Bush as to what would be needed. They are also arguing for devoting tens of billions of dollars of the nearly US$1 trillion economic stimulus package Obama is trying to push through Congress by mid-February to defense spending, insisting that increased orders for largely US-based military contractors will translate quickly into more jobs at a time when official unemployment rate is moving quickly toward double digits. "These kinds of expenditures not only make economic good sense, but would help close the large and long-standing gap between US strategy and military resources," wrote Tom Donnelly, a military analyst at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a predominantly neo-conservative think-tank, last month. "If bridges need fixing, so too do the tools with which our military fights," he argued, adding that Congress should increase defense spending by at least $20 billion a year. "A critical element in any recovery will be strengthening the foundations of a global economy, built upon US worldwide security guarantees." The campaign, which coincides with increased spending by major defense contractors for lobbying activities, comes at a critical moment for the new administration, which is focused more on getting the stimulus package passed quickly than on its precise content and on getting its key appointees confirmed and in place in the sprawling bureaucracies that make up the government. The administration is also still putting together its fiscal year (FY) 2010 budget and is not expected to release details until next month, less than seven months before the fiscal year begins. For now, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is insisting that the Pentagon's budget's be set at $527 billion for next year, consistent with the Bush administration's estimates as to its needs for FY 2010, an 8% increase over the current year's military budget. That amount, which does not include the roughly $170 billion Washington is spending this year on ongoing military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in what the Bush administration called the "global war on terror", already makes up more than 40% of the world's total military expenditure. But, as pointed out this week by the influential Congressional Quarterly, the Pentagon's bureaucracy and hawks in think-tanks and Congress are insisting that OMB's request actually amounts to a 10% cut to the $584 billion recommendation which was submitted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff last autumn in an apparent attempt to pressure the incoming president into a major increase. On January 30, the far-right broadcast outlet, Fox News, quoted what it called a senior defense official as saying that the administration was demanding a $55 billion cut in defense spending. At that point, other voices jumped in. Max Boot, a neo-conservative military analyst at the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), asserted that Pentagon chief, Robert Gates, had opposed the OMB's ceiling and warned that if Obama did not overrule it, "he could be doing terrible damage not only to our armed forces but also to his carefully cultivated image of moderation." The following day, Robert Kagan, a leading neo-conservative ideologue at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, joined the outcry in his monthly column in the Washington Post, offering five reasons why a "10% cut in defense spending" could have disastrous geopolitical implications by signaling to US enemies that "the American retreat has begun". "At a time when people talk of trillion-dollar stimulus packages, cutting 10% from the defense budget is a pittance, especially given the high price we will pay in America's global position," he wrote. "... [T]his is not the time to start weakening the armed forces." "It's pretty remarkable," said William Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation (NAF). "Obama agrees to Bush's [defense budget] increase, and the neo-cons are running around saying, 'Oh, he's gutting the military'." Hartung and other defense analysts see this latest maneuver as part of a larger campaign by the Pentagon bureaucracy and the defense industry, which anticipated growing pressure on the defense budget even before the outbreak of the current financial crisis in September. They are seeking to protect their interests even at a time when the Pentagon's political leadership recognizes that huge increases in military spending they enjoyed during the Bush era are not sustainable. Overall, military spending increased by about 60% since Bush took office in 2001, not including the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition to the apparent disinformation about the alleged "cut" in defense spending, the Pentagon's allies in the media have been pushing hard for increased military spending to be made a part of the stimulus package. That campaign was launched in late December when Martin Feldstein, former president Ronald Reagan's chief economic adviser and an AEI fellow, argued in the Wall Street Journal for at least $30 billion to expand military procurement, research and recruitment. Such an expansion could create some 330,000 jobs, he estimated in an article entitled "Defense Spending Would Be Great Stimulus". "Military procurement has the further advantage that almost all of the equipment and supplies that the military buys is made in the United States ... " he noted. "Because of the current very high and rising unemployment rates among young men and women ... now is also a good time for the military to increase recruiting and training." Frank Gaffney Jr, president of the far-right Center for Security Policy, quickly echoed that message in his weekly Washington Times column. "I have long believed it is mistake to use the defense budget as a jobs program. We should buy military hardware because it is needed for our security, not to boost employment," he wrote. "That said, where increased employment follows from making necessary investments in our armed forces' capabilities to fight today's wars - and, no less important, tomorrow's - it would be absurd not to include the Pentagon in an economic stimulus package." Meanwhile, the major military contractors have stepped up their lobbying efforts. According to the Wall Street Journal, three of the biggest companies - Lockheed-Martin, Boeing and Northrop-Grunman - boosted their multi-million-dollar lobbying budgets by between 54% and 90% beginning in 2008 as it became clear that the Bush spending binge was nearing an end. According to Hartung and other Pentagon critics, now is the critical moment for a reformist administration to begin cutting the defense budget, notably by canceling expensive conventional-weapons systems, such as the F-22 fighter jets and the V-22 Osprey aircraft that have proved both hugely expensive and of dubious utility. "They have a chance to stop the train and start moving back in the right direction," he told Inter Press Service. "If they don't take it now, it'll just get harder down the road." "The problem they're not getting huge public pressure to cut, whereas they are getting a lot of pressure to spend more," he said. Jim Lobe's blog on US foreign policy can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/ . (Inter Press Service) From fentona at shaw.ca Thu Feb 5 23:39:03 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 22:39:03 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Israel's Unjust War on Gaza: Self-Defense Against Peace Message-ID: February 5, 2009 Israel's Unjust War on Gaza: Self-Defense Against Peace http://counterpunch.org/mandel02052009.html By MICHAEL MANDEL Did self-defence justify Israel?s war on Gaza? Objections have been raised to this claim on grounds of a lack of both proportionality and necessity. To kill over 1000 Palestinians in 3 weeks, hundreds of them children, and wound thousands more, in order to deter a threat from rockets that did not kill or injure anybody in Israel for the six months the truce was declared by both sides, or even before Israel launched its attack on December 27, is so disproportionate as to be intolerable in any ethical system that holds Palestinian lives equal in value to Israeli lives. It is also so disproportionate as to defy belief that defence against these rockets was the real motive of the war. To ignore the many diplomatic avenues available to avoid even this threat, such as lifting the suffocating 18-month siege, suggests the same thing. A more fundamental objection, however, is the self-evident legal and moral principle that an aggressor cannot rely upon self-defence to justify violence against resistance to its own aggression. You can find this principle in domestic law and in the judgments of the Nuremberg tribunals. To quote one Nuremberg judge: On of the most amazing phenomena of this case which does not lack in startling features is the manner in which the aggressive war conducted by Germany against Russia has been treated by the defense as if it were the other way around. ?If it is assumed that some of the resistance units in Russia or members of the population did commit acts which were in themselves unlawful under the rules of war, it would still have to be shown that these acts were not in legitimate defense against wrongs perpetrated upon them by the invader. Under International Law, as in Domestic Law, there can be no reprisal against reprisal. The assassin who is being repulsed by his intended victim may not slay him and then, in turn, plead self defense. (Trial of Otto Ohlendorf and others, Military Tribunal II-A, April 8, 1948) So who was the aggressor here? There would have been no question as to who was the aggressor had this attack taken place before Israel?s withdrawal from the Gaza strip in 2005. At that point Israel had been committing a continuous aggression against Gaza for 38 years, in its illegal and violent occupation of it, along with the rest of the Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, after its conquest in 1967. By 2005, the occupation had been condemned as illegal by the highest organs with jurisdiction over international law, most notably the International Court of Justice in its 2004 opinion on the separation barrier. A central illegality of the occupation for the International Court lay in Israel?s settlements, which violate the law against colonization, and which are central to the occupation. The fifteen judges of the International Court were unanimously of the opinion that the settlements were illegal and the wall itself was held by a majority of 13-2 to be illegal, partly because it was there to defend the settlements, and not Israel itself, and thus could not qualify as self-defence. The rocket attacks from Gaza started in 2001 and took their first Israeli victim in 2004. Since then, there had been 14 Israeli victims prior to the current war. Tragic, indeed, but obviously paling in comparison to the 1700 Palestinians killed in Gaza during the same period. One death is indeed a tragedy, but many deaths are not just ?a statistic?, as Stalin had it; they are the tragedy multiplied many times over. Given Israel?s illegal, aggressive and violent occupation, prior to the withdrawal, Gaza rockets could only be regarded as necessary and proportionate self-defence, or as reprisals against Israel?s aggression. Did Israel?s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 change the situation? It has been forcefully argued that the 18-month siege of Gaza, a major reason for Hamas? refusal to extend the truce, was itself an act of aggression, giving rise to a right of self-defence. But even more important, though usually ignored, is Israel?s continued illegal and aggressive occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem after the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. Indeed, the withdrawal from Gaza was intended to strengthen the hold on the other territories and was accompanied by a greater increase in the number of settlers there than those removed from Gaza. The occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem figured equally with Gaza in the condemnations of the World Court and the Security Council. Furthermore, in the Oslo Accords, Israel and the Palestinians agreed that ?The two sides view the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period.? Indeed, when Hamas won the elections in 2006, elections declared impeccably fair and civil by all international observers, it won them for the whole of the Palestinian Authority, including the West Bank (it was not allowed by Israel to campaign in East Jerusalem). Many Hamas West Bank legislators remain in Israeli jails. And the basic fact is that the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza are one people, however separated they are by walls and fences and check-points. Israel?s unilateral withdrawal from one part of that people?s land cannot turn that people into aggressors when they resist the illegal occupation of the rest. So self-defense cannot justify this attack, or the siege that preceded it. What can? That Hamas is a ?terrorist organization?? But terrorism is about deliberately killing civilians for illegal political ends, and in that enterprise, Israel has topped Hamas by many multiples. That Hamas does not recognize Israel?s ?right to exist?? But Hamas has offered many times to make a long-term truce with Israel on the basis of the legal international borders, something it is clearly entitled to insist upon. Israel says that?s not good enough, that Hamas first has to recognize Israel?s legitimacy, in other words, it has to concede the legitimacy of the Jewish state and all it has meant to the Palestinians. In other words, as one Israeli journalist ironized, Israel is insisting that Hamas embrace Zionism as a condition of even talking peace with it. These are not justifications for violence on this or any scale. Indeed, they point to the most plausible reason Israel is fighting Hamas (and the PLO before it): self-defence, if you will, not against rockets and mortars, but against having to make peace with the Palestinians on the basis of the pre-1967 borders as required by international law. Michael Mandel is Professor of Law at Osgoode Hall Law School of York University in Toronto, where he teaches the Law of War. He is the author of How America Gets Away with Murder. From fentona at shaw.ca Thu Feb 5 23:54:10 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 22:54:10 -0800 Subject: [R-G] A New Era Between Washington and Venezuela? Message-ID: A New Era Between Washington and Venezuela? February 5th 2009, by Eva Golinger - Rebelion.org http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/4176 For a moment, to please all those who?ve fallen in love with the new president of the United States, let?s forget everything that was said about Venezuela during the last two terms of the ex-president George W. Bush, by spokespeople in his government. And let?s also forget about everything Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during the campaign because, well, sometimes the things that are said during the campaign are just to please the voters. So we?re just going to analyze what Obama and the new members of his team have expressed since he was elected to the most powerful political position in the world. The new United States president didn?t delay much in repeating the same comments about President Chavez and Venezuela that he made during the campaign. During an interview with the US-Hispanic television channel Univision, January 13, 2009, President Barack Obama, responding to a question about Latin America and specifically Venezuela, declared, ?Chavez has been a force that has impeded the progress in the region.? Later he commented, ?We must be very firm when we see this news, that Venezuela is exporting terrorist activities or backing malicious groups like the FARC. That creates problems that are unacceptable. That is not the good international behavior that we would expect from anyone in the hemisphere.? This declaration from President Obama sounds like something coming from the Bush Administration, just as President Chavez pointed out. (Note: here I could say yet again that exactly that is true, that there isn?t much difference between Bush and Obama with respect to the imperialist policies of the United States, but I promise that I won?t say it yet. It?s better that I be able to prove it with his own actions and attitudes.) In that statement, Obama repeated the two main viewpoints promoted by all the Washington agencies, including the Congress headed by the Democratic Party, during the last four years: Chavez is a destabilizing force in the region, and Venezuela has ties with terrorism. But let?s continue. Later, the new Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, declared during her confirmation hearing in the U.S. Senate, ?We have problems in our own hemisphere with some energy providers, like Hugo Chavez? We have a challenge in Latin America, and our challenges have to do with the way we get involved to make a difference. We should worry less about what Chavez says and more about what we do at the end of the day.? Here it?s valid to compare what the then-incoming Secretary of State Condoleezza said in 2005, when already in her confirmation hearing she stated that ?Hugo Chavez is a negative force in the region.? That famous phrase by Rice put the aggressive, hostile, and bellicose plan against Venezuela into action, which is obviously being reinforced by the new administration in Washington, regardless of color or political affiliation. In the United States, be him red or blue, Republican or Democrat, he is an imperialist regardless. Here it should be added that with respect to the analysis, what a candidate to the highest diplomatic position in the United States says in her confirmation hearing is a demonstration of her priorities when she takes the office of Secretary of State. So the fact that two Secretaries of State have spoke of Venezuela and President Chavez as a ?negative force? or a ?problem? has significant implications for Washington?s foreign policy. Since 2005, Venezuela has been and continues to be a policy priority for security, defense, and intelligence in the United States. It was classified as such in a July 2008 State Department report which highlighted three global priority areas in US foreign policy: Iran?s support for the Iraqi insurgency, the growing presence of Al Qaeda en Afghanistan, and the ?association? of Venezuela with ?terrorist states.? I?ll repeat, what I have just detailed in this last phrase are the three global priorities for the security, defense, and diplomatic corps of the United States. Venezuela is among these three. But as if this wasn?t enough, in his swearing-in speech, the new United States president declared, ?Each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries.? Okay, he didn?t necessarily name Venezuela, but there?s no doubt that the South American country with the largest oil reserves in the world was in mind when he made that comment. Further along in his speech, when President Obama was alerting the enemies of the United States that his government would retake and defend its position as world leader (as if it had done something different in recent years), said ?To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.? Well, here he didn?t necessarily direct this message indirectly to Venezuela, but still, with everything that has been said about Chavez?s government, it?s quite possible. And then there?s James Steinberg, the new number two in the State Department. This young gentleman?s r?sum? includes positions like recent chancellor of the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin; Analyst for the RAND Corporation, a business contracted by the Pentagon to develop its principal strategies; Assistant National Security Advisor at the White House (1997-2001); and a researcher at the Brookings Institute, one of the three think tanks that develop the imperialist policies of Washington. Steinberg already began to throw darts hard at Venezuela during his United States Senate confirmation hearing on January 22. In response to a question regarding Latin America by Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Steinberg said, ?I think that the people have realized that the offers of Chavez don?t lead to a better life or better success of the peoples? For too much time, we?ve ceded the playing field to Chavez, whose actions and vision for the region don?t serve the interests of his citizens nor of the people throughout Latin America.? What? Obviously Senator Menendez is not being well informed about how much things have improved in Venezuela over the last ten years. For example, Venezuela today enjoys the lowest unemployment rate in its history, lower than the unemployment rate in the United States! (In Venezuela it?s at 6 percent while in the United States the unemployment rate is at 7.2 percent). Not even to mention that in Venezuela, under the revolutionary policies of President Chavez, no Venezuelan is without free medical attention at all levels, while the United States healthcare system is deplorable. More than 46 million US citizens live without access to the healthcare system. And statistics in education, infant mortality, life expectancy, industrial development, recovery of cultural traditions, indigenous languages, and the level of electoral participation that the Bolivarian government has accomplished is without precedent in Venezuelan history. But to top off this treatment from Obama?s government, their website shows that they clearly consider Venezuela to be their number one enemy. In the section of the site where they highlight their political agenda related to energy, one finds the following objective: ?Eliminate Our Current Imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 Years.? And in another part of the agenda the same concept is articulated this way: ?Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.? This same objective was repeated January 26, 2009, when he said, ?The United States will not be a hostage to increasingly limited resources from hostile regimes,? during a White House ceremony. Okay, so Venezuela is considered to be one of the most important objectives of the Obama administration in the area of energy, which is considered part of the security and defense strategy of Washington. So from everything that?s been said and done in less than a month by the new administration of Barack Obama, is there evidence of any change in the hostile and aggressive tone against Venezuela? I think the answer is a resounding no, unfortunately. What is demonstrated is simply what we?ve been saying: the empire is the empire, regardless of its color. Until it stops viewing itself as the best in the world and the global leader that looks to impose its vision and model on the rest, the empire will continue being the same. Meanwhile, Venezuela, together with other free and honorable peoples, must continue constructing its future, remaining alert to the imperial attacks that threaten its prosperity. Translated by Erik Sperlinger From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Fri Feb 6 04:21:30 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:21:30 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The "FDR Failed" Myth Message-ID: <498C1D3A.4010002@ashisuto.co.jp> by Charles McMillion www.ourfuture.org (February 03 2009) Contrary to the anti-government myths and ideology-driven arguments of conservatives like Amity Shlaes, the facts show FDR's New Deal quickly brought rapid growth to the nation's economy during the Great Depression. The current recession will soon become the longest since the Great Depression. The US is losing over 500,000 jobs each month, and a new president, elected overwhelmingly, is pleading for unity and urgent action on a scale not seen since the New Deal. At such a moment, it is imperative to expose a dangerous popular myth regarding the efficacy of President Roosevelt's actions: that it was not the programs of the New Deal, but only the placing of the nation on a wartime footing years later, that restored the health of the nation's economy. This belief, though widely held, cannot stand up to even the most basic economic analysis. Yet the mainstream corporate media, which abound with anti-government ideology, seek to reinforce this myth. Just this past Sunday, The Washington Post featured on Page One of its Outlook section an article by Amity Shlaes headlined "FDR Was a Great Leader, But His Economic Plan Isn't One to Follow". Underscoring Shlaes's made-up claims, the Post ran the continuation of her piece under the title: "FDR's Plan Failed to Spark Real Growth". In it, Shlaes, having passed over the anything-goes policies that led to the financial crash in 1929 - and, to a great extent, the devastating economic losses that occurred between 1929 and Roosevelt's 1933 inauguration - also completely leaves out any specific data on gross domestic product, incomes, consumer spending, production, investment or jobs even for the New Deal period she presumes to explain. Indeed, her pitch is based entirely on emotional misrepresentation. The basic economic facts from the 1930s - according to the Department of Commerce, the Federal Reserve, and other official sources - are fundamentally different from the unsupported claims put forward by Shlaes and prominent in popular myth. The monthly data for industrial production show a near three-year collapse under President Hoover, ending when FDR came to office in March 1933. Production rocketed by 44 percent in the first three months of the New Deal and, by December 1936, had completely recovered to surpass its 1929 peak. See charts at http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020603/fdr-failed-myth GDP, only available as annual averages, plunged 25.6 percent from 1929-1932, including by 13.0 percent in 1932. It stabilized in 1933, and then soared by 10.8 percent, 8.9 percent and 12.0 percent, respectively, in 1934, 1935 and 1936. Real GDP surpassed its 1929 peak in 1936 and never again fell below it. After-tax personal income, consumer spending, real private investment and jobs all reached or surpassed their 1929 peaks by late 1936. In fact, like every decade between 1850 and 1990, the 1930s suffered two distinct downturns. The official US Business Cycle Dating Committee established that the downturn that began in August 1929 ended in March 1933 with the remarkable economic expansion that started within days of FDR's bold - if trial and error - New Deal programs. By any normal definition, the Great Depression had ended by late 1936, with all major indicators surpassing their previous peaks. A second cyclical downturn officially began in May 1937 when FDR, always a fiscal conservative, mistakenly thought the economy had become self-sustaining and slashed public spending programs to balance the budget. These harsh and premature spending cuts caused another severe recession that ended after thirteen months in June 1938. Even in this severe downturn, annual GDP did not fall back below its 1929 peak. And although many suffered and most economic measures did fall back below their 1929 levels, not one fell anywhere close to its March 1933 low. For example, although industrial production fell sharply in the 1937-38 recession, at its low point, in April 1938, it remained 49 percent above its level of March 1933. When the economy again contracted sharply in late 1937 and early 1938, FDR quickly reversed course and rapid growth immediately began again. GDP soared by 10.9 percent in 1939 and industrial production soared by 23 percent. Shlaes's Post article begins with a misleading, emotional story of a young, desperate boy's tragic suicide in 1937. She does not inform readers that FDR had reversed course and was sharply cutting - not adding to - New Deal spending at the time this suicide likely occurred. Rather, she uses this emotional tale to turn facts on their head, asserting - with no actual evidence - that public spending was ineffective and New Deal programs failed. Like other ideological critics of government, Shlaes sites only two economic indicators of the 1930s: the falling but persistently high unemployment rate and the length of time required for the stock market to recover after its bubble burst. Neither of these is used in any serious economic or policy analysis. Media emphasize the unemployment rate but, because it is known to be lagging and misleading, it is not considered at all by economists in determining the start or end of a recession or depression. This is because people stop looking for jobs when there are none to be found and begin looking again when conditions improve. Serious analysis, including recession and depression dating, use the separate business reporting of actual jobs added or lost. Despite the new record peak in the number of jobs by late 1936, because of population growth and because more people were encouraged to seek jobs, the unemployment rate did remain very high until public spending programs truly exploded with the start of World War II. But even here, it was again vastly expanded government spending, this time to fight the war, that ended high unemployment. Finally, Shlaes points to the long time before the Dow Jones industrial average regained - in 1954 - its 1929 bubble levels as a key factor "that made the Depression Great". This is, again, Shlaes's own unique perspective, absent from serious assessments by economists but used by her as a basis for advocating further income and capital gains tax cuts for upper-income Americans. Unmentioned is that these policies were implemented by President Bush and yet, over the eight years of his presidency, the Dow Jones industrial average fell 25 percent and the NASDAQ plummeted 48 percent. Myth and ideology aside, the data show that from 1933 through 1936 the New Deal produced double-digit annual growth in GDP, production, after-tax income and private investment, with strong consumer spending and job growth exceeding their peaks in the 1929 bubble. The Great Depression ended by late 1936. While a new, severe recession began in May 1937 because FDR prematurely slashed public spending on New Deal programs, rapid growth quickly resumed in late 1938 when funding was restored. Today, the US and the world again face extreme crises similar to those in the early days of the 1930s. The largely unregulated private financial and commercial sector has utterly bankrupted itself. I personally believe the recent and current bailout and stimulus packages are grossly misdirected and inadequate when compared with the remarkable trade and industrial policy strategies being implemented elsewhere, particularly in China. But history has shown that crisis can bring people together in common, public purpose or it can set them against one another. Our circumstances are far too dangerous to leave uncorrected the antigovernment disinformation and myths from the 1930s, and in our own generation. _____ Charles W McMillion, president and chief economist of MBG Information Services, is the former associate director of the Johns Hopkins University Policy Institute and a former contributing editor of the Harvard Business Review. See also "An Economy for All" at http://www.ourfuture.org/economy Campaign For America's Future 1825 K Street, NorthWest, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20006 202-955-5665 (tel) | 202-955-5606 (fax) | www.ourfuture.org http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020603/fdr-failed-myth TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From realiteee1 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 6 10:35:50 2009 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 09:35:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] LPDOC Acts: 2-6 Call to Act on Behalf of Peltier; etc.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <78067.36003.qm@web111503.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Broadcast of the Peltier Event in Boulder, Colorado TODAY! Live Internet stream of the Boulder, CO, event for Leonard Peltier at Noon (Mountain Time).? Brought to you by FREE Leonard Peltier Radio, http://www.therealpublicradio.net/. FREE Leonard Peltier Radio Program We Are All Doing Time Setting The Record Straight Host: Wanbli Please listen and call in at 712-432-8773, pin 179441. ----- ? February 6 Call to Action on Behalf of Leonard Peltier Today, February 6, is the 33rd anniversary of Leonard's arrest. Take two actions today.? Contact the White House by phone and e-mail. Tell President Obama to Free Peltier NOW. Phone: Comments: 202-456-1111 FAX: 202-456-2461 TTY/TDD Comments: 202-456-6213 E-Mail: Use BOTH of the following: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/opl/ (Office of Public Liaison) ----- Time to set him free... Because it is the RIGHT thing to do. Friends of Peltier http://www.FreePeltierNow.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe,?? send a blank message to freepeltiernow-on at mail-list.com To contact the list owner, send your message to?? freepeltiernow-list-owner at mail-list.com mail-list.com??? 1302 Waugh Dr. #438??? Houston, Texas??? 77019??? USA ? Friends Digest Vol. 2, No. 18?? :) Statement from Leonard * From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Feb 6 10:30:20 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 09:30:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Telus union protests job shift to Philippines Message-ID: <1049543553.267801233941420790.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Vancouver Sun February 5, 2009 Telus union protests job shift to Philippines By Brian Morton, Vancouver Sun The Telecommunications Workers Union is angry about a plan by Telus to move 50 full-time positions from B.C. and Alberta to its operations in the Philippines. ?The work will still be done by Telus, but overseas and not in Canada,? the union?s national president, George Doubt, said in an interview this week. ?We?re unhappy about that. Telus earns money in Canada and has a duty to employ people in Canada.? The shift also comes as Telus International opened its first call centre in the United States, a centre in Las Vegas that is slated to provide up to 1,000 jobs for the area as Telus seeks to provide services for clients that require them in both Spanish and English. The centre is opening with 200 people and is expected to grow up to 1,000. Telus is also partnering in new call centre operations in Central America with locations in three countries, adding another 2,200 jobs there. Of the 7,000 people who currently work for Telus International, the majority are in Manila. The announcement of the move of the 50 full-time positions in western Canada will affect call-centre workers in Vancouver, Burnaby, Calgary and Edmonton. Doubt said the union found out on Monday that approximately 300 employees were being offered a choice of a severance package or a transfer to another job, with the expectation that 50 would take it. ?We thought we?d get more notice.? He said there will be no layoffs, because the estimated 50 people losing their jobs at Telus?s Client Care Business Solutions and Complimentary Channels (which serves Telus?s small business clients) will be offered other work elsewhere in the company. Telus spokesman Shawn Hall said in an interview that the decision to move the jobs to the Philippines is necessary for the company?s future. ?Part of it is about cost savings. We need to be more efficient,? said Hall. ?This is about adapting to change in our industry.? He also said that more jobs may be moved to the Philippines operation in the future. ?That may happen.? Hall said it?s important to note that none of the affected workers will lose their jobs, and none will be forced to move away from their communities. ?Their pay and benefits won?t change.? Doubt said Telus also announced recently that it is downsizing 70 to 80 clerical-support people for directors. They were also being offered severance packages or different jobs, he said. Hall said Canadian employees who decline the severance package offer will do ?related work in a highly-valued area of our company.? He said the call centre in the Philippines now has 7,000 employees, but that Telus is still hiring in Canada. ?We employ 29,000 in Canada, and are continuing to hire in Canada in growth areas of our company. Last year, we created 125 new call-centre jobs in Burnaby to service consumer-wireless and TV customers.? Hall said the people being offered severance packages have been given several weeks to respond. ?We?re shifting skilled Canadian employees to growing areas of our company while working to be more efficient in areas of our company that are declining. ?This [moving jobs to the Philippines] is nothing new for Telus. We?ve been doing this every year since 2001. They [employees in the Philippines] have good pay and benefits.? bmorton at vancouversun.com with file from Gillian Shaw From fentona at shaw.ca Fri Feb 6 10:44:57 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 09:44:57 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Global warming spurs commercial fishing moratorium in U.S. Arctic Message-ID: <8D769D2D-92BF-4117-A7F2-0F43CF23F049@shaw.ca> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008712029_arcticclosure6m.html Global warming spurs commercial fishing moratorium in U.S. Arctic By Hal Bernton Seattle Times staff reporter Spurred by global warming concerns in the U.S. Arctic, a federal fishery council on Thursday established a moratorium on commercial seafood harvests in a vast zone off Alaska's northern coast. In a unanimous vote in Seattle, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council approved the plan in response to the dramatic retreat of summertime ice in Arctic waters. The plan covers a nearly 200,000-square-mile area stretching from the Bering Strait waters near Russia to the U.S. maritime boundary with the Canadian Arctic. The plan will be forwarded to the U.S. Commerce Department for final approval, and would be a boost to State Department efforts to negotiate similar fishing closures off the Arctic coasts of Canada and the Russian Far East. There are currently no commercial harvests in the federal waters of the U.S. Arctic, which stretch from 3 to as far as 200 miles offshore through the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. But many believe that pressures to fish those areas will increase in the years ahead if warming waters cause a migration there of pollock and other species that now sustain major harvests farther south in the Bering Sea. "The rate of change in the Arctic is fairly well understood," said David Benton, executive director of the Marine Conservation Alliance, which represents commercial fishing groups, processors and Alaska communities. "What is not understood is the way that it's going to affect the marine environment and the Arctic people." The council is a mix of federal, state and industry officials who help set the rules guiding North Pacific commercial harvests, which are the largest in North America. Their plan would not impose a permanent ban on commercial fishing. Fishing would be allowed only if additional surveys indicate harvests could be sustainable and not harm the broader marine ecosystem. "This is a precautionary approach," said Eric Olson, a Native Alaskan who chairs the federal council. "It's protective. It lays out a framework for fisheries development in the Arctic." The summer ice pack retreated to its lowest level on record in 2007, and last summer marked the second-smallest ice pack. Climate scientists expect that global warming, caused by the buildup of greenhouse-gas emissions in the atmosphere, will cause the melting of the summer ice pack in Arctic waters by about 2030. There have been relatively few surveys of fishery stocks in the U.S. Arctic. The latest effort was last summer, when federal fisheries scientists in Seattle chartered a fishing vessel for a three-week cruise. The top species found in the survey included Arctic cod, a fish that is important for Arctic marine birds and mammals, and snow crab, according to Elizabeth Logerwell, the lead federal biologist. The survey nets also caught small amounts of pollock, Pacific cod and Bering flounder, three commercial fish Logerwell said were not noted in a 1977 survey. Small numbers of the species might have always inhabited the waters, or they may have migrated north in recent decades as summer ocean ice retreated. advertising The plan's passage reflects an unusual consensus between the fishing industry and conservationists. Jim Ayers, vice president of the environmental group Oceana, called the plan a "model for management of the Arctic Ocean." He said he found common ground with industry officials in numerous late-night conversations fueled by coffee and whiskey shots. The plan also has garnered support from Native Alaskans in the Arctic. They are wary of the impacts of a large-scale commercial harvest upon whales, seals and other marine life that support their subsistence harvests. But there is interest in the king crab that now congregate in federal waters off Kotzebue in northwest Alaska. If surveys indicate a sustainable harvest is possible, officials of the regional borough would like to leave that option open for a local fleet. State Department officials say they already are discussing ocean conservation measures in other Arctic areas. Hal Bernton: 206-464-2581 or hbernton at seattletimes.com From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Feb 6 13:12:06 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:12:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Bread In-Reply-To: <894590910.-2127934682@org.orgDB.mail.democracyinaction.org> Message-ID: <1947185582.338861233951126631.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message Ask Obama to deliver on his promise of Hope. Sign the Open Letter to Obama. Tell him to end the blockade. (You can also download posters of these images.) Dear Friends, While waiting in line at the only open bakery he could find, Gaza resident Mohammed Salman said, "I'm going to buy something that my family can keep for only two days because there is no electricity and no refrigerator. We cannot keep anything longer than that." This was in January - of last year. Today , many Gazan bakeries are closed because, like Mohammed's family, they don't have power either. Some don't even have flour. The Israeli blockade of Gaza had already made it impossible for Palestinians to live in dignity and have access to the barest of essentials: bread, clean water, medical supplies and electricity. This is no coincidence. This is official policy. In a moment of candor, Dov Weissglas, a top aide to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was quoted as saying, "the Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but [they] won't die." His prediction was true. Last April , UNICEF reported that more than 50% of children under five in Gaza are anemic, and that many children are stunted due to a lack of vitamins. And now? As Gaza is smoldering from the siege that killed 1,285 people - nearly 70% of them civilians, destroyed at least 4,000 homes, and sent more than 50,000 people to temporary shelters, the Israeli blockade has not been lifted. A tenuous cease fire is in now place. Humanitarian aid is starting to pour in. But the civilian infrastructure is crippled. The borders of Gaza remain controlled by Israel. And just as Gazans could not leave during the siege to escape the bombing and shelling, they cannot leave now to get food and fuel. There is not enough electricity for the bakeries that are left standing to produce bread, or for families that still have homes to refrigerate food. Palestinians cannot even feed their children with the fish from the nearby sea. Israeli gunboats offshore have been enforcing the blockade with rounds of cannon and bursts of heavy machine-gun fire, to warn keep Gaza fishermen out of the sea. Unless we end the blockade, long after the world's attention has shifted to some other crisis, some 1.5 million Gazans will still be under-nourished, without proper medical care, fuel and water - and trapped. Israelis too, who live in the south, will be even less safe from the threat of Hamas' Qassam rockets falling on their heads. Lasting peace and stability in the region is simply an impossible dream while Palestinians in Gaza are denied the right to protect their children, feed their families, and expand their worlds beyond the few feet in front of their homes, or for many, tents. Tell Obama, now: "Lift the blockade." To unsubscribe, click here . From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Feb 6 13:09:25 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:09:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] The Plagues of Capitalism In-Reply-To: <173509963.317941233948413510.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <266956170.337791233950965530.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.greatrecession.info/?p=654#more-654 Great Recession : because it?s not a depression. yet. The Plagues of Capitalism Energy crisis, climate collapse, hunger and financial instabilities Elmar Altvater There is no historical proof that the ten biblical plagues that the God of the people of Israel inflicted upon the Egyptians, according to the second book Moses in the old testament, including poisoned wells, mosquitoes, smallpox, cattle plagues, avalanches of frogs, swarms of locusts, or a solar eclipse ever took place. But it is an undeniable fact that today, billions of people are suffering from hunger, that the fossil fuel supply for the future is insecure, that the global climate threatens to collapse, and that the global financial crisis is causing horrendous losses in the trillions, that millions of jobs are being destroyed, and whole branches of industry are in trouble, and the incomes of the masses are declining in the current global financial crisis. The modern plagues afflict the people just as much as the plagues of Egypt did more than 3000 years ago. The financial crisis turns into a crisis of the real economy At the beginning of October 2008, the IMF valued the losses of the global financial crisis at US$ 1400 billion. Only a month later, the Bank of England doubled this estimate to US$ 2800 billion. This is almost three times as much as the losses indicated by the Bank of England in April 2008 (US$ 1150 billion) . Obviously, the crisis is out of control - despite government subsidies and guarantees to the amount of some US$ thousand billions on both sides of the Atlantic. These sums seemed absurdly high only a few months ago, and in the meantime government subsidies and guarantees were also necessary in Japan, China, Russia and Latin America. Almost daily, new financial assistance is supplied to ailing banks and large industrial companies, for instance, nearly US$ 50 billion was given to Citigroup at the end of November 2008 (SZ, Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Nov. 25th 2008) or to the air plane leasing division of the damaged AIG, the world?s biggest insurance corporation, or the seemingly almost ridiculous amount of $ US 13.4 billion to the three car giants in the USA. The losses of the credit card operators are still hidden in their accounts; they are expected to inevitably be revealed in 2009. The ?public contingent liabilities? in the euro area have now risen to more than 2000 billion euros, according to the ECB monthly report of November 2008. These liabilities, if realised, would then amount to 21% of the GDP of the EU-members. Considering the approaching recession, it is not unlikely that this happens. In contrast to the forecasts of many, even critical economists only a few weeks ago, the crisis has left the financial sector and grown into a serious crisis of the ?real? economy. Unemployment is increasing exponentially, the pressure on incomes is rising. The tax revenue of the governments and local authorities is declining, and therefore financing social benefits is more difficult, particularly since so much money has been absorbed by the banking sector to compensate for the losses in bank balance sheets and to replace equity capital lost through speculation. The European Central Bank estimates that the fiscal costs of the present financial market turbulences amount to about 3% of the GDP in the euro area; the European Commission has decided on an economy stimulating package of 200 billion euros in order to achieve some kind of coordination of the hectic economic stabilisation measures of the various EU countries. In November, the White House assigned 150 billion US dollars for fiscal interventions. After his election in November 2008, Barack Obama promised fiscal means that would secure 2.5 million jobs. Shortly before Christmas this promised number of jobs was raised to 3 million. Paul Krugman proposed an economy boosting package of US$ 750 billion for the USA. This would amount to about 6% of the US national product, and would approximately double public debt. Obama seems to be approaching this target, there are even speculations that the package to counter the crisis could be more than US$ one thousand billion and that US ?deficit spending? would then amount to about 10 per cent of US GDP. China will also spend large sums with a promised cash injection of 460 billion US dollars. China has accumulated huge reserves and does not even need to incur debt to revive the economy. These gigantic amounts could still be exceeded if loans defaults have to be covered by insurances because of the real economy crisis. Credit default swaps (CDS) of up to US$ 60,000 billion could then be due and explode the financial sector despite state assistance. The financial crisis sharpens to a catastrophy. The fact that some states were already virtually bankrupt in 2008 (Iceland, Ukraine, Hungary, Baltic states etc.) had particularly fatal effects and the credit risk of government bonds has generally risen. Suddenly, there is an echo chanting ?yes, we are, yes we can? following President Nixon?s exclamation almost 40 years ago: ?today we are all Keynesians?. Even those who rejected any calls for demand management with active fiscal policies as economic nonsense and a dangerous intervention in the workings of the free market not so long ago, are now joining in. They seem to realise the gravity of the situation: the costs of the financial crisis are absorbed, and additionally, hundreds of billions of euros and dollars are being pumped into the global economic system. The urgency is understandable. Which explanation could be given to the voters that 20 per cent of the national product has been made available to banks and bankers, but there still is no money to secure and create jobs? Post-neoliberal Keynesianism serves primarily to provide legitimacy for redistribution measures to rescue ailing financial institutions and businesses. Everybody knows that the outrageously wicked proposal by Josef Ackermann (CEO of the Deutsche Bank) to create a public ?bad bank? to take over ?toxic assets? from private banks so they could again become ?good banks? could only work when it is presented not only as a practical constraint without alternatives but also with some offers to employees and other citizens. The crisis - collapse or a fountain of youth for the system? Banks and other financial institutions are absorbing a fifth of the national product to compensate their losses with public funds and to exchange their toxic assets for good central bank money. Climate change will cost a fifth of the global national product over the next decades - if nothing is done to prevent it. These findings are from the well-known report by Nicholas Stern for the British government in 2006 or from the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) . We can choose which plague causes greater shudder: the massive losses of the global financial crisis or the astronomical costs of climate change. Climate change has become bitter reality and consequently determined public debate. However, after the collapse of some globally operating big banks (Bear Stearns; Lehman Brothers), the public debate solely revolved around the rescue packages for the financial sector. The financial and economic crisis also provided the most important argument for putting a break on climate policies: charity begins at home. The horrendous costs of the financial crisis have also made us forget that at least 923 million people in the world suffer from hunger , according to the FAO, and that the energy crisis is not in the least over - because fossil resources are limited (Peak Oil), even if the oil price has declined since August 2008 as a result of the financial and economic crisis; because industrial production is stagnating or even decreasing. But this will change again very soon; the basic trend for the price of fossil fuel is inclined to increase. The present financial crisis is not a novelty in the history of capitalism. Many people have lost a lot in the historical financial and economic crises and it will not be different in the present global crisis, even if the full force of losses have not yet reached the ?man in the street? at the beginning of 2009. In financial and economic crises, ?only? money was and will be lost, the capitalist economic system is not collapsing. On the contrary, economic crises are a kind of ?fountain of youth? since, as Josef A. Schumpeter states , the system renews its power base through ?creative destruction? in times of crises. This was also clear to Karl Marx: ?the crises are always only short-term violent solutions to the inherent contradictions, violent eruptions, which for the moment restore the disturbed equilibrium?? - until the next crisis occurs. This is different for natural disasters, including those caused by mankind. In general, they not only incur high financial costs, as has been calculated in the aforementioned ?Stern report? on the costs of climate change compiled for the British government , but also cause irreversible changes which are mostly destructive to the natural environment. Even if we could offset an extinct plant or animal species with money, we are unable to bring it back to life. In the previous history of mankind, regional or local cultures fell victim to ecological and other catastrophes; the societies on Easter Island have disappeared, the Maya and Inca cultures, too. In the era of globalization, crises in nature can result in the global collapse of climate, energy supply, biodiversity and consequently of food production. That would not only be a bitter financial loss, but would also mean the irreparable destruction of natural habitat and consequently also of human livelihoods. In view of the financial and economic crisis, as well as the ecological crisis (the energy crisis resulting from ?peak oil?, the threatening climate collapse, inadequate supply of water and food in many regions of the world), we must recall what Karl Marx described as the crucial point of political economy. The crucial point is the definitive recognition of the ?twofold character? of labour and of the commodity: the prevalent understanding of the economy is that we are dealing mainly with value and monetary cycles, and these are interpreted as basically reversible. Disbursed capital returns to itself - augmented with the profit. Thus, profit is also called ?return on capital?. At the same time, irreversible material and energy transformations occur in production, transportation, communication and consumption, which inevitably increase the entropy of the Earth?s system. This need not concern us as long as we are nowhere near the limits to the availability of resources or the sustainability of sinks to cope with pollutants. But we have to take them into account as soon as we approach the natural limits of the planet Earth with an increasingly large ?ecological footprint?. We will fail if we do not take them into account, and a social and political failure in view of these ecological limits will have more far-reaching consequences than the monetary losses of the financial and economic crisis. However, debates on these limits do not rely on objective natural facts, but depend on our knowledge, they are determined by social and economic interests, and, not least, are politically filtered. Consequently, it is not possible to consider the crises in finance, economy, energy and climate separately and isolated from each other, since they of course mutually have an effect on each other. The ?mother of all crises? is the production and consumption model of the capitalist centres. This requires high rates of productivity increase, is based on mass production and mass consumption and is therefore based on the massive consumption of raw materials, fossil energy and land area. Biodiversity, and hence the evolution of life are also impaired by monocultures. At the same time, the industrialised countries are economic and political power centres of the capitalist world and have the potential to confront the systemic crisis - if the elites would choose to accede. Money is one of the means of state intervention in economy and business but it is not available when finances are needed to combat hunger or the threatening climate collapse - or ?just? to create jobs. Incredible amounts of good money have to be pumped into the financial system to neutralize bad, toxic money and to save the system from collapse. The industrial countries have reduced the means to combat hunger to 12 billion dollars, the Oxfam charity organisation complains. This amount will only suffice to provide each of the 923 million hungry people with 11US dollars. The UN World Food Programme urgently needs US$ 5.2 billion for 2009 to provide minimal help to the starving in Haiti, in the Congo and elsewhere. For the hungry, there are not even crumbs of peanuts available - whereas massive amounts are spent to save the banks. This is also indicative of a collapse, the moral collapse of financially-driven capitalism. Real surpluses and financial claims What were the causes of this financial crisis in 2008, probably the severest in the history of capitalism? The financial claims of the financial sector institutions have to be serviced in real terms, and as long as that remains possible, it is business as usual and no-one even remotely thinks of a problem with payments or even a financial crisis. The ability to service demands can be undermined from two sides: a decline in the surpluses of the real accumulation process which must service financial demands, and at the same time, the profit requirements of financial investors increase. Both of these occurred before the financial crisis. The gap opened wide between a financial sector completely going wild with increasingly absurd profit claims and the capacity of the production sector. Capitalist economy is not just a virtual event as post-modern theorists like to assume. Real surpluses must be produced if they are to satisfy the virtual demands which only exist as bits and bytes. Real surpluses must increase all the more, the greater the capital value already is, in order to consolidate or increase the yield or rate of profit (the relationship between surplus and advanced capital). This also applies to the growth of national product. The absolute increase must rise so that the growth rate does not decrease in time. In contrast to virtual surpluses, however, real surpluses cannot be increased exponentially. There are many explanations available in economic theory; beginning with the classic law of diminishing returns, via the Marxist theory of the falling rate of profit to the post-Keynesian theory of secular stagnation to the theory of limits to growth in ecological economics. When real surpluses decrease relative to advanced capital or to the gross domestic product, then the recipients of financial returns are served for a while from the material substance and continue the ?accumulation of capital by dispossession? through the redistribution of already produced material value from the global south to the north, from debtors to creditors, from those dependent on labour to proprietors of wealth and capital. Therefore it is no accident that the proportion of wages and salaries in all industrial countries has been reduced by five to ten percent and the corporate and capital incomes have been correspondingly increased over the past two decades of globalisation. This redistribution from the ?real economy? to service debt to the financial sector can be maintained for a while, but not for extended periods, since the material substance is undermined. The legitimation resources of societies in the global area are overburdened, and even the economic mechanisms will not permit an unlimited continuation of accumulation by dispossession. The redistribution of income in favour of capital asset owners not only triggers social resistance but also causes a reduction in mass demand which is no longer available to provide for the accretion of goods or to ?regularly? service mortgage debts. Cost savings during the accumulation process initially have a positive effect on the profit rate. However, the environmental damage caused by the irreversible character of such production and consumption inevitably returns and diminishes the profitability of capital. This, at the latest, is the case when the ?social costs of private enterprise? (K. William Kapp) provoke social and political resistance, because the living conditions of the people are deteriorating. Therefore, real surpluses meet the limits which apply to all transformation processes for materials and energy. Limits in capitalism appear in the form of a falling profit rate, which can disrupt the dynamics of accumulation. The crisis is then unavoidable. At the same time, financial claims increase as if there were no natural limits and as if the social contradictions of real reproduction and the accumulation process did not exist. Financial innovations appear to enable a nirvana of huge profits and dream salaries of managers. There is a worldwide competition of the financial locations for high returns and interest rates. New financial institutions are set up to increase the returns for ?investors?: investment banks, all kinds of funds, special purpose vehicles. They introduce new financial instruments, always promising increasing returns without providing information on the real risks. Rating agencies have contributed to disguising the risks of ?accumulation by dispossession?, although their task should actually be to reveal the risks. This has occurred on a massive scale through the securitisation of mortgage loans which were the foundation for dubious credit pyramids and fictitious capital. These paper assets enabled high earnings as long as the increasingly high speculative pyramids were based on increasing property values, e.g. on exploding house prices. Everyone wanted a share of the business. New financial centres are made attractive by deregulation and weak supervision, as for example, icy Iceland, where hunting customers among the bargain-hunting finance investors from all over Europe was much less uncomfortable than catching cod in the North Atlantic. The acrobatics of the financial jugglers became increasingly more daring. For example, by increasing the ?leverage? of equity capital. With one euro, more than 10 euros, or even 100 euros were moved in order to gain high financial surpluses, and the gains are increased enormously in comparison to the amount of equity capital invested. Thus, financial investments enable double digit profits even when real growth is minimal. The financial sector appeared to be completely independent of real conditions, as if it was a virtual economy were fat profits could be created out of nothing. Unsurprisingly, work is considered worthless, or even scorned, in such an environment, and unions as organisers of labour are only seen as trouble makers for businesses, and economists fail to understand theoretical principles that interpret labour as creating value, and instead they indulge in the prevailing superstition that value is formed by gambling in the casino. At the same time, debt is growing enormously, and it is used to expand financial transactions and consumption rather than as investment in production. This is obviously the case in the USA. The consumer debt in the USA has sharply increased from less than US$ 740 billion in 1975 to almost US$ 11,500 billion in 2005, or from 62.0% to 127.2% of the disposable income. The ratio of total debt to GDP has risen from approx. 160% at the beginning of the 1970s to 340% in 2005. On the other hand, this debt corresponds to equally increasing monetary wealth. In search of investment opportunities, this ?demand? leads to the supply of new ?vehicles? promising high returns. There is a geopolitical dimension to the debt explosion in the USA, since a large part of the monetary wealth it entails is hoarded as foreign currency reserves by China, Japan, Russia and some other countries with a positive balance of payments, such as Germany. Given the dominance of the financial sector over the ?real economy?, it is not surprising that short-term thinking and the principle of shareholder value determine entrepreneurial behaviour. But, as John Maynard Keynes already established in his ?Treatise on Money? which was published before his ?General Theory of Money, Interest and Employment?, financial markets are unstable because financial market participants expect future yields, but the future is uncertain and full of risks. Financial instabilities can intensify to financial crises. Due to the liberalisation of the global financial markets since the late 1970s, several speculation waves have affected different world regions leading to serious debt and financial crises: at first, the third world was hit by the debt crisis of the 1980s. The result was a ?lost decade?. A decade later, the emerging markets had to face a financial crisis, beginning with Mexico in 1974, and then the crisis reached the ?Asian tigers? in 1997, Brazil suffered a setback in 1999, and Argentina in 2001. The USA also went through some financial crises: the ?Savings and Loan crisis? (1987) and the crisis following the wave of unfriendly takeovers (1986 and 1989), the ?New Economy? crisis in 2000, and finally the ?subprime crisis? which in the meantime has not only affected the US real estate sector but many other business sectors. It has caused massive losses in almost all countries of the capitalist world economy, and it will continue in 2009. The lesson is simple: returns of 20% and more on equity capital with real growth rates of 1% or 2% are impossible over the long term, they are neither economically, nor socially or ecologically sustainable. Only a fool can deny this. At some point, the financial claims of the financial sector can no longer be met in real terms. The securitised claims can no longer be realised, they are worthless. In the current financial crisis, this was first visible in the mortgage crisis in the USA, but includes credit cards, consumer credit and other credit relationships. This requires a massive need for depreciation which nobody can estimate since deregulation and the widespread securitisation practices have led to a lack of transparency close to blindness. There are loud laments about ?wrong deregulation? from the most devoted neoliberals. They say these have unleashed such a ?greed? which was even rewarded with wrong incentives. Greed could be a valuable explanation to some extent, although greed should not be defined as a psychological defect but as a feature of ?character-masks? ?in the stock exchange game of the Bankocrats? (Marx). They act like Captain Ahab in Herman Melville?s ?Moby Dick? where he says he is ?quite rational?, only the objective or the rules are crazy. Solutions for escaping the crisis maze The financial crisis is only one aspect, although a particularly important one in the crisis of the capitalist system. This needs to be taken into account when searching for ways to escape the crisis labyrinth. Some of the solutions to the financial crisis which are on offer threaten to intensify the energy, climate and food crisis, and their repercussions could thrust the capitalist economy, and consequently also the financial systems, into new and deeper crises. We must again remember the crucial point, the dual character of all processes in a capitalist economy: production, circulation and consumption necessarily cause a change in nature. Conversely, the transformation of materials and energies and living nature also have consequences for economic and financial processes and therefore also for regulating the crisis. This is apparent considering the three most often discussed rescue packages for the financial and economic crisis: (1) the state bears the banks? losses, i.e., losses are socialised (2) massive investment opportunities are to trigger an economic revival, and (3) externalisation of the costs of overcoming the crisis and the geopolitical conflicts arising from it. Firstly: The liquidity trap or the lack of profitable investment opportunities The crisis cannot be handled by pouring money into the tight purses of the financial institutions. This will not stimulate the real production of surplus which would be the only way to satisfy financial demands. If government funds replace dissolved equity capital or even if the state takes over commercial banks in one legal form or another, the institution as such remains intact, that is, bankruptcy is avoided. If government funds are used to buy bad assets, then the ?toxic assets? in the bank safes are replaced by good central bank money or secure government bonds. Holes are filled in the financial institutions by enabling an exchange of assets: they are given good assets with a government guarantee instead of valueless assets which should be written off, or they replace the equity capital of financial institutions which were gambled away by managers in an ?irrational exuberance? (Greenspan). However, a comfortable continuation of the finance-driven model is probably not possible for the financial institutions and their managers who have been saved with cash infusions of a few billions. The returns of the previous bonanza period can no longer be achieved, even if the government-provided means are actually invested. The lucrative business with subprime mortgages is now over, securitised assets are checked with a Geiger counter before they are included in a portfolio, and the levers of the ?leverage? system which were so profitable have been capped, so as not to fall into the same risk trap again. Neoliberalism with its strong belief in the market is treated like an old cloak that has gone out of fashion, including the toxic financial products, and is now stylishly beefed up as the dernier cri in the form of a neoliberal Keynesianism: ?we have to rethink - yes, even completely Keynesian?. Supply policy, the nuts and bolts of neoliberal concepts, is now ineffective because the private sector has suddenly become diffident and unwilling to take risks. Consequently, the state must provide liquidity which can no longer be obtained on the interbank market, and must additionally support businesses through massive demand or possibly even take them over in contradiction of neoliberal dogma. Otherwise the liquidity trap snaps shut. The state is able to divert income flows to the financial sector through its tax monopoly. This constitutes a unique privilege which is now used by the private financial institutions and other businesses. The question is, whose taxes are used and who pays for the means that are directed to private businesses to compensate for their speculation losses? How can the redistribution in favour of the financial sector be legitimised by ?those above?, and how can the acceptance of this redistribution manoeuvre ?by those below? be achieved? Inevitably, the question of ?gouvernementalit?? or ?governance? of a global redistribution arises. Political conflicts are preordained. Can Keynesians claim a victory in view of the massive intervention to the economy? Perhaps, but it is only a Pyrrhic victory. Secondly: The ecological pitfalls of Keynesian demand-side policies To whom and for which business can the banks lend the capital provided by the state? A regular servicing and repayment is only possible if a bank succeeds in getting the money to ?work?, by investing in new investment opportunities and finding new solvent debtors. Rescuing financial securities with the aid of government guarantees is not enough, the real economy has to produce a surplus to service theses securities. Following the financial crises in Asia, Russia, Turkey and Latin America, capital surplus mostly flowed into the new economy and pumped up a speculative bubble there. When this burst in 2000, the rescued capital was invested in the real estate sector - until the subprime crisis erupted in 2007. And now? In contrast to the financial crises in the globalisation era, the nation-state is now called upon. Through investment programmes, the state must ensure that bank credits function again, in a more subdued fashion than was previously the case. The investment bank business is over for the moment, and banks must again assume more of a mediation role between ?savers? and ?investors?. This function is necessary in a capitalist money society, but here, dream profits cannot be achieved. Investment banking, for which university professorships have just been created in Germany, no longer offers any perspective. In fact, new investment opportunities are being repeatedly discussed. The ecological crises not only imply the potential of a collapse but are also said to offer new possibilities for investors in the financial markets, even if investors would not receive the opulent double digit returns they have enjoyed until now. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has presented the investment requirements of the oil industry and the necessary infrastructure over the next 20 years with its ?World Energy Outlook 2008?. According to the IEA, a 20,000 billion US dollar business could be possible: the renovation and extension of the oil producing installations, pipeline construction, investment in refinery capacities, tankers and other vehicles of transportation, etc. However, the new business opportunities for investors would lead to collateral consequences. The fossil fuel system could again be extended by some decades. The car would still continue to secure individual mobility. This is good news for the car industry which has come across a somewhat bumpy road because of the financial crisis, the threatened climate collapse and the need to reduce pollutant emissions. But these investments are not secure. Firstly, because ?peak oil? is now an economically relevant reality (i.e., oil production has reached its peak). The oil price then tends to increase, even if it decreases at times because of reduced demand due to the crisis. Secondly, the political stability in the oil regions is endangered not only because of ?state failure? and an ungovernable situation in some countries, stability is also undermined by the political and military conflicts in which the big oil consuming countries are involved. Thirdly, the global logistics networks are also vulnerable as the new forms of piracy clearly show. Because of peak oil, the IEA also believes that it is necessary to link up 20-30 nuclear reactors per year to the electricity grid over the next two decades. That would amount to about 1300 worldwide by the year 2030. A business volume of hundreds of US$ billions would be waiting, mainly for the benefit of big energy corporations. Abandon nuclear energy? No thank you, the financial crisis will not allow that. Considering the political conflict around one single nuclear reactor in Iran today, spreading hundreds of nuclear power stations all over the world is an absurd, even suicidal scenario. This reinforces the assessment that today?s crises express different forms of a systemic crisis of the capitalist mode of production. Consequently, it would be appropriate to not only look for solutions to the financial and economic crises, but also to look for an integrated strategy that would include a solution for the ?collateral crises?. Climate protection also offers favourable investment opportunities, at least at first sight. What initially appears to be a threat in the climate reports turns out to be an opportunity at a second glance. The threat consists of the possible loss of a fifth of the global national product due to climate change (according to the aforementioned Stern report). But there is a possibility to avoid this disaster for mankind if 1 per cent of the global GDP is invested in climate protection. Investments in climate protection would become big business if emissions trading were globalised in the Kyoto II agreement as prepared for Copenhagen 2009. At present, the volume of European emissions trading amounts to less than US$ 100 billion. Optimists expect a potential of up to 20,000 billion US dollars worldwide, especially if climate protection also includes preventing clearing and degradation of forests. These are probably exaggerated expectations since the emissions trade could only achieve this extent when all countries agree and as many business sectors as possible are included ? and when the financial markets ?normalise? after the crisis. If climate policies are left to the financial gamblers on the global financial markets with ?market-based instruments?, this generates hope in their circles. Climate politicians, however, fall into deep depression at this prospect of financially-driven climate policies. There are also investment possibilities in the extraction of minerals, commercialisation of the sea beds and in the cultivation of agro-fuels. Converting whole landscapes with monocultures of agro-fuel would be a productive investment, but it would give rise to many conflicts. Social movements, such as peasant organizations like Via Campesina, and others are organising resistance against the monocultures of big transnational corporations in agriculture, for social and ecological reasons. Political and scientific institutions in the industrial countries also see dangers because of the negative consequences for biodiversity, forests and the environment. Whether these business sectors can absorb a large part of the unused and not yet devalued capital (including the capital substituted by governmental rescue funds), is questionable. Only when resistance and doubt do not exist or are overcome, can the ecological threat be transformed into economic opportunities for investors. Until then, the expected massive investments will not take place. The consequences for the financial sector are fatal. Repayment of the government rescue packages to public budgets will only be at least partially possible when financial institutions succeed in lending the financial rescue packages provided by the states as credit to solvent debtors for investment. Again, the importance of the twofold character is apparent: the financial obligations of the banks can only be met if debt can be converted into concrete claims on investment. Debts must be serviced from really produced surpluses. The price would be high, since this would mean the continuation of the development model of ecological destruction - unless the crisis is used in a different way than to date, that is, as an opportunity for a ?systemic change of the model?. Thirdly: Geopolitical conflicts or: the devil takes the hindmost A high price will also be paid if the transfers to the financial sector are not (or cannot) be invested in the real economy. Then the taxpayer would have to bear the realised losses, or they would be redistributed in an inflationary process and ?spread? among the market participants. The losses of the financial institutions would then affect everybody, although to different extents, due to the loss in purchasing power of the currency. Especially people with material assets or those who manage to convert their financial assets into tangible assets in good time would suffer least. Concepts of social justice would be violated and demands for equalisation of burdens would be raised. Consequently, it might seem reasonable to attempt to externalise the losses of the finance sector and the subsequent loss in purchasing power by devaluing the currency. Admittedly, only countries whose currency is a reserve currency can do this, others cannot. If these countries depreciate their currencies, then this could develop into a devaluation race as in the 1930s, in order to maintain or expand market shares on contested world markets. However, devaluation with the aim of externalising financial losses is different. Since many countries have accumulated dollar reserves, some of the reserves being huge, the USA could devalue the dollar so that American taxpayers do not have to bear the losses of their financial system that amount to trillions. This could prevent internal political conflicts, but the price would be high even for the USA. There would then be a threat of geopolitical conflicts between the USA and countries with large dollar reserves, i.e. the EU, China, Russia, Brazil and other emerging countries. These countries would gain influence, within the G20, for example. The big emerging economies could no longer be served at the ?side table?, as is usually the case at G8 meetings. They will be part and parcel of regulating the global financial crisis and in eliminating what are euphemistically called ?global inequalities?. These are the result of the twin US deficits: the national budget and the balance of trade, which has been financed by foreign countries and has lead to the accumulation of large dollar claims against the USA. Consequently, the USA must not only support banking institutions and ailing businesses, but also consider external creditors. This leaves little scope. A devaluation would mean relief, but then the US dollar would no longer be able to play its role as oil currency. Despite all political relationships and dependencies, the oil exporters would convert to trading in a different currency to the US dollar. The USA, which import two thirds of their oil consumption, would have to pay for their imports with a foreign currency that would have to be ?earned? through their exports. This could only work if the US had a positive savings ratio. The crisis would cause a diversion of financial flows. Even the trading currents, ?well established? over previous decades, would be redirected, when the USA would no longer sweep the world markets empty like a credit-financed vacuum cleaner. So the crisis is by far not over yet. The crisis on the financial markets is still primarily being fought with trillions of dollars and euros. No one wants to even think of the losses, and consequently they have not yet been distributed between the classes and the nations. The plagues of climate collapse, peak oil and hunger are neglected in the discussion. The conflict to determine who will be the hindmost for the devil to take has only just started. From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Feb 6 13:25:03 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:25:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Two years recession, or ten years of hell? AND Global crisis fuels protests In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <323922597.345061233951903489.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> The Real News Email Template Two years recession, or ten years of hell? logo New Stories February 6, 2009 \ Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a web page instead. Two years recession, or ten years of hell? F William Engdahl: US economy has been hollowed out over the last 15 years and debt load is staggering view Global crisis fuels protests As their jobs disappear, people around the world have taken to the streets view Reality asserts itself Solutions to the economic crisis will be found when we cut through the propaganda and spin view Make www.therealnews.com your homepage and see the latest stories as soon as they're posted. Help promote The Real News Network on YouTube by making our videos your favourites, rate them and add comments. Promoting our YouTube channel builds our community and helps spread the word about our development. If you use the Miro media player subscribe to the TRNN channel From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Feb 6 13:38:48 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:38:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Chavismo: Christian, Anti-Nazi, Pro-Muslim, and Pro-Jewish Message-ID: <1449784351.351631233952728307.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/chaderton020209.html M R Zine 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 Chavismo: Christian, Anti-Nazi, Pro-Muslim, and Pro-Jewish by Roy Chaderton Matos Roy Chaderton, Venezuela's Ambassador to the Organization of American States, speaks of numerous members of the Jewish community who have supported the struggles of peoples against imperialism and Zionism, and he rejects any attack against the Jewish people. Watching television footage of one of the necessary and legitimate protests against the Israeli Embassy in Caracas, I spotted a lone sign with a slogan that left me thunderstruck. The slogan was something like: "We condemn Hitler for not having completed his work of extermination. . . ." The frightening message, totally alien to the Bolivarian process and the Chavista commitment to liberty, democracy, equality, and social justice, shows that, every now and then in our struggles and protests, "loose cannons" come dog us and that we have to detect them and neutralize them and expel them like any foreign body. Those hidden anti-Semites are much like other "loose cannons" such as professional anti-clericalists who shout, "Get thee behind me, Satan!" when they encounter a believer, incited by the undeniable fact that a majority of the Venezuelan Catholic hierarchy refused to use their potential capacity to become a bridge between Venezuelans in the opposing camps and instead embraced the ultra-right-wing Creoles and the immoral dictatorship of the media. What's lost on these pseudo-Chavista infiltrators is the deep Christian foundation of our socialist process and the social fact that most Venezuelan Catholics, including nuns and priests at the grassroots, are committed to the Bolivarian revolution. None shall ever be permitted to use the recurrent crimes against humanity committed by the mediocre and murderous militarist elite of the State of Israel as justification for twisting the just rebellion of the Palestinians and solidarity with them into anti-Semitic aberrations. No leftist has the right to forget that the Jews -- historically persecuted, not by the Muslims who for centuries opened their doors for them, but by first the Christian crusaders, then the inquisitors, and finally the Nazis -- have a historical tradition of pioneering solidarity with social rebellions and progressive thought. Never forget such illustrious Jews as Karl Marx, Rosa Luxemburg, Leon Trotsky, Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, and Bob Dylan. Never forget the participation of Jews, even at the cost of their lives, in civil, labor, social, and anti-war struggles in the United States or struggles against the ultra-Catholic military dictatorships in the Southern Cone. Never overlook the fact that, in the United States, against the organized anti-Chavista campaign supported by the "Israel lobby" in that country, American Jewish intellectuals have spoken up: the most famous intellectual in the world, Noam Chomsky, so often cited by President Ch?vez, and Joseph Stiglitz, a winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, who has supported us in our struggles against the dictatorship of neoliberalism. But even if there had been no progressive Jew in history, which isn't the case, it would still be a mortal sin to silence the Jews or call for their extermination. What we must do is to discuss, openly and face to face, the Zionist deviations and the systematic violations of human rights of the Palestinian people. The killing of innocents or righteous fighters in Gaza cannot be solved by applying the radicalized lex talionis which is precisely the barbaric adventure undertaken -- with the cruelty of criminals and electoral opportunists -- by the Israeli battalions. Repeatedly during the Fourth Republic in Venezuela, crypto-Nazi groups were established, which occasionally vandalized synagogues and other Jewish buildings with anti-Semitic symbols and slogans (e.g., "MSN," "Tradition, Family, and Property," etc.). In general, those were ultra-radical Catholics -- of whom Hitler was one -- of the upper-middle class, who, instead of setting up a vulgar corner bar decorated with a bullfighting theme in their home, opted for a Nazi corner with flags and swastikas, old editions of Mein Kampf , Wehrmacht helmets or Gestapo caps, and sometimes also a fine Luger awaiting an opportunity to kill a Jew. To my surprise, by the way, some compatriots from the Jewish community in Venezuela, whether due to anti-Chavista conviction or sheer lack of awareness, have ended up marching in protest against our Bolivarian government side by side with those crypto-Nazis, inflamed by the poisons spewed by the media's dictatorship. In those days, too, the Venezuelan diplomats, at the United Nations and other international forums, supported the vast majority of decisions in favor of the Palestinian cause. We just abstained, as in fact I personally did more than once, from any draft resolution containing untenable ultra-radical propositions. I especially remember that, during my time as a member of the Venezuelan Mission to the UN, I organized a meeting, in 1978 at the Tudor Hotel New York, between a group of Venezuelan diplomats, recent graduates guided by the director of our School of International Studies, Carlos Guer?n, a Jewish Venezuelan, and the head of the Washington office of the Palestine Liberation Oraganization, Hassan Rahman. In this international political battle, we, who have a balanced attitude to the problem but are committed to the Palestinian people, come across two manipulative visions that we must not accept. One comes from those who insist on the Holocaust denial as if it were a matter of statistics. One wonders: at what number does the Holocaust begin? Six million? Four million? Two million? One million? Half a million? The controversy would be laughable if it were not tragic. For me there is no doubt that there was a policy of extermination of the Jews in Christian Europe. To trivialize it is to disrespect the memory of its victims and the truth, as it would be to deny the genocide in Armenia, in Rwanda-Burundi, in Hiroshima-Nagasaki, or in Palestine, including the genocide of the indigenous population in Latin America. The other is the blackmail that gets imposed on us, through the international media dictatorship, which accuses any persons or organizations of being anti-Semites when we raise our voice for the Palestinian cause and denounce the ghettos and concentration camps in Palestine, whose inhabitants are being exterminated by those in search of a final solution, with the First-World "Christian" support, deliberately massacring Arab children in order to eliminate future "terrorists." Familiar as I had already been with the suffering of the Jewish people since my childhood, through my conversations with my family and my readings, upon arriving at my first diplomatic assignment in Warsaw, the first thing I noticed was the climate of terror sown, among the already decimated Jewish community in Poland, by the anti-Semitic purges designed by the then Interior Minister Mieczys?aw Moczar in 1968, which affected even key Jewish leaders of the Polish Communist Party. Familiar as I am since my adolescence, through my personal dialogues and readings, with the suffering of the Arab-Palestinian people who have been forced to pay for the crimes committed by the Nazis, I cannot but recognize what has been done to the Gaza ghetto as a policy of genocide. There is much more to say about all this, but for now it's enough that we are filled with spiritual oxygen, and we proclaim the brotherhood of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists, all who believe and pray, and all who don't believe and don't pray. Meanwhile, the specters of historical anti-Semitism, particularly in Europe , including the Vatican , are stirring again. . . . Roy Chaderton Matos , born in 1942, is Venezuela's Ambassador to the Organization of American States (since 15 April 2008). He began his diplomatic career under the Rafael Caldera government as Secretary of the Venezuelan Embassy in Poland (from 1969 to 1972). Under the Hugo Ch?vez government, he was Foreign Minister from 2002 to 2004; Ambassador to France from 2004 to 2006; diplomatic advisor to Francisco Arias C?rdenas, Venezuela's Ambassador to the United Nations, in 2006; and Ambassador to Mexico in 2007. The original article "Chavismo: Cristiano, Antinazi, Pro-Musulm?n y Pro-Jud?o" was published by Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias , Radio Nacional de Venezuela , TeleSur , and YVKE Mundial on 30 January 2009. Translation by Yoshie Furuhashi . | MR From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Feb 6 13:43:18 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:43:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] =?utf-8?q?Erase_my_grandfather=E2=80=99s_name_from_Yad_Vash?= =?utf-8?q?em=3B_Effacez_le_nom_de_mon_grand-p=C3=A8re_=C3=A0_Yad_Vashem?= Message-ID: <438018701.353791233952998201.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2009/01/28/effacez-le-nom-de-mon-grand-pere-a-yad-vashem_1147635_3232.html http://womenslens.blogspot.com/2009/01/erase-my-grandfathers-name-from-yad.html January 30, 2009 Erase my grandfather?s name from Yad Vashem envoye par Liliane Saltiel traduit du fran?ais par Aim?e Kligman translated from the French by Aim?e Kligman Effacez le nom de mon grand-p?re ? Yad Vashem par Jean-Mo?se Braitberg LE MONDE | 28.01.09 | 14h23 ? Mis ? jour le 29.01.09 | 09h15 Monsieur le Pr?sident de l?Etat d?Isra?l, je vous ?cris pour que vous interveniez aupr?s de qui de droit afin que l?on retire du M?morial de Yad Vashem d?di? ? la m?moire des victimes juives du nazisme, le nom de mon grand-p?re, Moshe Brajtberg, gaz? ? Treblinka en 1943, ainsi que ceux des autres membres de ma famille morts en d?portation dans diff?rents camps nazis durant la seconde guerre mondiale. Je vous demande d?acc?der ? ma demande, monsieur le pr?sident, parce que ce qui s?est pass? ? Gaza, et plus g?n?ralement, le sort fait au peuple arabe de Palestine depuis soixante ans, disqualifie ? mes yeux Isra?l comme centre de la m?moire du mal fait aux juifs, et donc ? l?humanit? tout enti?re. Mr. President of the State of Israel, I write you so that you can intervene with those who have lawful right to have the name of my grandfather, Moshe Bratjberg, removed from the Yad Vashem Memorial, which is dedicated to the memory of Nazi Jewish victims. He was gassed at Treblinka in 1943, as well as other members of my family who died during deportation in different nazi concentration camps during the Second World War. I ask you to grand my plea, Mr. President, because what happened in Gaza, and in a more general context, the fate imposed on the Arab people of Palestine for the last sixty years, disqualifies Israel, in my eyes, as the center of rememberance of the evil perpetrated on Jews, and thus to all of humanity. Voyez-vous, depuis mon enfance, j?ai v?cu dans l?entourage de survivants des camps de la mort. J?ai vu les num?ros tatou?s sur les bras, j?ai entendu le r?cit des tortures ; j?ai su les deuils impossibles et j?ai partag? leurs cauchemars. You see, ever since I was a child, I have been living among survivors of these death camps. I have seen the numbers tattooed on their arms, I have heard the accounts of torture; I have known of impossible mourning and I have shared their nightmares. Il fallait, m?a-t-on appris, que ces crimes plus jamais ne recommencent ; que plus jamais un homme, fort de son appartenance ? une ethnie ou ? une religion n?en m?prise un autre, ne le bafoue dans ses droits les plus ?l?mentaires qui sont une vie digne dans la s?ret?, l?absence d?entraves, et la lumi?re, si lointaine soit-elle, d?un avenir de s?r?nit? et de prosp?rit?. They taught me that these crimes should never again be repeated; that never again should a man, strong by his alliance to an ethnic or religious group should disdain another, should deny him of his most basic rights that include a dignified life in security, devoid of obstacles, and of light, as distant as it may be, of a future of peace and prosperity. Or, monsieur le pr?sident, j?observe que malgr? plusieurs dizaines de r?solutions prises par la communaut? internationale, malgr? l??vidence criante de l?injustice faite au peuple palestinien depuis 1948, malgr? les espoirs n?s ? Oslo et malgr? la reconnaissance du droit des juifs isra?liens ? vivre dans la paix et la s?curit?, maintes fois r?affirm?s par l?Autorit? palestinienne, les seules r?ponses apport?es par les gouvernements successifs de votre pays ont ?t? la violence, le sang vers?, l?enfermement, les contr?les incessants, la colonisation, les spoliations. Thus, Mr. President, I see that despite several tens of resolutions taken by the international community, despite the striking evidence of injustice bestowed upon the Palestinian people since 1948, despite the hopes born out of Oslo and despite the recognition of the right of the Israeli Jews to live in peace and security, and confirmed several times by the Palestinian Authority, that the only answers brought about by the successive governments of your country have been violence, spilled blood, incarceration, ceaseless controls, colonization and plundering. Vous me direz, monsieur le pr?sident, qu?il est l?gitime, pour votre pays, de se d?fendre contre ceux qui lancent des roquettes sur Isra?l, ou contre les kamikazes qui emportent avec eux de nombreuses vies isra?liennes innocentes. Ce ? quoi je vous r?pondrai que mon sentiment d?humanit? ne varie pas selon la citoyennet? des victimes. You will tell me, Mr. President, that it is legitimate for your country to defend itself against those who launch rockets on Israel, or against the suicide bombers that take with them many innocent Israeli lives. To this, I would answer you that my feeling for humanity does not change according to the victims? citizenships. Par contre, monsieur le pr?sident, vous dirigez les destin?es d?un pays qui pr?tend, non seulement repr?senter les juifs dans leur ensemble, mais aussi la m?moire de ceux qui furent victimes du nazisme. C?est cela qui me concerne et m?est insupportable. En conservant au M?morial de Yad Vashem, au coeur de l?Etat juif, le nom de mes proches, votre Etat retient prisonni?re ma m?moire familiale derri?re les barbel?s du sionisme pour en faire l?otage d?une soi-disant autorit? morale qui commet chaque jour l?abomination qu?est le d?ni de justice. On the other hand, Mr. President, you steer the destiny of a country that claims not only to represent the global Jewish community, but also the memory of those that were victims of Nazism. And this is what concerns me and is unbearable for me. By keeping at Yad Vashem, in the heart of the Jewish State, the name of those close to me, your State holds prisoner the memory of my family behind the barbed wires of Zionism, and makes it hostage to a so-called moral authority that commits the abomination of denial of justice on a daily basis. Alors, s?il vous pla?t, retirez le nom de mon grand-p?re du sanctuaire d?di? ? la cruaut? faite aux juifs afin qu?il ne justifie plus celle faite aux Palestiniens. Veuillez agr?er, monsieur le pr?sident, l?assurance de ma respectueuse consid?ration. Therefore, please, remove the name of my grandfather from the sanctuary dedicated to the cruelty imposed on the Jews so that it may not justify anymore that which is imposed on Palestinians. Please accept, Mr. President, the assurance of my respects. From shniad at sfu.ca Fri Feb 6 13:57:34 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:57:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Israeli ship cargo unloaded in Durban despite union boycott Message-ID: <1842943582.359251233953854986.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304701516&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull JERUSALEM POST Feb. 5, 2009 Israeli ship cargo unloaded in Durban despite union boycott HAVIV RETTIG GUR and TORI CHEIFETZ , THE JERUSALEM POST The Port of Durban has turned to non-union workers to unload an Israeli ship that docked on Thursday, circumventing a boycott of Israeli shipping declared by the South African transport workers union on Wednesday. According to Israeli diplomatic officials, the South African government and port authorities were "more worried than us" about the boycott announced by the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (SATAWU). "The historic and heroic struggle of the Palestinian people for self-determination... is a struggle that SATAWU supports," said Randall Howard, general secretary of the union, as he announced the boycott on Wednesday after the union noticed an Israeli vessel in line to enter the busy port. However, dock workers discovered a legal impediment to the boycott, since strikes at the port require 48 hours notice. Regardless of the legalities, the union announced on Thursday afternoon it would go through with boycotting the ship, leading the port's management to organize non-union laborers to unload it. The union's actions have drawn condemnation from Israel and Jewish groups, and praise from pro-Palestinian and other labor groups in South Africa. A protest will be held to support the boycott initiative in front of the offices of the South African Zionist Federation in Johannesburg on Friday by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and the Congress of South Africa Trade Unions, the organizations announced on Thursday. Former minister Ronnie Kasrils and SATAWU's Howard are expected to speak at the event. "Both are vicious towards the State of Israel," said Zev Krengel, national chairman of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, who added that local police were alerted to the protest. "The police haven't given permission for tomorrow's protest and we're hoping that it won't be allowed to happen," he said, calling the scheduled gathering the first instance in which an anti-Israel protest has been placed outside a Jewish institution, rather than at an Israeli or Egyptian embassy or in a public space. "We find it very provocative to come into our areas and protest. This is where we live. We don't protest in Muslim areas," he said. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign issued a statement charging Israel with having "violated numerous provisions of international law," and the South African Jewish community with aiding and abetting Israel's actions. "We find this statement quite repulsive," Krengel said. "The South African Jewish community supports the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign state and its right to live in peace. This will only serve to increase the tension between the Muslim and Jewish communities of South Africa. It is both dangerous and counterproductive." According to Krengel, the community will respond to the protests, if allowed by the police. "We won't do anything above the law," he said. Krengel said that at this stage he did not fear for the safety of the community. "There is always a risk, but the South African government has always had a zero tolerance policy towards anti-Semitism and we've always felt well protected," he said. From tchilds at resist.ca Fri Feb 6 16:56:20 2009 From: tchilds at resist.ca (tchilds at resist.ca) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:56:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Pipeline would bring tankers into B.C. inlets Message-ID: <49490.70.71.176.80.1233964580.squirrel@mail.resist.ca> Pipeline would bring tankers into B.C. inlets By Andrew Findlay Where the waters of Caamano Sound squeeze into Whale Channel, four humpback whales circle in slow, languorous patterns. The whales dive, and the water above returns to calm save for a few wind ripples. Suddenly a single whale reemerges in a burst of bubbling water, mouth agape, its great baleen plates exposed and scooping up a massive mouthful of krill and small fish. The sight of these massive mammals?which can weigh more than 40 tonnes?deftly corralling schools of tiny fish is truly astounding. Scientists call this spectacle ?bubble net feeding?, and it?s not by accident that humpback, finback, and minke whales, along with Dall?s and harbour porpoises, orcas, and Pacific white-sided dolphins, congregate here: there is abundant food and a relatively hospitable environment for wildlife. Caamano Sound is a universe away from the office towers of Edmonton, but these disparate locations are now inextricably linked by plans for the so-called Northern Gateway pipeline, which will connect Alberta with Kitimat on B.C.?s central coast. And you can?t talk about pipelines without discussing oil tankers plying some of the province?s most ecologically rich and diverse waters as they make their way from open ocean into Caamano Sound, around Gil Island, where B.C. Ferries? Queen of the North foundered in 2006, and northeast up Douglas Channel to the port at Kitimat. ... Full article at: http://www.straight.com/article-199616/pipeline-would-bring-tankers-bc-inlets?rotator=1 From nmgoro at gmail.com Fri Feb 6 18:18:13 2009 From: nmgoro at gmail.com (Nestor Gorojovsky) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 22:18:13 -0300 Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?Nuevo_n=FAmero_de_=22Patria_Grande=22=2C_m?= =?windows-1252?q?ensuario_on_line_de_Andr=E9s_Soliz_Rada?= Message-ID: <498CE155.4090101@gmail.com> Estimados compa?eras y compa?eros, amigas y amigos: En www.patriagrande.org.bo encontrar?n la revista "Patria Grande", correspondiente a fe. 09. Cordial saludo. ASR *Editorial(es)* EL TEMA QUE DEFINE EL FUTURO: LA NACION O LAS NACIONES DE EVO MORALES Eduardo Paz Rada AUSENCIA DEL PENSAMIENTO NACIONAL Andr?s Sol?z Rada *Bolivia* SUPUESTA INGERENCIA NAZI EN FUNDACION DE EMPRESA PETROLERA BOLIVIANA Eduardo Paz Rada DESPU?S DEL REFERENDO CONSTITUCIONAL Roger Ortiz Mercado DETR?S DE LA DESTITUCION DE SANTOS RAMIREZ Evo, prisionero de si mismo Editorial Peri?dico ?El Pa?s? (Tarija) EL VOTO DE HOY AUDITORIAS PETROLERAS: SECRETO DE ESTADO ?ACTO POL?TICO ELECTORAL?: LA TERCERA NACIONALIZACI?N DE CHACO HIDROCARBUROS: LOS ANEXOS "D", ABANICOS Y AGUJEROS NEGROS RESERVAS: INVERTIR, NO GASTAR PURA POL?TICA ANTINACIONAL BOLIVIA, CON DERECHO, RECLAMA SU SALIDA AL MAR F?lix Pe?aranda Ib??ez (*) (felixpda at yahoo.es). RECTIFICACION SOBRE LA GUERRA DEL PACIFICO Rodolfo Becerra de la Roca LULA RECONOCE QUE GRAN PARTE DE LOS BRASILE?OS DEPENDE DEL GAS BOLIVIANO BRASIL PREFIERE AGOTAR LAS RESERVAS BOLIVIANAS DE GAS, ANTES DE CONSUMIR LAS SUYAS: LA VISION GEOPOLITICA DEL PRESIDENTE FERNANDO HENRIQUE CARDOSO Javier Lafuente LOS USOS Y COSTUMBRES Y LA JUSTICIA COMUNITARIA Ramiro Loza Calder?n *Am?rica Latina* HISTORIA DE LA NACI?N LATINOAMERICANA JORGE ABELARDO RAMOS PER? Y COLOMBIA DESTRUYERON A LA CAN EN BENEFICIO DE EUROPA Y EEUU PROVINCIALIZACI?N Y ATRASO EN ARGENTINA Federico Bernal KIRCHNER FINANCIA EL DESARROLLO INDUSTRIAL-MILITAR DE ISRAEL APEMIA SOMETIMIENTO DEL GOBIERNO ARGENTINO A LOS FRAUDES Y ENGA?OS DE LA DEUDA EXTERNA Mario Cafiero y Javier Llorens SEG?N PINO SOLANAS, "LOS KIRCHNER PROFUNDIZARON EL DESPOJO QUE HIZO MENEM" GALASSO DEFIENDE A LOS KIRCHNER Los aliados posibles y el enemigo principal Norberto Galasso NUEVO LIBRO DE NORBERTO GALASSO: ?COMO PENSAR LA REALIDAD NACIONAL? DEBEMOS CREAR EL CIADI DEL SUR Roberto Irraz?bal GAS: BRASIL (ENRON) GANA LA PARTIDA Editorial Peri?dico ?El Pa?s? (Tarija) LA EXPLOTACI?N COLONIAL Y NEOCOLONIAL DE NUESTRA AM?RICA LATINA tribunalpazecuador at yahoo.com SIN ESTADO NO HAY NACI?N CHILE-PERU: OTRO QUIEBRE Pedro Godoy *Estados Unidos y Europa* CASI 800 DETENIDOS EN GUANT?NAMO DESDE EL 2002 EL CONSUMISMO SUICIDA DE LA EUROPA RICA Jubenal Quispe AS? SER? EL A?O 2009 Ignacio Ramonet EN ECONOMIA, EL ESTADO NORTEAMERICANO NO ES LIBERAL SINO INTERVENCIONISTA Vicen? Navarro OBAMA NO CUESTION? NUNCA A LAS GRANDES CORPORACIONES Lissete Bustamante LOS CONSEJOS A OBAMA DEL PREMIO NOBEL DE ECONOMIA, PAUL KRUGMAN ABOGADO DE SANCHEZ DE LOZADA EN EL EQUIPO DE OBAMA Atilio Bor?n LA LUCHA POR RECUPERAR LA MEMORIA HISTORICA EN ESPA?A Cecilio Gordillo ?QUIEN FUE MARTIN LUTHER KING? *Otros Continentes* LA INVASI?N ISRAEL? DE GAZA Y LOS YACIMIENTOS MARINOS DE GAS Michel Chossudovsky AFGANIST?N EN LA MIRA DE WASHINGTON N?stor N??ez *Aportes Te?ricos* GOBIERNOS POPULARES O GOBIERNOS POPULISTAS (Cobos y el Opresor introyectado) Miguel Longo VERDADES Y MITOS DEL LIBRE COMERCIO Mario Rapoport From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Fri Feb 6 17:26:04 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2009 09:26:04 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Enough. It's time for a boycott Message-ID: <498CD51C.7060403@ashisuto.co.jp> The best way to end the bloody occupation is to target Israel with the kind of movement that ended apartheid in South Africa by Naomi Klein The Guardian (January 10 2009) It's time. Long past time. The best strategy to end the increasingly bloody occupation is for Israel to become the target of the kind of global movement that put an end to apartheid in South Africa. In July 2005 a huge coalition of Palestinian groups laid out plans to do just that. They called on "people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era". The campaign Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions was born. Every day that Israel pounds Gaza brings more converts to the BDS cause - even among Israeli Jews. In the midst of the assault roughly 500 Israelis, dozens of them well-known artists and scholars, sent a letter to foreign ambassadors in Israel. It calls for "the adoption of immediate restrictive measures and sanctions" and draws a clear parallel with the anti-apartheid struggle. "The boycott on South Africa was effective, but Israel is handled with kid gloves ... This international backing must stop". Yet even in the face of these clear calls, many of us still can't go there. The reasons are complex, emotional and understandable. But they simply aren't good enough. Economic sanctions are the most effective tool in the non-violent arsenal: surrendering them verges on active complicity. Here are the top four objections to the BDS strategy, followed by counter-arguments. Punitive measures will alienate rather than persuade Israelis. The world has tried what used to be called "constructive engagement". It has failed utterly. Since 2006 Israel has been steadily escalating its criminality: expanding settlements, launching an outrageous war against Lebanon, and imposing collective punishment on Gaza through the brutal blockade. Despite this escalation, Israel has not faced punitive measures - quite the opposite. The weapons and $3 billion in annual aid the US sends Israel are only the beginning. Throughout this key period, Israel has enjoyed a dramatic improvement in its diplomatic, cultural and trade relations with a variety of other allies. For instance, in 2007 Israel became the first country outside Latin America to sign a free-trade deal with the Mercosur bloc. In the first nine months of 2008, Israeli exports to Canada went up 45%. A new deal with the EU is set to double Israel's exports of processed food. And in December European ministers "upgraded" the EU-Israel association agreement, a reward long sought by Jerusalem. It is in this context that Israeli leaders started their latest war: confident they would face no meaningful costs. It is remarkable that over seven days of wartime trading, the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange's flagship index actually went up 10.7%. When carrots don't work, sticks are needed. Israel is not South Africa. Of course it isn't. The relevance of the South African model is that it proves BDS tactics can be effective when weaker measures (protests, petitions, backroom lobbying) fail. And there are deeply distressing echoes of apartheid in the occupied territories: the colour-coded IDs and travel permits, the bulldozed homes and forced displacement, the settler-only roads. Ronnie Kasrils, a prominent South African politician, said the architecture of segregation he saw in the West Bank and Gaza was "infinitely worse than apartheid". That was in 2007, before Israel began its full-scale war against the open-air prison that is Gaza. Why single out Israel when the US, Britain and other western countries do the same things in Iraq and Afghanistan? Boycott is not a dogma; it is a tactic. The reason the strategy should be tried is practical: in a country so small and trade-dependent, it could actually work. Boycotts sever communication; we need more dialogue, not less. This one I'll answer with a personal story. For eight years, my books have been published in Israel by a commercial house called Babel. But when I published The Shock Doctrine (2007), I wanted to respect the boycott. On the advice of BDS activists, including the wonderful writer John Berger, I contacted a small publisher called Andalus. Andalus is an activist press, deeply involved in the anti-occupation movement and the only Israeli publisher devoted exclusively to translating Arabic writing into Hebrew. We drafted a contract that guarantees that all proceeds go to Andalus's work, and none to me. I am boycotting the Israeli economy but not Israelis. Our modest publishing plan required dozens of phone calls, emails and instant messages, stretching between Tel Aviv, Ramallah, Paris, Toronto and Gaza City. My point is this: as soon as you start a boycott strategy, dialogue grows dramatically. The argument that boycotts will cut us off from one another is particularly specious given the array of cheap information technologies at our fingertips. We are drowning in ways to rant at each other across national boundaries. No boycott can stop us. Just about now, many a proud Zionist is gearing up for major point-scoring: don't I know that many of these very hi-tech toys come from Israeli research parks, world leaders in infotech? True enough, but not all of them. Several days into Israel's Gaza assault, Richard Ramsey, managing director of a British telecom specialising in voice-over-internet services, sent an email to the Israeli tech firm MobileMax: "As a result of the Israeli government action in the last few days we will no longer be in a position to consider doing business with yourself or any other Israeli company". Ramsey says his decision wasn't political; he just didn't want to lose customers. "We can't afford to lose any of our clients", he explains, "so it was purely commercially defensive". It was this kind of cold business calculation that led many companies to pull out of South Africa two decades ago. And it's precisely the kind of calculation that is our most realistic hope of bringing justice, so long denied, to Palestine. A version of this column was published in the Nation: thenation.com naomiklein.org guardian.co.uk (c) Guardian News and Media Limited 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/10/naomi-klein-boycott-israel/print TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Feb 7 01:59:57 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 03:59:57 -0500 Subject: [R-G] As Layoffs Surge, Women May Pass Men in Job Force Message-ID: Closing the Gap in Employment February 6, 2009 As Layoffs Surge, Women May Pass Men in Job Force By CATHERINE RAMPELL With the recession on the brink of becoming the longest in the postwar era, a milestone may be at hand: Women are poised to surpass men on the nation's payrolls, taking the majority for the first time in American history. The reason has less to do with gender equality than with where the ax is falling. The proportion of women who are working has changed very little since the recession started. But a full 82 percent of the job losses have befallen men, who are heavily represented in distressed industries like manufacturing and construction. Women tend to be employed in areas like education and health care, which are less sensitive to economic ups and downs, and in jobs that allow more time for child care and other domestic work. "Given how stark and concentrated the job losses are among men, and that women represented a high proportion of the labor force in the beginning of this recession, women are now bearing the burden ? or the opportunity, one could say ? of being breadwinners," says Heather Boushey, a senior economist at the Center for American Progress. Economists have predicted before that women would one day dominate the labor force as more ventured outside the home. The number of women entering the work force slowed and even dipped during the boom years earlier this decade, though, prompting a debate about whether women truly wanted to be both breadwinners and caregivers. Should the male-dominated layoffs of the current recession continue ? and Friday's jobs report for January may offer more insight ? the debate will be moot. A deep and prolonged recession, therefore, may change not only household budgets and habits; it may also challenge longstanding gender roles. In recessions, the percentage of families supported by women tends to rise slightly, and it is expected to do so when this year's numbers are tallied. As of November, women held 49.1 percent of the nation's jobs, according to nonfarm payroll data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. By another measure, including farm workers and the self-employed, women constituted 47.1 percent of the work force. Women may be safer in their jobs, but tend to find it harder to support a family. For one thing, they work fewer overall hours than men. Women are much more likely to be in part-time jobs without health insurance or unemployment insurance. Even in full-time jobs, women earn 80 cents for each dollar of their male counterparts' income, according to the government data. "A lot of jobs that men have lost in fields like manufacturing were good union jobs with great health care plans," says Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project. "The jobs women have ? and are supporting their families with ? are not necessarily as good." Nasreen Mohammed, for example, works five days a week, 51 weeks a year, without sick days or health benefits. She runs a small day care business out of her home in Milpitas, Calif., and recently expanded her services to include after-school care. The business brings in about $30,000 annually, she says, far less than the $150,000 her husband earned in the marketing and sales job he lost over a year ago. "It's peanuts," she says. She switched from being a full-time homemaker to a full-time businesswoman when her husband was laid off previously. She says she unexpectedly discovered that she loves her job, even if it is demanding. Still, her husband, Javed, says he and their three children ? who are in third grade, junior college and law school ? worry about her health, and hope things can "return to the old days." "In terms of the financial benefit from her work, we all benefit," he says. "But in terms of getting my wife's attention, from the youngest daughter to our oldest, we can't wait for the day that my job is secure and she doesn't have to do day care anymore." Women like Ms. Mohammed find themselves at the head of once-separate spheres: work and household. While women appear to be sole breadwinners in greater numbers, they are likely to remain responsible for most domestic responsibilities at home. On average, employed women devote much more time to child care and housework than employed men do, according to recent data from the government's American Time Use Survey analyzed by two economists, Alan B. Krueger and Andreas Mueller. When women are unemployed and looking for a job, the time they spend daily taking care of children nearly doubles. Unemployed men's child care duties, by contrast, are virtually identical to those of their working counterparts, and they instead spend more time sleeping, watching TV and looking for a job, along with other domestic activities. Many of the unemployed men interviewed say they have tried to help out with cooking, veterinarian appointments and other chores, but they have not had time to do more because job-hunting consumes their days. "The main priority is finding a job and putting in the time to do that," says John Baruch, in Arlington Heights, Ill., who estimates he spends 35 to 45 hours a week looking for work since being laid off in January 2008. While he has helped care for his wife's aging parents, the couple still sometimes butt heads over who does things like walking the dog, now that he is out of work. He puts it this way: "As one of the people who runs one of the career centers I've been to told me: 'You're out of a job, but it's not your time to paint the house and fix the car. Your job is about finding the next job.' " Many women say they expect their family roles to remain the same, even if economic circumstances have changed for now. "I don't know if I'd really call myself a 'breadwinner,' since I earn practically nothing," says Linda Saxby, who assists the librarian at the Cypress, Tex., high school her two daughters attend. Her husband, whose executive-level position was eliminated last May, had been earning $225,000, and the family is now primarily living off savings. Historically, the way couples divide household jobs has been fairly resistant to change, says Heidi Hartmann, president and chief economist at the Institute for Women's Policy Research. "Over a long, 20-year period, married men have stepped up to the plate a little bit, but not as much as married women have dropped off in the time they spend on household chores," Ms. Hartmann says. This suggests some domestic duties have been outsourced, as when takeout substitutes for cooking, for example. And as declining incomes force families to cut back on these outlays, she says, "women will most likely pick up the slack." A severe recession could put pressure on these roles. "It has definitely put a strain" on my marriage, says Debbie Harlan, an executive assistant at a hospital system in Sarasota, Fla. Four months ago, her husband closed his 10-year-old independent car sales business, and the couple have been asking their children to help with bills. "So far we've worked through it, but there have been times when I wasn't sure we could." The Mohammeds say things are not as stressful as they were the last time Mr. Mohammed lost his job. He has been helping out with the cooking and with paperwork for his wife's business, and she says she works to prop up family morale. "Things are not happy in the house if I blame him all the time, so I don't do any of that anymore," Ms. Mohammed says. "I know he is doing his best." From news at ckut.ca Sat Feb 7 12:03:05 2009 From: news at ckut.ca (news at ckut.ca) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:03:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [R-G] The Feb 2009 Edition of Groundwire is ready for download! Message-ID: <32988.206.248.172.30.1234033385.squirrel@secure.ckut.ca> FEBRUARY 2009 GroundWire MP3: http://www.ncra.ca/business/admin_ncra/progex/programFiles/53/FEB_GROUNDWIRE.mp3 WWW: http://www.ncra.ca/exchange/dspProgramDetail.cfm?programID=80645 Website: http://groundwire.ncra.ca HEADLINES Disaster Relief Committee and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives on the new federal budget (Caitlyn Chappell) Montreal seeks to ban masks at demonstrations (Tim Mcsorley) Renters At Risk vs Elections B.C. (Jennifer Moreau) FEATURES CUPE 3903 strike at York University and the back-to-work legislation (Courtney Kirkby) Lockheed Martin recruitment shutdown (Zachary Crow, CHSR) Beds in Montreal Shelters (David G. Koch / Haley Lapalme, McGill Daily) Canadian Jewish opposition to the Israeli occupation and the attack on Gaza (Mark Brooks and Gretchen King) Report back on Gaza mobilizations that occurred across Canada (Chris Albinati) EVENTS Israeli Apartheid Week - 5 year anniversary (Aaron Lakoff) STATION REPORT CHON (Whitehorse), CKDU (Halifax), Coop Radio (Vancouver) and the 7th annual National Homelessness Marathon Recording Location: CKUT Radio 90.3fm, Montreal From menecraj at shaw.ca Sat Feb 7 16:06:43 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 17:06:43 -0600 Subject: [R-G] Quote of the Week Message-ID: "Members of Congress should wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers so we could identify their corporate sponsors." - Author Unknown From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Feb 7 16:27:15 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 15:27:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Report on Gaza injuries (The Lancet Global Health Network) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <846538657.557981234049235356.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.thelancetglobalhealthnetwork.com/archives/608 The Lancet Global Health Network February 2nd 2009 The Wounds of Gaza Two Surgeons from the UK, Dr Ghassan Abu Sittah and Dr Swee Ang, managed to get into Gaza during the Israeli invasion. Here they describe their experiences, share their views, and conclude that the people of Gaza are extremely vulnerable and defenseless in the event of another attack. The wounds of Gaza are deep and multi-layered. Are we talking about the Khan Younis massacre of 5,000 in 1956 or the execution of 35,000 prisoners of war by Israel in 1967? Yet more wounds of the First Intifada, when civil disobedience by an occupied people against the occupiers resulted in massive wounded and hundreds dead? We also cannot discount the 5,420 wounded in southern Gaza alone since 2000. Hence what we are referring to below are only that of the invasion as of 27 December 2008, Over the period of 27 December 2008 to the ceasefire of 18 Jan 2009, it was estimated that a million and a half tons of explosives were dropped on Gaza Strip. Gaza is 25 miles by 5 miles and home to 1.5 million people. This makes it the most crowded area in the whole world. Prior to this Gaza has been completely blockaded and starved for 50 days. In fact since the Palestinian election Gaza has been under total or partial blockade for several years. On the first day of the invasion, 250 persons were killed. Every single police station in Gaza was bombed killing large numbers of police officers. Having wiped out the police force attention was turned to non government targets. Gaza was bombed from the air by F16 and Apache helicopters, shelled from the sea by Israeli gunboats and from the land by tank artillery. Many schools were reduced to rubble, including the American School of Gaza, 40 mosques, hospitals, UN buildings, and of course 21,000 homes, 4,000 of which were demolished completely. It is estimated that 100,000 people are now homeless. Israeli weapons The weapons used apart from conventional bombs and high explosives also include unconventional weapons of which at least 4 categories could be identified. ? Phosphorus Shells and bombs The bombs dropped were described by eye witnesses as exploding at high altitude scattering a large canopy of phosphorus bomblets which cover a large area. During the land invasion, eyewitnesses describe the tanks shelling into homes first with a conventional shell. Once the walls are destroyed, a second shell - a phosphorus shell is then shot into the homes. Used in this manner the phosphorus explodes and burns the families and the homes. Many charred bodies were found among burning phosphorus particles. One area of concern is the phosphorus seems to be in a special stabilizing agent. This results in the phosphorus being more stable and not completely burning out. Residues still cover the fields, playground and compounds. They ignite when picked up by curious kids, or produce fumes when farmers return to water their fields. One returning farming family on watering their field met with clouds of fumes producing epistaxis. Thus the phosphorus residues probably treated with a stabilizer also act as anti-personnel weapons against children and make the return to normal life difficult without certain hazards. Surgeons from hospitals are also reporting cases where after primary laparotomy for relatively small wounds with minimal contamination find on second look laparotomy increasing areas of tissue necrosis at about 3 days. Patients then become gravely ill and by about 10 days those patients needing a third relook encounter massive liver necrosis. This may or may not be accompanied by generalized bleeding , kidney failure and heart failure and death. Although acidosis, liver necrosis and sudden cardiac arrest due to hypocalcemia are known to be a complication of white phosphorus it is not possible to attribute these complications as being due to phosphorus alone. There is real urgency to analyze and identify the real nature of this modified phosphorus as to its long term effect on the people of Gaza. There is also urgency in collecting and disposing of the phosphorus residues littering the entire Gaza Strip. As they give off toxic fumes when coming into contact with water, once the rain falls the whole area would be polluted with acid phosphorus fumes. Children should be warned not to handle and play with these phosphorus residues. ? Heavy Bombs The use of DIME (dense inert material explosives) were evident, though it is unsure whether depleted uranium were used in the south. In the civilian areas, surviving patients were found to have limbs truncated by DIME, since the stumps apart from being characteristically cut off in guillotine fashion also fail to bleed. Bomb casing and shrapnel are extremely heavy. ? Fuel Air Explosives Bunker busters and implosion bombs have been used . There are buildings especially the 8 storey Science and Technology Building of the Islamic University of Gaza which had been reduced to a pile of rubble no higher than 5-6 feet. ? Silent Bombs People in Gaza described a silent bomb which is extremely destructive. The bomb arrives as a silent projectile at most with a whistling sound and creates a large area where all objects and living things are vaporized with minimal trace. We are unable to fit this into conventional weapons but the possibility of new particle weapons being tested should be suspected. ? Executions Survivors describe Israeli tanks arriving in front of homes asking residents to come out. Children, old people and women would come forward and as they were lined up they were just fired on and killed. Families have lost tens of their members through such executions. The deliberate targeting of unarmed children and women is well documented by human right groups in the Gaza Strip over the past month. ? Targeting of ambulances Thirteen ambulances had been fired upon killing drivers and first aid personnel in the process of rescue and evacuation of the wounded. ? Cluster bombs The first patients wounded by cluster were brought into Abu Yusef Najjar Hospital. Since more than 50% of the tunnels have been destroyed, Gaza has lost part of her lifeline. These tunnels contrary to popular belief are not for weapons, though small light weapons could have been smuggled through them. However they are the main stay of food and fuel for Gaza. Palestinians are beginning to tunnel again. However it became clear that cluster bombs were dropped on to the Rafah border and the first was accidentally set of by tunneling. Five burns patients were brought in after setting off a booby trap kind of device. Death toll As of 25 January 2009, the death toll was estimated at 1,350 with the numbers increasing daily. This is due to the severely wounded continuing to die in hospitals. 60% of those killed were children. Severe injuries The severely injured numbered 5,450, with 40% being children. These are mainly large burns and polytrauma patients. Single limb fractures and walking wounded are not included in these figures. Through our conversations with doctors and nurses the word holocaust and catastrophe were repeatedly used. The medical staff all bear the psychological trauma of the past month living though the situation and dealing with mass casualties which swamped their casualties and operating rooms. Many patients died in the Accident and Emergency Department while awaiting treatment. In a district hospital, the orthopaedic surgeon carried out 13 external fixations in less than a day. It is estimated that of the severely injured, 1,600 will suffer permanently disabilities. These include amputations, spinal cord injuries, head injuries, large burns with crippling contractures. Special factors The death and injury toll is especially high in this recent assault due to several factors: ? No escape: As Gaza is sealed by Israeli troops, no one can escape the bombardment and the land invasion. There is simply no escape. Even within the Gaza Strip itself, movement from north to south is impossible as Israeli tanks had cut the northern half of Gaza from the south. Compare this with the situation in Lebanon 1982 and 2006, when it was possible for people to escape from an area of heavy bombardment to an area of relative calm - there was no such is option for Gaza. ? Gaza is very densely populated. It is eerie to see that the bombs used by Israel have been precision bombs. They have a hundred percent hit rate on buildings which are crowded with people. Examples are the central market, police stations. Schools, the UN compounds used as a safety shelter from bombardment, mosques (40 of them destroyed), and the homes of families who thought they were safe as there were no combatants in them and high rise flats where a single implosion bomb would destroy multiple families. This pattern of consistent targeting of civilians makes one suspect that the military targets are but collateral damage, while civilians are the primary targets. ? The quantity and quality of the ammunition being used as described above. ? Gaza?s lack of defense against the modern weapons of Israel. She has no tanks, no planes, no anti-aircraft missiles against the invading army. We experienced that first hand in a minor clash of Israeli tank shells versus Palestinian AK47 return fire. The forces were simply unmatched. ? Absence of well constructed bomb shelters for civilians. Unfortunately these will also be no match for bunker busters possessed by the Israeli Army. Conclusion Taking the above points into consideration, the next assault on Gaza would be just as disastrous. The people of Gaza are extremely vulnerable and defenseless in the event of another attack. If the International Community is serious about preventing such a large scale of deaths and injuries in the future, it will have to develop a some sort of defense force for Gaza. Otherwise, many more vulnerable civilans will continue to die. Dr Ghassan Abu Sittah and Dr Swee Ang From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Feb 7 16:27:52 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 15:27:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] The War on Terror is a Hoax In-Reply-To: <1132629459.437001233963916244.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1729928406.558041234049272757.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21906.htm Information Clearinghouse February 4, 2009 The War on Terror is a Hoax The "war on terror" is a hoax that fronts for American control of oil pipelines, the profits of the military-security complex, the assault on civil liberty by fomenters of a police state, and Israel's territorial expansion. By Paul Craig Roberts According to US government propaganda, terrorist cells are spread throughout America, making it necessary for the government to spy on all Americans and violate most other constitutional protections. Among President Bush's last words as he left office was the warning that America would soon be struck again by Muslim terrorists. If America were infected with terrorists, we would not need the government to tell us. We would know it from events. As there are no events, the US government substitutes warnings in order to keep alive the fear that causes the public to accept pointless wars, the infringement of civil liberty, national ID cards, and inconveniences and harassments when they fly. The most obvious indication that there are no terrorist cells is that not a single neocon has been assassinated. I do not approve of assassinations, and am ashamed of my country's government for engaging in political assassination. The US and Israel have set a very bad example for al Qaeda to follow. The US deals with al Qaeda and Taliban by assassinating their leaders, and Israel deals with Hamas by assassinating its leaders. It is reasonable to assume that al Qaeda would deal with the instigators and leaders of America's wars in the Middle East in the same way. Today every al Qaeda member is aware of the complicity of neoconservatives in the death and devastation inflicted on Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza. Moreover, neocons are highly visible and are soft targets compared to Hamas and Hezbollah leaders. Neocons have been identified in the media for years, and as everyone knows, multiple listings of their names are available online. Neocons do not have Secret Service protection. Dreadful to contemplate, but it would be child's play for al Qaeda to assassinate any and every neocon. Yet, neocons move around freely, a good indication that the US does not have a terrorist problem. If, as neocons constantly allege, terrorists can smuggle nuclear weapons or dirty bombs into the US with which to wreak havoc upon our cities, terrorists can acquire weapons with which to assassinate any neocon or former government official. Yet, the neocons, who are the Americans most hated by Muslims, remain unscathed. The "war on terror" is a hoax that fronts for American control of oil pipelines, the profits of the military-security complex, the assault on civil liberty by fomenters of a police state, and Israel's territorial expansion. There were no al Qaeda in Iraq until the Americans brought them there by invading and overthrowing Saddam Hussein, who kept al Qaeda out of Iraq. The Taliban is not a terrorist organization, but a movement attempting to unify Afghanistan under Muslim law. The only Americans threatened by the Taliban are the Americans Bush sent to Afghanistan to kill Taliban and to impose a puppet state on the Afghan people. Hamas is the democratically elected government of Palestine, or what little remains of Palestine after Israel's illegal annexations. Hamas is a terrorist organization in the same sense that the Israeli government and the US government are terrorist organizations. In an effort to bring Hamas under Israeli hegemony, Israel employs terror bombing and assassinations against Palestinians. Hamas replies to the Israeli terror with homemade and ineffectual rockets. Hezbollah represents the Shi'ites of southern Lebanon, another area in the Middle East that Israel seeks for its territorial expansion. The US brands Hamas and Hezbollah "terrorist organizations" for no other reason than the US is on Israel's side of the conflict. There is no objective basis for the US Department of State's "finding" that Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations. It is merely a propagandistic declaration. Americans and Israelis do not call their bombings of civilians terror. What Americans and Israelis call terror is the response of oppressed people who are stateless because their countries are ruled by puppets loyal to the oppressors. These people, dispossessed of their own countries, have no State Departments, Defense Departments, seats in the United Nations, or voices in the mainstream media. They can submit to foreign hegemony or resist by the limited means available to them. The fact that Israel and the United States carry on endless propaganda to prevent this fundamental truth from being realized indicates that it is Israel and the US that are in the wrong and the Palestinians, Lebanese, Iraqis, and Afghans who are being wronged. The retired American generals who serve as war propagandists for Fox "News" are forever claiming that Iran arms the Iraqi and Afghan insurgents and Hamas. But where are the arms? To deal with American tanks, insurgents have to construct homemade explosive devices out of artillery shells. After six years of conflict the insurgents still have no weapon against the American helicopter gunships. Contrast this "arming" with the weaponry the US supplied to the Afghans three decades ago when they were fighting to drive out the Soviets. The films of Israel's murderous assault on Gaza show large numbers of Gazans fleeing from Israeli bombs or digging out the dead and maimed, and none of these people are armed. A person would think that by now every Palestinian would be armed, every man, woman, and child. Yet, all the films of the Israeli attack show an unarmed population. Hamas has to construct homemade rockets that are little more than a sign of defiance. If Hamas were armed by Iran, Israel's assault on Gaza would have cost Israel its helicopter gunships, its tanks, and hundreds of lives of its soldiers. Hamas is a small organization armed with small caliber rifles incapable of penetrating body armor. Hamas is unable to stop small bands of Israeli settlers from descending on West Bank Palestinian villages, driving out the Palestinians, and appropriating their land. The great mystery is: why after 60 years of oppression are the Palestinians still an unarmed people? Clearly, the Muslim countries are complicit with Israel and the US in keeping the Palestinians unarmed. The unsupported assertion that Iran supplies sophisticated arms to the Palestinians is like the unsupported assertion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. These assertions are propagandistic justifications for killing Arab civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure in order to secure US and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Feb 7 16:28:26 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 15:28:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Meretz leader to Haaretz: Two-state solution on last legs In-Reply-To: <1319228231.365261233954931810.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1480893019.558091234049306038.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m 06/02/2009 Meretz leader to Haaretz: Two-state solution on last legs By Ari Shavit You gotta love Jumes. You can disagree with him and you can get mad him, but in the end, you have to have great warmth for him. In the age of Lieberman's nationalism and Eyal Arad's spin, Meretz chair Haim Oron is like an antibody. Even when he goofs, he goofs with his heart in the right place. If any two numbers reveal just how awful this election is, it's these: Lieberman 20, Meretz five. The Lieberman-Meretz gap raises serious questions about the future and the present of the state of Israel. From his Tel Aviv campaign headquarters, Jumes is still fighting to change both. Why Meretz? For half their lives, half of Haaretz's readers have been voting Meretz and nothing good has come of it. Meretz is a kind of start-up. It tosses out ideas that catch on later and other people implement them. But I don't accept that division of labor any more. It's not okay with me that there is an incubator for ideas in one place and they sprout somewhere else. There should be one political entity that represents the social-democratic and peace positions. And that entity is Meretz. But Meretz isn't having an easy time in this election. Barak and Livni are gnawing at your position from one side, Hadash is chewing on the other. Let's start with Labor chair Ehud Barak. Why not Barak? Barak is running in 2009 as a successful defense minister who rehabilitated the army and conducted an operation in Gaza. He is not running as the leader of the peace camp. So maybe Kadima chair Tzipi Livni is the leader of the peace camp. She promises a dove with an olive branch. Just open the window and let her in. Livni saved herself the question of right and left by not going where she has to decide if she is right or left. She hasn't gotten to dividing Jerusalem and hasn't gotten to resolving the refugee problem. She might have a clearer picture in her own mind. Livni talks about the courage to tell the public the truth. And I say: 'Tzipi, with all due respect to your courage, the question is what you tell Palestinians behind closed doors about Jerusalem.' I don't know what she says. She isn't where Bibi is but she hasn't even gotten to the places that Olmert has. I think both she and Barak make comments from the hazy center that blur the truth. That haze harms the foundations of democracy. It makes political parties into unions of interested parties. It makes the public fed-up with politics because people figure politicians don't say what they really think. Then Hadash. Dov Khenin says what he really thinks. He is clearer and sharper than Meretz. He has a kind of charisma. Black-and-white positions look sharp, but reality is not black-and-white. I oppose the injustices that took place in Gaza but I do not accept that Israel doesn't have the right to self-defense. But the underlying conflict between Meretz and Hadash is more substantial. I am a Zionist. I see Israel as a Jewish state that must be democratic and must be for all its citizens. Anyone who says there is tension here is right. It is the tension we live with here. Khenin releases himself from that tension by defining himself as the non-Zionist left. I believe that dealing with the complexities of life in Israel is more moral than disengaging. Let's admit the truth, Jumes. The warfare in Gaza hurt Meretz twice. On the one hand it brought Labor back into the game and on the other it boosted Hadash. You guys look hesitant. There is no way a left-wing party like ours doesn't come out of war bruised. There was an option of calling the war right and just, and anything done in it was good. There was an option to say that Israel doesn't have the right of response even after 60, 80, 100 rocket strikes. I think both options are oversimplified. So Meretz took the position that a focused military action against Hamas was justified, but it is not okay to cross lines in the sand. And in this war there were lines in the sand. Your sons fought in an operation that some of your voters believe was a war crime. I told you, I live in the tension between poles. One the one hand is the need to remove the threat, but on the other there were tractors that demolished Gaza neighborhoods in the last days of the ground operation. I do not accept that. I believe there is a line that we cannot cross if we want to remain who we are. Do you still believe in peace? Has the word "peace" been erased from your campaign? Neither the word nor belief in peace have been erased. The lack of peace and the continued occupation are the greatest dangers to the future of Israel. Is the two-state solution viable? Can it still be implemented? The two-state solution is on its last legs. That is why this election is so important. If we do not quickly implement the partition into two states, that solution will evaporate and Zionism will be stuck its worst crisis ever. This could turn into a bad cross between Rhodesian apartheid and Somalian bloodshed. That bad? Let me tell you a story. A few days after Sari Nusseibeh retracted his position on two states, I went into Ehud Olmert's office and told him that he should take the report of Nusseibeh's comment like he would take the news that an Arab state has a nuclear bomb. For decades I have fought for peace. In Peace Now, in Mapai and in Meretz. The two-state solution is the only solution. And I live in fear today . I see the light fading. Why did my parents come here? To what have I devoted my life? For what am I here? For a Jewish and democratic state. And if there is no Jewish and democratic state, what am I left with? If the situation is so dramatic, maybe it's better not to vote for a small party like Meretz. Not true. There is no one else like Meretz now. We are the only leftist Zionist alternative that believes in peace, human rights and social democracy. Some say Amos Oz has become your guru. You are the Eli Yishai of Meretz and Oz is your Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. Amos and I have a very close relationship. We do and our families do. But there is no spiritual leader here. There is no authority. We are attentive, not authoritative. Would you join a unity government with Netanyahu? We won't sit in a government with Netanyahu as prime minister. And a unity government with Livni? If it is possible to create a center-left government we would be a substantial factor. If it is a unity government of mutual paralysis, we would rather serve the public from the opposition bench. Against the rise of the right and the Israeli racism of Lieberman, Meretz will provide an ideological and political platform that will become an alternative. From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Feb 7 16:40:01 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 15:40:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Protesters in Barcelona disrupt Israel-Spain basketball game In-Reply-To: <787060.35139.qm@web39807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <305465467.559361234050001414.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Video: Protesters disrupt Apartheid Israel-Spain Basketball game Boicot del partit de b?squet Bar?a - Maccabi de Tel Aviv. Palau Blaugrana. 5 de febrer de 2009. Boicot a Israel. Solidaritat amb Palestina!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgLLIT2MbBE From shniad at sfu.ca Sat Feb 7 16:42:48 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 15:42:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] In South Africa: Victory for worker solidarity Message-ID: <1606911055.559591234050168970.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Victory for worker solidarity 05-02-09 Media Release: Victory for worker solidarity Issued by Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) and Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC) 6 February 2009 The Congress of South African Trade Union is pleased to announce that its members, dock workers belonging to the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (SATAWU) achieved a victory last night when they stood firm by their decision not to offload the Johanna Russ, a ship that was carrying Israeli goods to South Africa. This, despite threats to COSATU members from sections of the pro-Israeli lobby, and despite severe provocation. The Johanna Russ, flying an Antigua flag, is owned by M. Dizengoff and Co., an established "pioneer of the modern era of shipping business in the Middle East" and shipping agent for the ironically named Zim Israel Navigation Company. (Ironic because, last year, the same SATAWU members refused to offload the Chinese ship An Yue Jiang, which was carrying arms and ammunition destined for Robert Mugabe?s army.) The worker action last night took place despite attempted subterfuge on the part of the owners of the shipping company. There was an attempt to confound the plan by arriving earlier than originally scheduled, which was 8 February. Dates for the berthing of the Johanna Russ were changed constantly. Yesterday morning, SATAWU members were told that the ship would dock this morning (Friday) at 02:00. Thanks to the vigilance of the dock workers, SATAWU discovered that the ship had docked on Wednesday morning and was due to be offloaded last night at 21:00. But the vigilant workers were on guard and immediately they realised that it had docked, they then refused to handle it, despite pressures from management. SATAWU members maintained their refusal to offload the ship and also attempted to ensure that scab labour would not be used. A few hours after berthing, at 23:00, the Johanna Russ sneaked out of the Durban Harbour. From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sat Feb 7 19:46:21 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:46:21 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Veblen in Plain English Message-ID: <498E477D.9000905@ashisuto.co.jp> A Complete Introduction to Thorstein Veblen's Economics by Daniel A Underwood Journal of Economic Issues (March 2007) Veblen in Plain English: A Complete Introduction to Thorstein Veblen's Economics, by Ken McCormick. Youngstown, New York: Cambria Press. 2006. Paper: ISBN 0 977 3567 6 0, $24.95. 144 pages. Once in a great while one is asked to review a book that is actually a pleasure to read, and Ken McCormick's Veblen in Plain English is such a book! Direct, lucid and succinct, the 144 pages succeed marvelously in presenting a coherent presentation of Veblen's system of thought. In so doing McCormick has accomplished what I heretofore thought impossible: present the complexity of Veblen's thinking in a form accessible to introductory students. He does this without compromising the totality of Veblen's vision. As a result, the reader will finish with a thorough understanding of how to apply Veblen's analysis to interpret their world. "How" you might ask? Allow me to explain. The secret to McCormick's approach is two fold. First is the compartmentalization of Veblen's writing around four modes of analytical inquiry: Instincts and Institutions, Technology and Social Evolution, Capital and Business Enterprise, and Consumer Behavior. Second, he logically organizes, presents and builds Veblen's evolutionary analysis keeping in mind his audience. Crucial to his approach is the disregard of the historicity of appearance in favor of the logical sequence of ideas. Thus, we work toward the Theory of the Leisure Class rather than from it, and the student is able to quickly savvy the institutional forces shaping consumptive behavior after a thorough introduction to the role instincts play in shaping social evolution. Another reason for McCormick's elucidative success is the orderly development of ideas. He begins each unit with clear succinct definitions that logically and orderly present Veblen's essential modes of intellectual inquiry. For instance, we see "instincts as 'the innate and persistent propensities of human nature'", and "institutions are habitual methods of carrying on the life process of the community". Equipped with clear definitions, he goes on to present the dichotomies of Veblen's analysis and their application to interpret not only the inhibitory forces of habitual behavior, but the role of technology - "matter-of-fact, cause-and-effect thinking" - in perturbing outmoded avenues of thought. On the way, the reader receives an inviting sample of "Veblenian" passages, not only to provide evidence for interpretation, but also to illuminate Veblen's thought process. And all the while McCormick brings these ideas to the reader by creating relevance with their world, be it religion as a habit of thought in legitimating the use of technology, or how absentee ownership has made possible executive compensation over 400 times greater than the average worker. Even better perhaps, is his treatment of the parasitic nature of modern marketing, a theme, process and outcome every undergraduate is all too familiar with! These are themes that resonate with todays undergraduate and, in so doing, make the appropriateness of Veblen's analysis timeless. Of course, Veblen in Plain English is not beyond critique. While these are few, I share them in hope the next edition is even better. To begin, the first message the reader receives is an apologetic: "scholars disagree about the significance of [Veblen's] work". While yes, scholars do disagree, this is a book for students and laypeople, an audience who cares little for the diatribes of scholars. Better to begin "Thorstein Veblen is one of America's most original thinkers, whose analysis penetrates the essence of our cultural existence". Second, the Introduction contrasts an evolutionary approach with one of general equilibrium. This scholastic nuance will be unintelligible to an introductory student and certainly to the layperson. Indeed, there is a danger the book will be closed at this point and the intellectual excitement that soon follows missed. This material could easily be relegated to the final chapter where Veblen's analysis is contrasted with mainstream views. A book like this should begin with excitement, not scholasticism. An introduction that illustrates how Veblen's thinking will help the student better understand their world is more likely to stimulate further interest. But that's it, my only criticisms - and minor at that - of this marvelous book. Had time permitted, I would have invited a number of students to participate in this review process, for; ultimately, they will be the ultimate test of Veblen in Plain English. So alas, that review won't be forthcoming until next quarter. And that it will is my strongest recommendation for this book! Copyright 2007 Association for Evolutionary Economics Copyright 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5437/is_1_41/ai_n29325878 TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Feb 8 02:02:53 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 04:02:53 -0500 Subject: [R-G] In Russia, Barter Is Back Message-ID: February 8, 2009 Have Car, Need Briefs? In Russia, Barter Is Back By ELLEN BARRY MOSCOW ? Does the Taganrog Automobile Factory have a deal for you! Rows of freshly minted Hyundai Santa Fe sport utility vehicles are available right now. In exchange ? well, do you have any circuit boards? Or sheet metal? Or sneakers? Here is a sign of the financial times in Russia: Barter is back on the table. Advertisements are beginning to appear in newspapers and online, like one that offered "2,500,000 rubles' worth of premium underwear for any automobile," and another promising "lumber in Krasnoyarsk for food or medicine." A crane manufacturer in Yekaterinburg is paying its debtors with excavators. And one of Russia's original commodities traders, German L. Sterligov, has rolled out a splashy "anti-crisis" initiative that he says will link long chains of enterprises in a worldwide barter system. All this evokes a bit of d?j? vu. In the mid-1990s, barter transactions in Russia accounted for an astonishing 50 percent of sales for midsize enterprises and 75 percent for large ones. The practice kept businesses afloat for years but also allowed them to defer some fundamental changes needed to make them more competitive, like layoffs and price reductions. It also hurt tax revenues. The comeback is on a small scale so far. The most recent statistics available, from November, showed that barter deals made up about 3 to 4 percent of total sales, according to the Russian Economic Barometer, an independent bulletin. Nevertheless, economists are taking note. "Russians are so arrogant that they never cut prices," said Vladimir Popov, a professor at Moscow's New Economic School. By turning to barter systems during an economic downturn, he said, "you are hiding your head in the sand." It would be hard, however, to dissuade business owners who see barter as a point of light on a bleak financial horizon. Among the most upbeat of them is Mr. Sterligov, who, just as the credit crunch brought most business deals to a halt, shoveled $13 million into the Anti-Crisis Settlement and Commodity Center. Mr. Sterligov, 42, is one of the great characters of Russian capitalism. In his mid-20s, on the eve of the Soviet Union's collapse, he was a freewheeling, chain-smoking commodities trader surrounded by leggy assistants. But Mr. Sterligov sat out the oil-fueled prosperity of recent years. After a failed run against Vladimir V. Putin in the 2004 presidential election, he retreated to a log house outside Moscow, opting for the beard and boots of a Russian shepherd. In August, intimations of the financial crash lured him out of the woods. He plans to use a computer database to create chains of six or seven enterprises having difficulty selling their products for cash, in which the last firm on the chain would pay the first in a single cash transaction. It is the kind of multiparty barter that rose to prominence in the 1990s, when managers of factories across Russia devised complex barter chains to keep the maximum number of enterprises in business when none had cash to pay their bills. A computer, he said, can do the same job faster and more efficiently. "What was in the past will remain in the past," Mr. Sterligov said in an interview last month, from the 26th-floor suite he has rented in a Moscow high-rise. "We are making a step into the future." So far, economists doubt that barter will grow to the level it reached in the 1990s. Earlier in the transition to a market economy, industrialists still had little monetary stake in their businesses but were dependent on the prestige that went with executive positions, said Andrei Yakovlev of the Higher School of Economics here. They had little incentive to cut costs, and barter deals kept them going for five years, he said. Now, business owners and managers "are really trying to reduce costs and reduce inefficiency," Mr. Yakovlev said. Interest in barter, he said, is more likely to come from regional governments, which have the most to lose from high unemployment. Barter is a side effect of tight monetary policy, said Mr. Popov, who is teaching at Carleton University in Ottawa. Russia is in the grip of a liquidity crisis. As in the mid-1990s, the government has made it a priority to shore up the economy by buying up rubles, hoping to avoid the panicky sell-off that comes with rapid devaluation. The ruble has gradually slid from 23.4 to the dollar in early August, before Russia's war in Georgia, to 36.2 to the dollar last week. As a result, the money supply continues to contract, and some enterprises turn to barter to survive. "We are stepping for the second time on the same rake," Mr. Popov said. "The second time is a greater sin." Long-term macroeconomic trends, however, are the last thing manufacturers were thinking about in recent weeks. The Hyundai factory in Taganrog, the southern seaport where Chekhov was born, rolled out a barter promotion on its Web site, offering to trade vehicles for "raw materials," "high-tech equipment" or "other liquid goods, including finished products of various branches of industry." Gleb Korotkov, a spokesman for the factory, said he could not be specific about what goods were meant, saying it was a "commercial secret." Barter deals seem to be spreading fastest in construction industries. Dmitri Smorodin, who runs a large St. Petersburg building firm, said he thought for two months before announcing in late January that he was willing to accept barter items ? including food products ? as payment for construction work. He said he hoped that adopting the strategy early in the crisis would give him an edge over his competitors. "Food we would happily accept, because it's easy to sell," he said. "Of course, money is always preferable." In contrast, Uralchem, a fertilizer producer, refused payment in grain and beef, because the company conforms to international financial reporting standards in its reports to shareholders, said Andrei Kocherov, a spokesman for Uralchem, which was founded in 2007. The modern accounting system would preclude barter, he said. Meanwhile, in Bashkortostan, a republic in southwestern Russia, local development officials publicly encouraged businesses to develop barter chains. Sergei Ryazanov, 30, a businessman from the Siberian city of Surgut, took out an advertisement a month ago offering to barter excess metal piping. So far, he has not been impressed by the offers he has received; he said people were not desperate enough to drop prices. He is looking for a truly liquid commodity, something universal, like gasoline. Even underwear, which, he said, "is much more liquid than automobiles." He was intrigued by Mr. Sterligov's idea, though he questioned the wisdom of planning a career in barter. "It will take him a couple years to get it right," Mr. Ryazanov said. "And then, in two years, liquidity will be back." From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sun Feb 8 03:38:54 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2009 19:38:54 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] A Deindustrial Reading List Message-ID: <498EB63E.2000805@ashisuto.co.jp> by John Michael Greer The Archdruid Report (February 04 2009) Druid perspectives on nature, culture, and the future of industrial society Over the last few months a number of people have asked me what books I think they ought to read to help them prepare for the slow unraveling of industrial civilization now getting started around us. This is frankly the kind of question I try my best to dodge. Premature consensus is arguably one of the most severe risks we face just now, and any image of the future - very much including the one I've sketched out here - is at best a scattershot sampling of the divergent possibilities facing us as the industrial age comes to its end. Thus anything that tends to encourage people in the peak oil movement, or the wider society around it, to think about the future in any stereotyped way is potentially fatal. Still, several readers have noted that the ideas in The Long Descent (2008) and these essays presuppose a worldview and a cultural and intellectual inheritance that aren't exactly widespread in popular culture these days. They've asked, if I may paraphrase a bit, what they should read to make better sense of my ravings. Put that way, it's not an unreasonable request, and since the view of history that shapes those ravings flies in the face of most of the common assumptions of the modern world, a little background may not hurt. I've thus sketched out a reading list of sorts for those interested in exploring in more detail the viewpoint I've presented here. It contains nearly as many broad categories as specific book recommendations; I have my preferences, and will suggest them, but here again diversity of opinion and information are essential. If everybody in your neighborhood reads and uses the techniques in a different gardening book, the resulting knowledge base will be much larger and more useful than if everybody relies on a single text, with its inevitable omissions and errors. For similar reasons, most of the books mentioned below are relatively old, and some of them are out of print. There are excellent new books on most of these subjects, and I certainly encourage you to read as many of those as appeal to you, but books written during any historical period mirror that period's presuppositions and habits of thought to a much greater extent than anybody notices at the time. One advantage of older books is precisely that their unthinking assumptions are easier to catch, and this in turn helps foster the awkward but essential realization that thirty years from now, the unquestioned truths and apparently reasonable assumptions of the present will look as outlandishly dated as bell bottom pants and disco music. Very few of the books I've suggested here are practical, in any ordinary sense of the word, and those that have that distinction are meant to be read and interpreted in rather impractical ways. The sheer diversity of potentials and needs that will likely open up in a deindustrializing future makes any sort of practical booklist an exercise in overgeneralization; the entire thrust of the deindustrial age heads from standardized approaches toward the diversity that comes from a renewed engagement with the local realities of one's own place, time, and community. A reader whose future career involves raising draft horses in rural Iowa has completely different practical needs from a reader who, ten years from now, will be salvaging and repairing appliances in a small West Coast city; what they need in common is a framework of ideas that will help them make sense of the wider picture, and the ideas I am trying to explore here provide one of these. Finally, I've made some suggestions about how to approach the books mentioned below. At the risk of sounding like a 19th-century schoolmaster, I probably need to point out that you won't get much out of any book if you approach it passively, and let the words dribble through your mind and out your ears like so many sitcom plots. The books I've suggested are not there so that you can agree with them unthinkingly; they are meant to get you to look under the hood of the ideas I've offered and see how the machinery works. With those caveats, here goes. The following books should be read, if you can manage that, in the order I've listed them. 1. A basic textbook of ecology. It really doesn't matter which one; the two on my bookshelves are Richard Brewer's Principles of Ecology and Eugene P Odum's Fundamentals of Ecology, but that's simply because these were the college textbooks I studied back in the day. What's essential is that the book you read should be a general textbook of scientific ecology, not a popularization or a polemic. A great many people have embraced ecology as an ideology or a sentimental pose without ever getting around to learning how living things and their environments interact. In the future, I'm convinced, a clear and unsentimental understanding of the way ecology works will be the most essential branch of human knowledge, and could spare individuals and communities some bitter lessons in the years to come. A basic grasp of ecology is also essential for making sense of the next three books. 2. The Limits to Growth by Donella Meadows, David Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and William W Behrens III. Get the original 1972 edition rather than either of the two updates, in which the original message has been partly overlaid with political polemic. The most insightful and thus inevitably the most vilified of the 1970s collapse literature, The Limits to Growth was the first book I know of to point out the central paradox of a perpetual growth economy: if economic growth is pursued far enough, the costs of further growth begin to rise faster than its benefits, and eventually force the growth economy to its knees. Joseph Tainter's The Collapse of Complex Societies explored the same territory later on from another angle, and my essay on catabolic collapse did the same thing from a different angle again; still, the original presentation remains the most useful. Note whether The Limits to Growth makes more or less sense in the light of the basic ecological principles you read in the first book. 3. Overshoot by William R Catton Jr. Still far and away the best book on the twilight of the age of cheap energy, Overshoot is also one of the very few explorations of that troubling territory that is fully grounded in a clear grasp of ecological realities. A good half of the ideas explored in The Archdruid Report can trace their origins to one page or another of Catton's book. It is challenging reading and, in many places, depressing as well; Catton resolutely refuses to offer easy answers for the predicament into which industrial society has backed itself. Of all the currently out-of-print books on this list, though, this is the one I would most like to see reissued by some small publisher. Once again, assess Catton's claims in the light of the basic ecological principles you've learned. 4. A practical introduction to intensive organic gardening. John Jeavons' How To Grow More Vegetables and John Seymour's The Self-Sufficient Gardener are among the examples on my shelves (along with a number of more recent books, of course). It's best to choose one you haven't read before. The goal here is not to learn how to grow food using intensive organic methods - though that's very likely a good idea - but rather to think through the practical implications of the ecological ideas you've just studied. Ask yourself where the system of gardening presented by the book you're reading works with ecological cycles, and where it conflicts with them; imagine ways in which the logic governing organic gardening could be applied to other aspects of society and economy, and try to get a sense of the costs and benefits of making a transition from current practices to the ones you've imagined. 5 and 6. The Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler and A Study of History by Arnold Toynbee. Get the abridged edition of each; the complete two-volume Spengler is hard to get, and only obsessive history fans like me work their way through all twelve volumes of Toynbee, but the one-volume Spengler abridgment and either the two-volume or the later one-volume versions of Toynbee are cheap, readily available, and no great challenge to read. These are the two great modern presentations of the case for cyclic history; they cover much the same territory, but each one does it from a unique perspective. Read them close together, and notice the places where Toynbee is arguing with Spengler's theories and conclusions; the Great Conversation is rarely quite so audible as here. While you read both books, notice whether the ecological perspectives you've absorbed from the first three books cast any additional light on the cycles outlined by these two authors. 7. The history of a dead civilization. It doesn't matter which one, and you have plenty of options to choose from. The only requirements are that the civilization should be as extinct as a dodo; the book you choose should focus on history rather than culture - that is, it should talk about what events happened in what order, rather than simply wallowing in the cultural high points and quietly neglecting how things fell to bits thereafter; and it should cover the whole history of the civilization from its origin to its collapse. As you trace the rise and fall of the civilization you've chosen, bring the lessons of the first six books to bear on it. What role did ecological factors in general, and the specific problems traced by Meadows et al and Catton, play in your civilization's rise and fall? How well do Spengler's and Toynbee's accounts of historical change fit the facts in this specific case? 8. Muddling Toward Frugality by Warren Johnson. This one may be a challenge to find; it appeared right at the end of the 1970s, had a brief flurry of popularity, and then vanished without a trace in the wave of reaction that swept Ronald Reagan into the White House and the lessons of the previous decade into oblivion. Regardless, it's one of the most thoughtful works to come out of the last energy crisis, an argument for unplanned, undramatic, and thoroughly non-ideological change as the best option at the end of the Age of Abundance. Johnson's analysis is much subtler than it looks; this is another book that needs to get back in print sooner rather than later. While reading it, bring your previous reading to bear on it; in particular, ask yourself how useful its proposals would have been if implemented at various points in the decline and fall of the civilization you studied. 9. Where The Wasteland Ends by Theodore Roszak. A brilliant, engaging, frustrating work, this is Roszak's exploration of the narratives and assumptions about reality that undergird modern industrial civilization. Some of my readers will find its argument appealing, while others will find it intolerable; both groups stand to learn a great deal from this book if they set aside these emotional reactions and pay attention to the way that Roszak crafts his case, to his choice of examples and evidence, and also to the things he doesn't address. As you read it, put it in its historical context: if it had been written in a dead civilization just before decline set in, what would Spengler and Toynbee have said about it? Then take it out of its historical context: what does its argument have to offer us now? 10. A book predicting a dramatic social transformation that didn't happen. Choose one that you would have rooted for at the time. If you believe that civilization is the root of all evils, pick up the sturdy Victorian radical Edward Carpenter's Civilization: Its Cause and Cure; if you believe that we are on the verge of breakthrough into a new kind of consciousness, try Charles Reich's The Greening of America; if you're secretly hoping for social collapse and mass dieoff, read one of the hundreds of books that have been predicting exactly that for the last dozen centuries, and so on. Try to put yourself into the mindset of the readers who believed it when it first saw print; see why it seemed to make sense at the time - and then step back and explore the reasons why nothing of the sort actually happened. Bring everything you've learned from the previous nine books to bear on this one. There you have it. It would probably be possible to draw up a list of books in print that would cast the same light on the ideas I'm trying to explore here. It would also be possible to draw up a list drawn entirely from Greek and Roman classical authors - though this would take a tolerance for the sort of thinking modern people mislabel "mysticism" well beyond what most readers have nowadays. Still, this is my list, and I'm stickin' with it; those who tackle it, on the off chance that anybody does, will end up with a much clearer idea of what I'm trying to say in these essays, and with any luck, will be able to go further with these curious notions than I have. _____ ?John Michael Greer has been active in the alternative spirituality movement for more than 25 years, and is the author of a dozen books, including The Druidry Handbook (2006) and The Long Descent (2008). He lives in Ashland, Oregon. http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2009/02/deindustrial-reading-list.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Feb 8 06:40:11 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 08:40:11 -0500 Subject: [R-G] Afghan Leader Finds Himself Hero No More Message-ID: America does its imperialism as it does its capitalism: when a business fails, blame employees. Mr. Karzai may have sealed his fate by finally coming up with a sensible strategy last year and beginning to show signs of independent thinking: "At a news conference in Kabul, the Afghan capital, Mr. Karzai coupled his offer of safe passage to Mr. Omar with a warning to the Western nations that support his government, saying that if they opposed an assurance of safety for Mr. Omar they would have to remove Mr. Karzai as president or withdraw their troops from Afghanistan. . . . Mr. Karzai has recently toughened his tone when speaking of the American-led coalition in ways that appear to have been aimed at gaining wider support at home. Among other things, he has demanded that the coalition make more measured use of air power to reduce civilian casualties from bomb and missile attacks. With his warning that he would guarantee Mr. Omar's safety, he appeared to have taken one step further in marking his distance from the coalition" (at ). -- Yoshie February 8, 2009 Afghan Leader Finds Himself Hero No More By DEXTER FILKINS KABUL, Afghanistan ? A foretaste of what would be in store for President Hamid Karzai after the election of a new American administration came last February, when Joseph R. Biden Jr., then a senator, sat down to a formal dinner at the palace during a visit here. Between platters of lamb and rice, Mr. Biden and two other American senators questioned Mr. Karzai about corruption in his government, which, by many estimates, is among the worst in the world. Mr. Karzai assured Mr. Biden and the other senators that there was no corruption at all and that, in any case, it was not his fault. The senators gaped in astonishment. After 45 minutes, Mr. Biden threw down his napkin and stood up. "This dinner is over," Mr. Biden announced, according to one of the people in the room at the time. And the three senators walked out, long before the appointed time. Today, of course, Mr. Biden is the vice president. The world has changed for Mr. Karzai, and for Afghanistan, too. A White House favorite ? a celebrity in flowing cape and dark gray fez ? in each of the seven years that he has led this country since the fall of the Taliban, Mr. Karzai now finds himself not so favored at all. Not by Washington, and not by his own. In the White House, President Obama said he regarded Mr. Karzai as unreliable and ineffective. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said he presided over a "narco-state." The Americans making Afghan policy, worried that the war is being lost, are vowing to bypass Mr. Karzai and deal directly with the governors in the countryside. At home, Mr. Karzai faces a widening insurgency and a population that blames him for the manifest lack of economic progress and the corrupt officials that seem to stand at every doorway of his government. His face, which once adorned the walls of tea shops across the country, is today much less visible. Now, perhaps crucially, an election looms. Mr. Karzai says he will ask the voters to return him to the palace for another five-year term. The election is set for Aug. 20, after what promises to be a violent and eventful summer. In a poll commissioned by a group of private Afghans, 85 percent of those surveyed said they intended to vote for someone other than Mr. Karzai. Meanwhile, the Obama administration will have to decide what it wants from Mr. Karzai as it tries to make good on its promise to reverse the course of the war. Or whether it wants him at all. With the insurgency rising, corruption soaring and opium blooming across the land, it perhaps is not surprising that so many Afghans, and so many in Washington, see President Karzai's removal as a precondition for reversing the country's downward surge. "Under President Karzai, we have gone from a better situation to a good situation to a not-so-bad situation to a bad situation ? and now are going to worse," said Abdullah, a former foreign minister in Mr. Karzai's government who may now challenge him for the presidency (and who, like many Afghans, has only one name). "That is the trend. "So let us say Karzai stays in power through the summer and that nothing serious happens and then he wins re-election," Dr. Abdullah said. "Then there will be two scenarios, and only two scenarios ? a rapid collapse or a slow unraveling." People close to Mr. Karzai say the man is exhausted, wary of his enemies and worried for his physical safety. He feels embattled and underappreciated, they say, but is utterly determined, in spite of it all, to run again and win. In recent weeks, the growing American dissatisfaction with Mr. Karzai, coupled with a simmering frustration among Afghans over what they regard as the reckless killing of civilians by American forces, has prompted extraordinary reactions from Mr. Karzai. At a news conference on Tuesday at his marble-floored palace, Mr. Karzai appeared side-by-side with Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general. Mr. Karzai wore his signature outfit of fez and cape, but his visage was wan and slack. Asked by an Afghan reporter about his relations with American leaders, Mr. Karzai sprang to life, accusing unnamed people in the American government of trying to "pressure" him to stay silent over the deaths of Afghan civilians in attacks by Americans. "Our demands are clear ? to stop the civilian casualties, the searching of Afghan homes and the arresting Afghans," Mr. Karzai said of the Americans. "And of course, the Americans pressured us to be quiet and to make us retreat from our demands. But that is impossible. Afghanistan and its president are not going to retreat from their demands." Mr. Karzai did not touch on larger frustrations, which Afghan and Western officials here say he harbors, about the overall American effort, namely, the relegation of Afghanistan to second-tier status after the invasion of Iraq. Many Afghans and Western officials here believe that it was the Iraq war, more than any other factor, that deprived Mr. Karzai of the resources he needed to help the Afghan state stand on its own, and to prevent the resurgence of the Taliban that Mr. Obama is now vowing to contain. Yet for all the doubts about Mr. Karzai ? and for all the strains he labors under ? he remains by far the strongest politician in the country. He commands the resources of the Afghan state, including the army and the police, and billions of dollars in American and other aid that flows into the treasury. In his seven years in office, Mr. Karzai has successfully presided over the transition of the Afghan state from the devastated, pre-modern institution it was under the Taliban to the deeply troubled but largely democratic one it is today. Perhaps most important for his future, Mr. Karzai has assembled a team of senior administrators whose competence and experience would be difficult for any challenger to match. Perhaps for that reason, of the many prominent Afghans who have hinted that they may run against him, including Dr. Abdullah and a former finance minister, Ashraf Ghani, only a handful of Afghans have so far declared their intentions. Some Afghan leaders say they will announce their candidacies soon, but it seems just as likely that they are waiting to see if Mr. Karzai stumbles. As for the members of Mr. Obama's team, they may yet discover that Mr. Karzai is the man they will be forced to deal with, whether they like him or not. At the palace news conference, Mr. Karzai acknowledged his own unpopularity, and then offered a vigorous defense of his record. He declined to be interviewed for this article. "Well, I have been in government for seven years. It's natural that I would not be as popular now as I was seven years ago," Mr. Karzai said. "The institutions of Afghanistan have worked very well," he added. "The Afghan people participated in the election for president. They participated in elections for Parliament. The parliamentary system has been functioning a lot better than some established parliaments in the world. They have been making laws, approving laws. The government institutions are increasingly in progress ? the economy, the national army, the growth of education. We went from almost two or three universities in 2002 to 17 universities, to the freedom of the press, hundreds of newspapers and radios and all that. I and the Afghan people are proud of our achievements." And, he might also have said, six million Afghan children attending school, a quarter of whom are girls, whose education was prohibited by the Taliban. One of the people with the most generous words for Mr. Karzai is William Wood, the American ambassador. Under the ambassador's former boss, President Bush, Mr. Karzai enjoyed a favored personal status, even if his state did not. That special relationship was symbolized by the videoconferences in which the two men participated regularly. "The guy works very hard," Mr. Wood said of Mr. Karzai. "He faces a problem set every day that would daunt anyone. He's got an insurgency based outside the country, and a level of poverty and criminality inside the country that feeds the insurgency. He's got an army that had to be built from zero following the ouster of the Taliban. He's got a police force that had to be reformed. Speaking in an interview at his office in Kabul, Mr. Wood added: "Yeah, I think he's tired. And I think frankly that everyone ? the international community, the United States, the United Nations, Western Europe, the international press ? were unrealistically optimistic about the problem of Afghanistan following the ouster of the Taliban." Mr. Wood will soon be replaced by Lt. Gen. Karl W. Eikenberry, a former commander of American forces here. In his last tour, which ended in 2007, General Eikenberry enjoyed good relations with Mr. Karzai. Given Mr. Karzai's mood these days, that is probably a good thing. At a ceremony last month for the first graduates of Afghanistan's National Military Academy, Mr. Karzai stood and addressed the assembled 84 cadets as well as a group of diplomats, including Mr. Wood. Mr. Karzai turned the occasion into a populist barnburner. "I told America and the world to give us aircraft ? otherwise we will get them from the other place!" Mr. Karzai roared, prompting applause. "I told them to give us the planes soon, that we have no more patience, and that we cannot get along without military aircraft! "Give us the aircraft sooner or we will get them from the others!" Mr. Karzai roared again. "We told them to bring us tanks, too ? otherwise we will get them from other place!" Mr. Karzai never said what the "other place" was. Abdul Waheed Wafa contributed reporting from Kabul, and Peter Baker from Washington. From fentona at shaw.ca Sun Feb 8 10:01:58 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 09:01:58 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Is the Canada-Colombia FTA really going to help Colombia? References: Message-ID: <2BCBC987-35D7-41B2-A8C2-3F19795FC680@shaw.ca> http://www.vueweekly.com/article.php?id=10915 Free Trade: No such thing as free trade Is the Canada-Colombia FTA really going to help Colombia? Dawn Paley / paley at vueweeky.com When Minister of International Trade Stockwell Day signed the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in Peru on November 21, it was a happy day for Canada's oil and gas sector, but the deal was celebrated instead as a landmark for human rights and democracy in Colombia. "Deepening both economic and political engagement between our countries is the best way Canadians can support the citizens of Colombia in their efforts to create a safer and more prosperous democracy," said Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the signing ceremony. The Canada-Colombia FTA was negotiated in secret, and the texts of the deal have yet to be made available to the public. As Day's pen slid across paper in Peru, a massive mobilization of popular movements had taken over the central plaza in Colombia's capital. The protests in Bogot? were the culmination of over six weeks of demonstrations across the country, known as a Minga, spearheaded by Indigenous peoples. Crystal clear among the demands of the tens of thousands mobilizing in Bogot? was the immediate end to all Free Trade Agreements and the economic system these deals represent. "Free Trade Agreements are never for the benefit of the people," says Rafael Coicu?, a Nasa leader from Cauca, in southwest Colombia, who participated in the Minga. "These agreements are shaped by economic interests at the cost of life and sovereignty." Having signed the FTA with Colombia, the Harper government evened the score with the Bush Administration in the US?both governments have now signed the agreement, but neither one has yet ratified the deal. According to Foreign Affairs Canada, bilateral trade with Colombia in 2007 totaled $1.14 billion, making it the fourth most important destination for Canadian trade in Latin America. Along with select exporters, Canada's extractive industries are among the sectors that could cash in on a free trade agreement with Colombia. The Role of the Wild Rose State A briefing put together by Alberta's department of International, Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Relations, calculates that exports from Alberta to Colombia averaged $48 million a year from 2002 to 2006. Almost half of Alberta's exports to Colombia in 2006 were made up of wheat and other crops, oil and gas equipment and transportation equipment. More than 20 oil and gas companies from Alberta are currently active in Colombia, including Nexen, Enbridge and Petrominerales. Enbridge owns 24.7 per cent of Oleoducto Central SA (OCENSA), the company that controls the largest pipeline system in Colombia. The outstanding portion of OCENSA is owned by Ecopetrol (Colombia's national oil company), TOTAL, BP and Triton Pipeline Colombia. Enbridge has been involved in the project since 1994, and today is responsible for operations along Colombia's largest pipeline. Enbridge runs a Corporate Social Responsibility campaign, but according to the company's own power point presentation, they're "prepared for some NGO questioning," relating to their operations in Colombia. There are 17 military bases and more than 1400 soldiers, airmen and marines stationed near the 820 km long pipeline. Enbridge claims that the constitution of Colombia requires them to have military personnel guarding their operations. Colombia's military has recently come under international scrutiny because of the "false positives" scandal, where civilians killed by the army were dressed up to appear like guerrillas. In 1998, the OCENSA pipeline was bombed by the National Liberation Army (ELN), a guerrilla group active in Colombia's northeast. Seventy-one people were killed and many hundreds were wounded in the blast. Amnesty International condemned the blasts as a "flagrant violation of international humanitarian law," and later revealed OCENSA was transferring arms to the XIV Brigade of the Colombian army, as well as employing a private security company whose operations aggravated the human rights situation for civilians living in the area near the pipeline. "The relation with Israeli private security companies is potentially of concern given that in the past such companies have provided mercenaries, of Israeli and British and German nationality, to train paramilitary organizations operating under the control of the XIV Brigade," said Amnesty International. Paramilitary activity along the OCENSA pipeline led to an eventual payout of victims by BP, which was then operating the pipeline. BP now carries out oil production and exploration in Colombia, and maintains a smaller stake in the OCENSA pipeline. Nexen, for it's part, has a non-operational stake in oil production in Colombia. "It is not a focus area for us and we have about eight to 10 people in the country," wrote Carla Yuill, Nexen's Manager of Corporate Communications, in an email to Vue. Nexen currently produces about 5000 net barrels a day in Colombia. John Wright is the president and CEO of Petrobank, which has operations spanning BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan, and Petrominerales, which produces oil in the Llanos area of Colombia, which comprises the departments of Arauca, Casanare, Vichada y Meta. The company is also exploring in Putamayo and Neiva. Their operations net about 20 000 barrels daily and employ upwards of 130 people, plus a large amount of contractors. Wright has been working in Colombia since 1992, and he's yet to come across any of the problems others have experienced in Colombia. "You find you'll have exactly the same security issues you'd have in parts of Miami, or certainly in places like Caracas, or probably in a place like Lagos," he says. The day before Wright talked to Vue, 10 people were kidnapped by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in Meta, one of the departments where Petrominerales is active. Nonetheless, according to Wright, "It's very calm where we are." Free Trade: for better or for worse? "Colombia is one of the most transparent places on earth to do business, it's as clean as Alberta when it comes to the oil industry," says Wright. He has strongly advocated for the passage of the agreement, and he testified before the Standing Committee on International Trade's hearings about the deal. "We're huge supporters of [the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement]. I think Canada has an enormous role to play, we can show the world how you can do things with rational regulations, rational oversight and transparent business practices, and Colombia fits into that mould," Wright told Vue. Not everyone agrees with Wright's perspective, however. Gustavo Triana, the second vice-president of the Colombian United Workers Federation (CUT) and a former Secretary of the Energy & Mining Sector, says that, with relation to the oil and gas sector in Colombia, "What the Free Trade Agreements do is ... stipulate that the services and engineering that is today done by [Colombian] nationals will be instead done by foreigners, by bringing in firms and technicians that displace ours, and removing national control mechanisms." Resistance to the passage of a free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia goes beyond popular movements and trade unionists in Colombia. After months of hearings on the agreement, the Standing Committee on International Trade issued its report to the government, in which it recommended an FTA with Colombia not be signed. "The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada maintain close ties with Colombia without signing a free trade agreement until there is confirmation that the improvements noted are maintained, including continued improvement as regards displacement, labour law and accountability for crime, and until the Colombian government shows a more constructive attitude to human rights groups in the country," reads the report. Workers beware Among the strongest voices of opposition against free trade agreement in North America are labour, especially the AFL-CIO in the US, and the Canadian Labour Congress north of the border. Colombia is the world's most dangerous place to be a trade unionist. Since 1996, Colombia's National Trade Union School (ENS) has recorded the assassinations of 2690 trade unionists. According to Triana, these numbers include 135 workers in the oil and gas sector. ENS numbers for 2008 show that last year, 46 trade union members were assassinated, 157 were threatened, 15 were arbitrarily detained, 13 taken hostage and four were disappeared. "The union movement is pretty strong in Colombia and I don't see them being persecuted in any way. The US side of it, of course, it's all just a big political sham, it's the AFL-CIO who are against the Colombia Free Trade Agreement," counters Wright. "None of the Canadian companies linked to the oil sector ... have unions, and the reason is simple?they rely on third parties for labour, subcontracting, they don't hire [employees] directly and in that way get around union organizing," says Triana. In addition to being a dangerous place for trade unionists, Colombia is home to a growing population of over four million internally displaced people, and plays host to irregular armed groups ranging from the FARC and ELN to paramilitary groups. Colombia is the hemisphere's largest recipient of "aid" money from United States though Plan Colombia, most of which goes towards military spending. The Permanent Peoples' Tribunal, modeled on the Russell Tribunals that took place after the Vietnam war, spent three years studying the role of multinational corporations in Colombia over the last three years. A Nobel Laureate and a number of European Supreme Court justices issued the verdict of the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal last summer. Though no Canadian oil companies were named in the verdict, other extractives companies were denounced for their participation in human rights violations. "Colombia seems to be, in one sense, like a true institutional political laboratory where the interests of national and international economic actors are fully defended through the state's abandonment of its functions and its constitutional duty to protect the dignity and life of the population, to which instead the state applies the Colombian version of the doctrine of national security," reads the verdict. "It is not true that terror is an enemy of development of capital in Colombia, in fact, the opposite is true: there is terror so that transnational corporate and Canadian capital can develop their interests, because terror creates cheap access to the means of exploitation and production," says Manuel Rozental, a Colombian surgeon who has lived in Canada. It is expected that the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement will be tabled in Parliament before the spring. Whether or not Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff will direct the Liberals to vote against the deal?previous leader Stephane Dion promised during the election campaign that he wouldn't support the FTA?is unknown. V From fentona at shaw.ca Sun Feb 8 13:24:28 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 12:24:28 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Pentagon, media clash over control of information Message-ID: Pentagon, media clash over control of information By CHRIS TOMLINSON ? 1 day ago BAGHDAD (AP) ? The black-and-white video starts with a mini-van locked in the crosshairs and the sound of a missile launching. A ball of fire suddenly consumes the van and a palm grove somewhere in Iraq. "Good shot," says a voice squawking over what sounds like a military radio. Before the one-minute video clip is over, two more SUVs are destroyed by Apache helicopters. The video is one of dozens brought to viewers around the world by Maj. Alayne Conway, the top public affairs officer for the 3rd Infantry Division. When her unit was in Iraq, her office sent out four to six videos a day to media outlets around the world, as well as posting them on YouTube. "You want to make sure you edit it in the right way," Conway said. "You have to go through the steps. ... Is this something that is going to make Joe Six-Pack look up from his TV dinner or his fast-food meal and look up at the TV and say, `Wow, the American troops are kicking butt in Iraq?'" Critics say the purpose of such violent material is not to inform the public about what the military is doing, but to promote it. Public affairs officers argue that they are in a battle with insurgents to shape the public perception of the wars they are fighting, and they will use every means available to push the military's version of events. The Pentagon now spends more than $550 million a year ? at least double the amount since 2003 ? on public affairs, and that doesn't including personnel costs. Public affairs officers are, in the words of the military's training manual, a "perception management tool." Their job is to provide facts but not spin to American audiences and the American media. Over the past two years, the number of public affairs officers trained by the Defense Information School has grown by 24 percent to almost 3,500. The military is also expanding its Internet presence from 300 to 1,000 sites and increasing its free cable programming on the Pentagon Channel by 33 percent to 2,080 programs. Along with putting out its own messages, the public affairs arm tries to regulate what other media put out. In recent years, as reporting out of Iraq turned more negative, the public affairs department has increased its ground rules for media who embed with troops from one to four pages. In mid-2008, Associated Press reporter Bradley Brooks was stepping off a cargo plane in Mosul en route to an embed when he saw pallbearers carry the flag-draped coffins of dead soldiers from Humvee ambulances onto a plane. Brooks talked to soldiers, who mentioned their anger with political leaders, and wrote a story. Within 24 hours the military had expelled him from northern Iraq. He was told he had broken a new rule that embedded reporters could not write while in transit. In 2008, eight journalists were detained for more than 48 hours, according to cases tracked by the AP, more than in any other year since the war began. Since 2003, the AP alone has had 11 journalists detained in Iraq for more than 24 hours. And a Reuters journalist has been detained by U.S. forces as "a security threat" since Sept. 2. "All of these journalists, with the exception of the one being held now, have been released without charge. That troubles us because it suggests that they are not able to successfully charge these journalists with anything," said Joel Simon, executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists. Pentagon officials say commanders have the right to detain anyone they consider a threat to security, and that the U.S. Constitution does not apply to foreign battlefields. "The U.S. military is going to control the battle space in which they operate," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told a gathering of journalists in April 2007. "The First Amendment provides no right of access to the battlefield ? zero, none." Whitman's assertion has never been tested in court, and legal opinions vary. The public affairs department has even arranged to fly friendly bloggers to Iraq and Afghanistan, according to documents made available through the Freedom of Information Act. The public affairs office decided who could take part in special "Blogger Roundtables" with Pentagon officials in 2005, and transcripts show that those chosen were overwhelmingly pro-military and repeated the information they heard on their own Web sites without always revealing its source. On the Net: * http://www.youtube.com/watch?vPPlLXvWGivE&featurePlayList&p3B51EE9C01BFD6 Hosted by Google From fentona at shaw.ca Sun Feb 8 16:51:09 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 15:51:09 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Engineering Human Rights In The Israel-Palestine Conflict Message-ID: <91CB85AA-1CB5-4724-A9F5-0588986D2CD9@shaw.ca> Michael Barker, "Engineering Human Rights In The Israel-Palestine Conflict," Swans Commentary, February 9, 2009. (Swans - February 9, 2009) The concept of human rights is now widely conflated with the promotion of fundamental democratic rights, and its associated discourses permeate the work of both alternative and mainstream global media outlets. Human rights, for all intents and purposes, is presented as an idea that can only possibly promote equity and justice, and the political ramifications of its promotion are rarely questioned. Yet like many progressive ideas that attract elite support there is always a danger that its moral underpinning may become inverted so that it serves pragmatic political ambitions rather than radical emancipatory ideals. In this regard, the abuse of human rights is no different to that of any other progressive concept, and the discourse of human rights is regularly instrumentalised to support and launch imperial conquests. Jean Bricmont has fittingly referred to the cynical manipulation of human rights as Humanitarian Imperialism, and the intellectual foot soldiers of this cause have been described by Edward Herman and David Peterson as "The New Humanitarians." Questions must be asked as to whose human rights are really being protected when the discourse of human rights is drawn upon to justify military interventions into sovereign states. Furthermore, it is critical that concerned citizens seek to understand how political rights and political institutions might be undermined by such so- called humanitarian activities. The Israel-Palestine conflict provides a useful lens through which to interrogate the broader implications of the elite deployment of human rights in the service of imperialism. In this case, in particular, the funding issue is all the more pressing given that "Western actors (governments, media, organisations) have become the primary constituencies for local human rights activism." (2) Such a reliance on external donors causes genuine problems for sustaining progressive activism. However, this is not to say, or imply, that the human rights groups examined within this article are not comprised of dedicated progressive activists who wish to bring an end to suffering and injustice. In fact, if anything, I have only admiration for their bravery and commitment to documenting the horrifying human rights abuses that are a daily occurrence in this brutal conflict. But this admiration does not, and in my mind should not, exempt their work from critical enquiry. Consequently, it is hoped that the critique presented in this article will invigorate and sustain the work of progressive actors in a manner that will help bring an end to the ongoing injustices perpetrated daily against the Palestinian people. By exploring the philanthropic activities of the US-based quasi nongovernmental organisation, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and a key liberal foundation, the Ford Foundation, this article locates the discussion of Palestinian human rights within the discursive field of philanthropic cultural imperialism. ... CONTINUED ONLINE AT http://www.swans.com/library/art15/barker13.html From fentona at shaw.ca Sun Feb 8 16:51:08 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 15:51:08 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Human Rights Watch Goes to War Message-ID: Mouin Rabbani on Human Rights Watch and the Gaza Massacre Human Rights Watch Goes to War http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=2667 02.01.2009 | Original (.doc) By Mouin Rabbani The Middle East has always been a difficult challenge for Western human rights organizations, particularly those seeking influence or funding in the United States. The pressure to go soft on US allies is in some respects reminiscent of Washington's special pleading for Latin American terror regimes in the 1970s and 1980s. In the case of Israel such organizations also face a powerful and influential domestic constituency, which often extends to senior echelons of such organizations, for whom forthright condemnation of Israel is anathema. Given that Israel is reliant on US subventions and public goodwill to a degree without precedent in the history of American foreign policy, there is considerably more than vanity at stake. If Israel's stature in the United States were to be reduced to that of South Africa during the apartheid era, or Serbia during the Balkan wars, this would almost certainly have material consequences for the "special relationship". It is a reality very unlike that between the US and Saudi Arabia, for example, in which the American public's longstanding contempt for the House of Saud has proven basically inconsequential. In Israel's case, image is a political resource of the first order, and its preservation a matter of national security. Until the mid-1980s, before which Israel's human rights violations -- from deportation to area bombing and all in-between -- were generally several orders of magnitude worse than during the subsequent quarter century, the human rights community simply ignored the question of Israel. If challenged, organizations would respond that in view of limited resources they had to go after serious violators, like Ba'thist Iraq and Iran under the Shah, or hide behind an Israeli judiciary that although essential to the machinery of occupation at least went through the motions of oversight, or express fears of being tarred with the brush of anti-Semitism (or all of the above). In private, such justifications would be augmented by references to political pressures and funding issues, often with a barb at one or more director or board members' Zionist sympathies thrown in. That the first widespread exposure of the systematic application of torture in Israel's prison system was reported by the Sunday Times rather than Amnesty International was no mere coincidence. The eruption of the Palestinian uprising in December 1987 made it impossible for human rights organizations to continue relegating the question of Israel to the backburner. With Israeli leaders like Yitzhak Rabin publicly exhorting Israel's soldiers to "break the bones" of unarmed Palestinian protestors, and television images that made it impossible to explain away such barbarism as a mistranslated rhetorical flourish, human rights organizations faced a real quandary: ignore the question of Israel and lose credibility, or confront it and lose support. By and large they chose a third way, producing reports that were often strong on documentation but exceptionally weak when it came to conclusions and consequences. No less importantly, they adopted the criteria of ?balance'. In effect, a Hubble telescope was deployed to discover Palestinian actions that could in any way be considered violations of International Humanitarian Law, with these subsequently placed under an industrial-strength microscope. Treatment of Israeli actions was rather more selective and careful. Primary issues such as the legality of Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or its settlement enterprise in the occupied territories were avoided; detailed analysis of Israeli abuses, like deportation and summary executions, that indisputably constituted "grave breaches" of the Fourth Geneva Convention (the latter's equivalent of war crimes) steered clear of unambiguous conclusions; and on the key issue of how to resolve the human rights emergency, such reports typically ended with exhortations to the Israeli government and military to show greater concern for Palestinian rights -- as opposed to demands that Western governments use their various forms of aid to Israel as leverage to halt abuses. In the process any sense of context, of this being a struggle for freedom by a dispossessed and occupied people against a colonial army -- a context that in other cases the human rights community communicated so well -- was entirely lost. All the more so because Israel was systematically spared the type of rhetoric and denunciations typically deployed with respect to similar situations in other continents and domestic repression in Arab states. If it was an approach that left neither the victims nor apologists of Israeli human rights violations satisfied, it at least met their minimal requirements -- unprecedented exposure for the Palestinians, continued impunity for Israel. More importantly, it enabled the human rights organizations in question to navigate the storm and emerge relatively unscathed. The Oslo agreements of 1993 provided a welcome development in this respect. Henceforth, ?balance' could be maintained by releasing reports on both the Israeli and Palestinian Authority judiciary, discrimination against Arabs in Israel and of violence against women in the occupied territories, torture in Israeli as well as Palestinian prisons. The idea of an overarching regime of occupation primarily responsible for both sets of violations -- a concept that came so naturally when discussing the brutalities inflicted on the residents of South Africa's ethnic homelands -- rarely entered into the fray. The onset of the Al-Aqsa Uprising in September 2000 posed a new set of challenges. Israel's image was once again under unprecedented pressure on account of its savage attacks on Palestinians throughout the occupied territories, while committed staff on the ground -- motivated by a combination of genuine concern and professional honour -- exercised significant pressure on human rights organizations to step up to the plate. At the same time, particularly after 11 September 2001, such organizations were under massive pressure by right-wing and pro-Israeli forces -- the latter of whom often tended towards the liberal end of the spectrum -- to toe the line. Nowhere was this more true than at Human Rights Watch, an American organization that by the late 1990s had emerged as the industry leader. In the years since 2000, HRW pursued a consistent -- and consistently effective -- formula: criticize Israel, but condemn the Palestinians. Challenge the legality of an Israeli aerial bombardment, preferably in polite, technical terms, and vociferously denounce the Palestinian suicide bomber in unambiguous language -- especially when raising questions about the latest Israeli atrocity. In HRW publications, explicit condemnations and accusations of war crimes were almost wholly monopolized by Palestinians. With Israeli citizenship a seeming precondition for the right to self-defense, the right to resist was for all intents and purposes non-existent. Where -- as with the obliteration of a good portion of the Jenin Refugee Camp in 2002 -- accusations of Israeli war crimes could not be avoided, HRW diluted these by just as prominently reporting that it did not find evidence of much worse atrocities. Its major report on the issue, Jenin: IDF Military Operations, was several months later ?balanced' by Erased in a Moment: Suicide Bombing Attacks Against Israeli Civilians. One need only compare the titles of these two reports to surmise which party to the conflict stands accused of perpetrating "atrocities" that HRW "unreservedly condemns", "war crimes", and indeed "crimes against humanity"; in which of the two cases HRW repeatedly demands that all those with command or operational responsibility -- and they are many indeed -- face "criminal liability"; whose national leader must, despite HRW's finding no evidence of command responsibility, face "accountability" for not preventing the acts of others, as well as for "significant political responsibility for the deliberate killing of civilians"; and whose actions HRW concludes "are among the worst crimes that can be committed, crimes of universal jurisdiction that the international community as a whole has an obligation to punish and prevent". A comparison of the two reports' covers might also help readers judge whether it was Israel or the Palestinians who are merely referred for further examination: "Every case in the report listed below warrants additional thorough, transparent, and impartial investigation, with the results of such an investigation made public. Where wrongdoing is found, those responsible should be held accountable". Needless to say the press release accompanying Erased in a Moment did not, as in the case of the Jenin report, use the opening paragraph to shift discussion to more sensational allegations for which no evidence could be found -- such as "HRW researchers were unable to substantiate published claims by prominent advocates of Israel that Palestinian suicide bombers have been lacing their explosives with AIDS, hepatitis and rat poison". Its summary did however delve extensively -- in fact primarily -- on the person of Yasir Arafat, even though most suicide bombings were carried out by rival organizations and HRW concluded he was not involved in attacks carried out by his Fatah organization. It was presumably a simple coincidence that HRW's highly critical account of the late Palestinian leader -- occupying significantly more space in the report summary than Hamas and Islamic Jihad combined -- was published at the height of the Bush administration's campaign for Palestinian regime change. Moving forward, and in an incident that might otherwise be considered comic, HRW in November 2006 went so far as to denounce Palestinians who refused to vacate homes threatened with imminent aerial bombardment, rather than the state bent on obliterating their houses, as war criminals. By the time it retracted its claims in a rare recantation -- the howls of outrage from less partisan lawyers and human rights professionals were simply too loud to be ignored -- the damage had already been done. Interestingly, Palestinians were denounced by HRW on the legally correct (but in this case factually inaccurate) assumption that "It is a war crime to seek to use the presence of civilians to render certain points or areas immune from military operations or to direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attack". Yet HRW's 2002 report, In a Dark Hour: The Use of Civilians During IDF Arrest Operations, which according to the accompanying press release "documents how the IDF routinely has taken civilians at gunpoint to open suspicious packages, knock on doors of suspects, and search the houses of ?wanted' Palestinians during its military operations", pointedly declines to define human shielding as a war crime. Indeed, the only differences between the documented 2002 cases and falsely alleged 2006 incidents are that the former were conducted by Israel and reached the level of systematic practice. In 2006 HRW additionally leveled war crimes charges against Palestinian militants who captured Gilad Shalit -- a uniformed soldier on active duty -- on the grounds that they intended to exchange him for Palestinians imprisoned by Israel. Consequently, the main and clearest finding of "Israel: Gaza Offensive Must Limit Harm to Civilians" (28 June 2006), is that "A hostage is a person held in the power of an adversary in order to obtain specific actions, such as the release of prisoners, from the other party to the conflict ... which is a war crime under the laws of war". Against this apparently unprecedented act in the annals of military history, Israel's own actions, which included the mass arrest of Palestinian parliamentarians and in some respects resembled a test run for Israel's latest onslaught on the Gaza Strip (and which were the alleged subject of the press release), elicited only legal exegesis, shorn of meaningful conclusions. More recently, the organization has issued a fatwa that any Arab launching a projectile at an Israeli target is by definition a war criminal, because such rockets and mortars are -- unlike the state-of- the-art shells and missiles fired by Israel at apartment blocks, schools, hospitals, and UN facilities -- not precision-guided and therefore according to HRW incapable of distinguishing between a military and civilian target. Such gunners can also not hide behind the excuse that they hit an empty field or even that they successfully aimed at and struck a legitimate military target; for HRW it is the act of using yesterday's weapon rather than its impact that defines the crime. (There is, parenthetically, no record of HRW condemning Israel or the US of committing war crimes by virtue of using unguided projectiles). Asked about this rather bizarre state of affairs, every current and former HRW staff member spoken to over many years -- most of them in rather senior positions - point at least two fingers at HRW director Kenneth Roth's affinity for Israel. At least as important, apparently, is Roth's exceptional ability to divine the political wind, and do whatever is necessary to ensure that HRW retains the resources and credentials to remain the industry leader. It is that rare case where principle and opportunism merge rather than collide. (While Roth undoubtedly has allies on the organisation's board and among its staff for his approach to the question of Israel, these are easily outnumbered by critics who would like to see a more uniform standard applied by their organisation). Thus, in a 2006 missive to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on the eve of her Mideast sojourn at the height of Israel's US-sponsored onslaught on Lebanon Roth, in perhaps the outstanding act of political courage during the Bush years, insisted on drawing her attention to the war crimes being perpetrated in the conflict -- by Hizballah. According to several senior HRW employees, Roth subsequently tried to arrange for a critic who questioned HRW's partisanship to be fired by filing a written complaint to the critic's director. As a case study of HRW's response to the question of Israel, its publications during the recent Israeli onslaught on the Gaza Strip - all of which were consulted on www.hrw.org on 25 January 2009 -- only confirm the pattern discussed above, and in some respects go beyond it as well. True to form, HRW's first pronouncement on the conflict, issued on 30 December 2008 and entitled "Israel: Artillery Poses Risk to Gaza Civilians", despite its brevity meticulously documents relevant Israeli practice and the cost it has exacted in Palestininian life and limb. That said, there is no condemnation to be found. "In assessing the legality of the IDF's artillery fire under international humanitarian law, or the laws of war", it politely concludes, "it is necessary to determine for each attack whether it was targeted at a specific military objective; whether the weapon used could be aimed with sufficient accuracy to differentiate between the military objective and civilians; and whether the anticipated civilian casualties were not disproportionate to the expected military gain from the attack". Turning next to a subject entirely unrelated to the publication's title -- namely Palestinian rocket attacks -- the arcane technical analysis suddenly comes to a screeching halt. Rather than ?if on the one hand, but then on the other', we read the following: "Human Rights Watch has repeatedly condemned the launching of rockets at population centers in Israel by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups. The rockets are highly inaccurate, and those launching them cannot accurately target military objects. Deliberately firing indiscriminate weapons into civilian-populated areas, as a matter of policy, constitutes a war crime". For good measure HRW that same day released "Israel/Hamas: Civilians Must Not be Targets". On the one hand, "Human Rights Watch investigated three Israeli attacks that raise particular concern about Israel's targeting decisions and require independent and impartial inquiries to determine whether the attacks violated the laws of war. In three incidents detailed below, 18 civilians died, among them at least seven children". Indeed, "Some other Israeli targets may have also been unlawful under the laws of war". Yet, on the other hand, "Human Rights Watch has long criticized Palestinian rocket attacks against Israeli civilians - most recently, in a public letter to Hamas on November 20 (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/11/20/letter-hamas-stop-rocket-attacks ). The rockets are highly inaccurate, and those launching them cannot accurately target military objects. Deliberately firing indiscriminate weapons into civilian populated areas, as a matter of policy, constitutes a war crime". Nevertheless by the following day, in the lengthy "Q&A: Hostilities between Israel and Hamas" Hamas leaders were no longer being led to a war crimes tribunal in HRW chains. Confronted with evidence too overwhelming to ignore that Israel was deliberately firing much greater quantities of precision-guided weapons not only into civilian- populated areas, but directly at the civilian population and to much greater effect, HRW was confronted with a stark choice: accuse Israel of war crimes, or change Hamas's rap sheet. It prudently opted for the latter, accusing Israel only of "indiscriminate attacks in violation of the laws of war". For the rest of the conflict, Hamas was able to "deliberately fire indiscriminate weapons into civilian populated areas, as a matter of policy", with total impunity, not once being denounced by HRW for committing war crimes. Too clever by half, Roth apparently believed no one would notice this sudden about-face. As the devastation of the Gaza Strip continued apace, and the death toll reached horrific levels, it was becoming increasingly clear that civilians were very much in Israel's crosshairs. In an orgy of organized savagery entire families were obliterated with the press of a button; refugees were herded into buildings, the premises shelled, and survivors denied medical care and essential supplies for days afterward; UN facilities, including the UNRWA headquarters and schools transformed into safe havens (whose precise coordinates and functions were communicated to the Israeli military) were repeatedly bombed; women and children seeking refuge with white flags raised were summarily gunned down; and entire neighborhoods were systematically razed to the ground. Yet, from HRW's perspective, none of these acts -- whether individually or collectively -- merited the same characterization that had until 30 December 2008 been routinely meted out to their Palestinian adversaries. As part of its response, the organization simply feigned ignorance. "Israel's refusal to grant access to Gaza for all international media and human rights monitors since the fighting began on December 27", it complained on 12 January, "has limited severely the flow of information and investigation from impartial observers into events on the ground". "Human Rights Watch," it had the cheek to report on 16 January, "is unable to conduct full investigations into alleged laws of war violations by either side because of Israel's continuing denial of access to Gaza". This despite the fact that the Gaza Strip was saturated with Arab journalists, local and international humanitarian staff, medical personnel including several Europeans, and approximately 1.5 million residents most of whom had at least intermittent access to telecommunications. Yet none of these, apparently, met the criteria of credible witness. Indeed, HRW's main and almost exclusive source of reliable information consisted of staff located on the Israeli side of the boundary on account of Israel and Egypt's ban on entry to the Gaza Strip. HRW's insistence on the most scrupulous standards of quality control for information emanating from the Gaza Strip, while in principle laudable, stands in rather sharp contrast to its operations in Ba'thist Iraq, where much more severe restrictions didn't preclude the organization from concocting stories about babies thrown out of incubators and issuing detailed accounts of genocide. Similarly, even during the Gaza conflict HRW had no problem lending its imprimatur to reports of state repression of pro-Palestinian demonstrations in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia -- countries in which it was also denied access. "Gaza Crisis: Regimes React with Routine Repression", issued on 21 January, didn't hesitate to assert as fact various beatings and arrests in the darker parts of the Middle East, using precisely those forensic methods deemed insufficiently impartial in the Gaza Strip. Nor did denial of access prevent HRW from denouncing such regimes for throwing not one but two shoes at their people -- a wholly appropriate turn of phrase but also the type of rhetoric one never sees deployed when addressing the question of Israel. At several points HRW's coverage of the conflict descended to the level of obscenity. On 16 January, in a press release entitled "Israel: Stop Shelling Crowded Gaza City", the organization once again provides an accurate account, based primarily on the testimony of HRW senior military analyst Marc Garlasco, of the facts -- in this case Israel's use of heavy artillery against the centre of Gaza City, including the shelling of UNRWA headquarters with white phosphorous. Yet rather than conclude that a war crime had been perpetrated, or even suggest that the time may be ripe for investigation and accountability, the microphone is handed to Israel's Prime Minister: "Ehud Olmert apologized for the attack, but said Israeli forces had come under fire from the UN compound. ?It is absolutely true that we were attacked from that place, but the consequences are very sad and we apologize for it', he said". Curiously, UNRWA officials, who are quoted elsewhere in the press release describing the attack, are not cited as "categorically rul[ing] out any possibility that militants had been firing from the compound," as they had to the Associated Press and other media. Nor is the lay reader informed about the legality of the attack even if Olmert's version of events was substantiated, or of the consequences in terms of accountability even if he was genuinely saddened and apologetic. Indeed, the only reference to an investigation is to the one HRW was purportedly unable to conduct. Further down the same press release reports: "Israeli fire also hit the al-Shurouq tower, which houses media outlets such as Reuters, al- Arabiyya Television, and al-Hayat newspaper, causing substantial damage and wounding at least two journalists ... Media organizations had provided the Israeli military with the GPS locations of all their offices. Israeli forces told the media that they had come under fire from the building". Seemingly, the recently pardoned war criminals of Hamas successfully transformed the building into the headquarters of their rocket battalion without even being noticed by the dozens of journalists and their dozens of cameras in, on and around the building - though a more likely explanation is that the journalists, all of them Arab, fail to meet Roth's standards for "impartial observers into events on the ground". The press release then states, ""Human Rights Watch is unable to conduct full investigations into alleged laws of war violations by either side because of Israel's continuing denial of access to Gaza. Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have also violated the laws of war by continuing to fire unguided Qassam and Grad rockets at population centers in Israel." Once again, HRW insists on having it both ways: If violations can only be alleged pending confirmation by exhaustive investigations in situ, how can a mere reference to the type of weapon used by one party prove sufficient for finding that it has in fact committed such violations? By the time the reader gets to the final paragraph of the press release, a recommendation to Israel to "Collect and analyze data regarding Palestinian civilian casualties from artillery shelling in order to assess the harm to civilians caused by the use of artillery in particular locales and situations, and thus to base targeting decisions on a proper weighing of foreseeable civilian harm", the reader could be forgiven for reading this as an exhortation for further Israeli shelling to ensure sufficient data is collected. The low point of HRW's coverage of Israel's onslaught on the Gaza Strip was not its consistent refusal to apply a single standard -- whether legal or rhetorical -- to Israel and the Palestinians, nor its effective contribution to Israeli impunity, but rather a personal betrayal of an HRW colleague in his hour of greatest need. "On the afternoon of January 3, 2009", according to HRW's "Israel: Investigate Former Judge's Killing in Gaza" (issued on 9 January), "an Israeli bomb or missile from an F-16 jet fighter killed the two Gazans at the al-Ghoul farm, northwest of Beit Lahiya and close to Gaza's border with Israel. Akram al-Ghoul was a judge who worked in the Palestinian Authority courts and resigned after Hamas took over the Gaza Strip in June 2007. He is the father of Fares Akram, Human Rights Watch's research consultant in Gaza. Mahmoud al-Ghoul, 17, was a student". One aspect of the question of Israel on which HRW has pulled considerably fewer punches than others concerns internal investigations conducted by the Israeli military. Only two days before it issued the above press release, in fact, in a separate press release entitled "Gaza: Israeli Attack on School Needs Full Investigation", the organization noted that according to its previous studies of the matter, "IDF investigations into alleged laws-of-war violations, when they have occurred, have been deeply flawed ... To Human Rights Watch's knowledge, Israel never conducted impartial and thorough investigations of those [previously recounted] incidents or held any of its military personnel accountable. During Israel's last major ground offensive in Gaza in March 2008, Human Rights Watch found that Israeli forces committed several targeted killings and other serious violations of the laws of war. To date, no IDF investigation has taken place in these cases". Yet how did Kenneth Roth and the world's leading human rights organization respond to the killing of their colleague's father and relative? "Human Rights Watch today called on the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into the deaths by an Israeli airstrike of Akram al-Ghoul, 48, and Mahmoud Salah Ahman al-Ghoul, 17, the father and cousin of Human Rights Watch's research consultant in Gaza. In a letter to Brig.-Gen. Avichai Mandelblit, IDF Military Advocate General, Human Rights Watch urged the military to investigate the attack, make the results of the investigation public, and prosecute any persons it finds to have acted in serious violation of international humanitarian law". HRW didn't even bother to go through the motions of calling for an "independent" investigation of the killing of their Arab informant's father. In doing so, HRW chose to pursue justice for a colleague by steering his case into what they better than perhaps any others know to be meaningless dead end. The impression that the murder of Fares Akram's father was instrumentalised by HRW to lend a much-needed veneer of respectability to the Israeli military's investigations of itself is particularly reprehensible. Mouin Rabbani is a Contributing Editor to Middle East Report From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sun Feb 8 17:48:46 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:48:46 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] In 'Eat Local' Movement ... Message-ID: <498F7D6E.1020809@ashisuto.co.jp> Cuba Is Years Ahead by Esteban Israel Reuters (December 16 2008) After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Cuba planted thousands of urban cooperative gardens to offset reduced rations of imported food. Now, in the wake of three hurricanes that wiped out thirty percent of Cuba's farm crops, the communist country is again turning to its urban gardens to keep its people properly fed. "Our capacity for response is immediate because this is a cooperative", said Miguel Salcines, walking among rows of lettuce in the garden he heads in the Alamar suburb on the outskirts of Havana. Salcines says he is hardly sleeping as his 160-member cooperative rushes to plant and harvest a variety of beets that takes just 25 days to grow, among other crops. As he talks, dirt-stained men and women kneel along the furrows, planting and watering on land next to a complex of Soviet-style buildings. Machete-wielding men chop weeds and clear brush along the periphery of the field. Around fifteen percent of the world's food is grown in urban areas, according to the US Department of Agriculture, a figure experts expect to increase as food prices rise, urban populations grow and environmental concerns mount. Since they sell directly to their communities, city farms don't depend on transportation and are relatively immune to the volatility of fuel prices, advantages that are only now gaining traction as "eat local" movements in rich countries. Rooftops and Parking Lots In Cuba, urban gardens have bloomed in vacant lots, alongside parking lots, in the suburbs and even on city rooftops. They sprang from a military plan for Cuba to be self-sufficient in case of war. They were broadened to the general public in response to a food crisis that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba's biggest benefactor at the time. They have proven extremely popular, occupying 35,000 hectares (86,000 acres) of land across the Caribbean island. Even before the hurricanes, they produced half of the leaf vegetables eaten in Cuba, which imports about sixty percent of its food. "I don't say they have the capacity to produce enough food for the whole island, but for social and also agricultural reasons they are the most adequate response to a crisis", said Catherine Murphy, a US sociologist who has studied Cuba's urban gardens. Green Productivity In Alamar, the members get a salary and share the garden's profits, so the more they grow, the more they earn. They make an average of about 950 pesos, or $42.75, per month, more than double the national average, Salcines said. The co-op, which began in 1997, now produces more than 240 tons of vegetables annually on its eleven hectares (27 acres) of land, which is about the size of thirteen soccer fields. The gardens sell their produce directly to the community and, out of necessity, grow their crops organically. "Urban agriculture is going to play a key role in guaranteeing the feeding of the people much more quickly than the traditional farms", said Richard Haep, Cuba coordinator for German aid group Welthungerhilfe, which has supported these kinds of projects since 1994. When the Soviet Union fell apart, Cuba's supply of oil slowed to a trickle, hurting big state agricultural operations. Chemical fertilizers were replaced with mountains of manure, and beneficial insects were used instead of pesticides. Unlike in developed countries, where organic products are more expensive, in Cuba they are affordable. "We have taken organic agriculture to a social level", said Salcines. Some experts fear that rising international food prices along with the destruction of the hurricanes will return Cuba to the path of agrochemicals. The government is planning to construct a fertilizer plant with its oil-rich ally Venezuela. But Raul Castro, who replaced ailing brother Fidel Castro as president in February, has also borrowed ideas from the urban gardens as he implements reforms to cut the island's $2.5 billion in annual food imports, much of it from the United States. Castro has decentralized farm decision-making and raised the prices that the state pays for agricultural products, which has increased milk production, for example, by almost twenty percent. And, in September, the government began renting out unused state-owned lands to farmers and cooperatives, measures that met with approval of international aid groups. "Decentralization and economic incentives. If those elements are expanded to the rest of the agricultural sector, the response will be the same", said Welthungerhilfe's Haep. _____ Reporting by Esteban Israel; Editing by Jeff Franks and Eddie Evans (c) 2008 Reuters http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/16-6 TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Feb 8 18:39:20 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 17:39:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Popularity of Anti-Arab Party Surges in Israel In-Reply-To: <607324337.355191233953196445.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <190268911.885051234143560126.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123388845963255467.html WALL STREET JOURNAL FEBRUARY 6, 2009 Anti-Arab Israeli Party Surges Polls Show Avigdor Lieberman's Far-Right Platform Gaining Ahead of Vote By CHARLES LEVINSON JERUSALEM -- A right-wing politician who is calling for the expulsion of Israel's Arab citizens looks set to score big gains in national elections here on Tuesday. Avigdor Lieberman's party, called Yisrael Beiteinu, or Israel Is Our Home, is running a close third in current polls, which could make the Moldovan immigrant and former nightclub bouncer the kingmaker of Israeli politics when it comes time to negotiate a coalition government after the vote. Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the right-wing Likud Party and the current favorite to be Israel's next prime minister, has promised Mr. Lieberman will be an "important minister" in his government. That could damp already dim hopes for a Mideast peace breakthrough anytime soon. Mr. Lieberman has vowed in his campaign to stop all peace negotiations, including those with the U.S.-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Mr. Lieberman rejects the principle of "land for peace" -- which calls for Israel to give Palestinians certain territories in exchange for a peace agreement -- that has anchored U.S. peace efforts in the Middle East for the past 30 years. A central tenet in Mr. Lieberman's campaign is a proposal to redraw Israel's borders to transfer most of the country's 1.2 million Arab citizens to Palestinian control, in exchange for land in the West Bank occupied by Jewish settlers. He also wants to make it mandatory for Israeli citizens to take an oath of loyalty in order to get citizenship, the right to vote, and social services. "Israel is under a dual terrorist attack, from within and from without," the 50-year-old Mr. Lieberman said at an annual conference on national security Monday, north of Tel Aviv. Speaking Hebrew with a Russian accent, and occasionally making grammatical mistakes, he took aim at the country's Arab citizens, warning "the threat from within is more dangerous than the threat from outside." Israeli politicians have long tried to woo voters with tough talk about the country's many enemies. What's notable about Mr. Lieberman, analysts say, is the degree to which he is vilifying Arab citizens, and the success he appears to be having doing it. Recent polls indicate his party will get as many as 19 seats in the country's 120-seat Knesset, up from its current 11 and just shy of the 26 forecast for the Likud Party, which leads the polls. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's ruling centrist Kadima Party, which now holds 29 seats, is polling a close second to Likud. Meanwhile, Ehud Barak's traditionally pro-peace Labor party, with 18 seats now, could win as few as 13 seats. "For many years we said to ourselves that we don't hate, that hatred is something the others do," says Israeli historian and author Tom Segev. "This has changed now. It has become legitimate to hate the Arabs. It is an indication of just how far to the right Israel has moved." Israeli voters have been shifting to the right since the collapse of Mideast peace talks at Camp David in 2000 and a wave of Palestinian suicide bombings that followed. Mr. Lieberman's anti-Arab platform is by no means new to Israeli politics. In 1984, an American-born rabbi named Meir Kahane was elected to the Knesset on a similar platform, but was declared racist by the government the following year and banned from competing in future elections. This time, however, the country's politicians appear to be echoing Mr. Lieberman's bellicose rhetoric. Ms. Livni said in December that if elected she would tell Israel's Arab citizens "your national aspirations lie elsewhere," comments widely interpreted as an endorsement of Mr. Lieberman's plan to transfer Israel's Arabs to Palestinian control. Israel's Arab minority has full citizenship rights, and has traditionally been held up as evidence of Israel's strong democratic roots. Recently, however, some Arab politicians in Israel have made provocative statements in support of Hamas and attacks against Israel. Peace advocates haven't lost all hope at the prospect of a government anchored by Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Lieberman, whose party will likely be needed to reach the minimum of 61 seats for a ruling coalition. They point out that it was the country's right wing that secured most of the significant peace breakthroughs, including the Camp David Peace Accords with Egypt in 1978, the Madrid peace talks in 1991, and the withdrawal from Gaza in 2004. "If there is an American administration that is proactive, then there is a chance to do something," said Yossi Beilin, a leading Israeli peace activist. Mr. Lieberman emigrated to Israel from the former Soviet republic of Moldova in 1978 at the age of 20 and joined the Likud Party as a student. After working briefly as a bouncer in a nightclub, he eventually aligned himself with Mr. Netanyahu and became chief of staff, a position he held onto when Mr. Netanyahu became prime minister in 1996. In 1999, Mr. Lieberman broke from Likud and established his own party, Yisrael Beiteinu. As an immigrant, he quickly attracted support from the country's Russian community and won a seat in parliament that same year. As he has staked out positions far to the right of other Israeli parties, his support has grown. "I like his idea that without loyalty you can't be a citizen in this country," says Mariam Tal, a 32-year-old kindergarten teacher in Jerusalem who voted for Kadima in the last elections but supports Mr. Lieberman's party today. "I am tired of the same candidates every year and so I'm ready to try someone new." Write to Charles Levinson at charles.levinson at wsj.com From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Feb 8 18:39:39 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 17:39:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Israel's Unjust War on Gaza: Self-Defense Against Peace In-Reply-To: <1474935290.1425991233880577388.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1246793055.885151234143579080.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.counterpunch.org/ CounterPunch February 5, 2009 Israel's Unjust War on Gaza Self-Defense Against Peace By MICHAEL MANDEL Did self-defence justify Israel?s war on Gaza? Objections have been raised to this claim on grounds of a lack of both proportionality and necessity. To kill over 1000 Palestinians in 3 weeks, hundreds of them children, and wound thousands more, in order to deter a threat from rockets that did not kill or injure anybody in Israel for the six months the truce was declared by both sides, or even before Israel launched its attack on December 27, is so disproportionate as to be intolerable in any ethical system that holds Palestinian lives equal in value to Israeli lives. It is also so disproportionate as to defy belief that defence against these rockets was the real motive of the war. To ignore the many diplomatic avenues available to avoid even this threat, such as lifting the suffocating 18-month siege, suggests the same thing. A more fundamental objection, however, is the self-evident legal and moral principle that an aggressor cannot rely upon self-defence to justify violence against resistance to its own aggression. You can find this principle in domestic law and in the judgments of the Nuremberg tribunals. To quote one Nuremberg judge: On of the most amazing phenomena of this case which does not lack in startling features is the manner in which the aggressive war conducted by Germany against Russia has been treated by the defense as if it were the other way around. ?If it is assumed that some of the resistance units in Russia or members of the population did commit acts which were in themselves unlawful under the rules of war, it would still have to be shown that these acts were not in legitimate defense against wrongs perpetrated upon them by the invader. Under International Law, as in Domestic Law, there can be no reprisal against reprisal. The assassin who is being repulsed by his intended victim may not slay him and then, in turn, plead self defense. (Trial of Otto Ohlendorf and others , Military Tribunal II-A, April 8, 1948) So who was the aggressor here? There would have been no question as to who was the aggressor had this attack taken place before Israel?s withdrawal from the Gaza strip in 2005. At that point Israel had been committing a continuous aggression against Gaza for 38 years, in its illegal and violent occupation of it, along with the rest of the Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, after its conquest in 1967. By 2005, the occupation had been condemned as illegal by the highest organs with jurisdiction over international law, most notably the International Court of Justice in its 2004 opinion on the separation barrier. A central illegality of the occupation for the International Court lay in Israel?s settlements, which violate the law against colonization, and which are central to the occupation. The fifteen judges of the International Court were unanimously of the opinion that the settlements were illegal and the wall itself was held by a majority of 13-2 to be illegal, partly because it was there to defend the settlements, and not Israel itself, and thus could not qualify as self-defence. The rocket attacks from Gaza started in 2001 and took their first Israeli victim in 2004. Since then, there had been 14 Israeli victims prior to the current war. Tragic, indeed, but obviously paling in comparison to the 1700 Palestinians killed in Gaza during the same period. One death is indeed a tragedy, but many deaths are not just ?a statistic?, as Stalin had it; they are the tragedy multiplied many times over. Given Israel?s illegal, aggressive and violent occupation, prior to the withdrawal, Gaza rockets could only be regarded as necessary and proportionate self-defence, or as reprisals against Israel?s aggression. Did Israel?s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 change the situation? It has been forcefully argued that the 18-month siege of Gaza, a major reason for Hamas? refusal to extend the truce, was itself an act of aggression, giving rise to a right of self-defence. But even more important, though usually ignored, is Israel?s continued illegal and aggressive occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem after the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. Indeed, the withdrawal from Gaza was intended to strengthen the hold on the other territories and was accompanied by a greater increase in the number of settlers there than those removed from Gaza. The occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem figured equally with Gaza in the condemnations of the World Court and the Security Council. Furthermore, in the Oslo Accords, Israel and the Palestinians agreed that ?The two sides view the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period.? Indeed, when Hamas won the elections in 2006, elections declared impeccably fair and civil by all international observers, it won them for the whole of the Palestinian Authority, including the West Bank (it was not allowed by Israel to campaign in East Jerusalem). Many Hamas West Bank legislators remain in Israeli jails. And the basic fact is that the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza are one people , however separated they are by walls and fences and check-points. Israel?s unilateral withdrawal from one part of that people?s land cannot turn that people into aggressors when they resist the illegal occupation of the rest. So self-defense cannot justify this attack, or the siege that preceded it. What can? That Hamas is a ?terrorist organization?? But terrorism is about deliberately killing civilians for illegal political ends, and in that enterprise, Israel has topped Hamas by many multiples. That Hamas does not recognize Israel?s ?right to exist?? But Hamas has offered many times to make a long-term truce with Israel on the basis of the legal international borders, something it is clearly entitled to insist upon. Israel says that?s not good enough, that Hamas first has to recognize Israel?s legitimacy, in other words, it has to concede the legitimacy of the Jewish state and all it has meant to the Palestinians. In other words, as one Israeli journalist ironized, Israel is insisting that Hamas embrace Zionism as a condition of even talking peace with it. These are not justifications for violence on this or any scale. Indeed, they point to the most plausible reason Israel is fighting Hamas (and the PLO before it): self-defence, if you will, not against rockets and mortars, but against having to make peace with the Palestinians on the basis of the pre-1967 borders as required by international law. ------------- Michael Mandel is Professor of Law at Osgoode Hall Law School of York University in Toronto, where he teaches the Law of War. He is the author of How America Gets Away With Murder: Illegal Wars, Collateral Damage and Crimes Against Humanity (Pluto Press 2004) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0745321518/counterpunchmagta From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Feb 8 18:52:16 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 17:52:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Statement From SATAWU and Palestine Solidarity Committee On Labor Boycott Of Israel In-Reply-To: <2031299669.718701233779004037.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1434519310.887501234144336425.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Statement From SATAWU and Palestine Solidarity Committee Dear unions and solidarity groups: SATAWU (The South African Trade and Allied Workers Union) and the Palestine Solidarity Committee of SA thank you and your unions for supporting their action in Durban. We hope that workers worldwide take similar actions to boycott Israel. COSATU (The Congress of South African Trade Unions) will begin their National Week of Action this Friday the 6th under the banner: "Free Palestine. Isolate Apartheid Israel." If you would like any further information please contact: Patrick Craven (Cosatu National Spokesperson) +2782 821 7456 Salim Vally (PSC spokesperson) +2782 802 5936, salim.vally at wits.ac.za Natasha Vally (PSC spokesperson) natasha1123 at gmail.com FREE PALESTINE ! ISOLATE APARTHEID ISRAEL ! COSATU and PSC launch Week of Action for Palestine supported by YCL and other progressive organisations 3 February 2009 In a historic development for South Africa , South African dock workers have announced their determination not to offload a ship from Israel that is scheduled to dock in Durban on Sunday, 8 February 2009. This follows the decision by COSATU to strengthen the campaign in South Africa for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Apartheid Israel . The pledge by SATAWU members in Durban reflects the commitment by South African workers to refuse to support oppression and exploitation across the globe. Last year, Durban dock workers had refused to offload a shipment of arms that had arrived from China and was destined for Zimbabwe to prop up the Mugabe regime and to intensify the repression against the Zimbabwean people. Now, says SATAWU?s General Secretary Randall Howard, the union?s members are committing themselves to not handling Israeli goods. SATAWU?s action on Sunday will be part of a proud history of worker resistance against apartheid. In 1963, just four years after the Anti-Apartheid Movement was formed, Danish dock workers refused to offload a ship with South African goods. When the ship docked in Sweden , Swedish workers followed suit. Dock workers in Liverpool and, later, in the San Francisco Bay Area also refused to offload South African goods. South Africans, and the South African working class in particular, will remain forever grateful to those workers who determinedly opposed apartheid and decided that they would support the anti-apartheid struggle with their actions. Last week, Western Australian members of the Maritime Union of Australia resolved to support the campaign for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel , and have called for a boycott of all Israeli vessels and all vessels bearing goods arriving from or going to Israel . This is the legacy and the tradition that South African dock workers have inherited, and it is a legacy they are determined to honour, by ensuring that South African ports of entry will not be used as transit points for goods bound for or emanating from certain dictatorial and oppressive states such as Zimbabwe, Swaziland and Israel. COSATU, the Palestine Solidarity Committee, the Young Communist League and a range of other organisations salute the principled position taken by these workers. We also take this opportunity to salute the millions of workers all over the world who have openly condemned and taken decisive steps to isolate apartheid Israel , a step that should send shockwaves to its arrogant patrons in the United States who foot the bill for Israel ?s killing machine. We call on other workers and unions to follow suit and to do all that is necessary to ensure that they boycott all goods to and from Israel until Palestine is free. We also welcome statements by various South African Jews of conscience who have dissociated themselves from the genocide in Gaza . We call on all South Africans to ensure that none of our family members are allowed to join the Israeli Occupation Forces? killing machine. In celebration of the actions of SATAWU members with regard to the ship from Israel , and in pursuance of the campaign for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel , and our call on the South African government to sever diplomatic and trade relations with Israel , this coalition of organisations has declared a week of action beginning on Friday, 6 February 2009. The actions will be organised under the theme: FREE PALESTINE ! ISOLATE APARTHEID ISRAEL ! Activities that have already been confirmed for this week will include: ? Friday, 6 February: A protest outside the offices of the South African Zionist Federation and the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, 2 Elray Street , Raedene, off Louis Botha Avenue . Both these organisations unquestioningly supported the recent Israeli attacks against Gaza , and supported the massacre of civilians and the attacks on schools, mosques, ambulances, and UN refugee centres. Protestors will be addressed by, among others, SATAWU General Secretary Randall Howard, and ex-Minister Ronnie Kasrils. Protest starts at 14:00. ? Friday, 6 February: A picket outside parliament in Cape Town . COSATU members and solidarity activists will be joined by a number of members of parliament. Picket starts at 09:30. ? Friday, 6 February: A mass rally in Actonville, Benoni, at the Buzme Adab Hall. The rally will be addressed by, among others, COSATU General Secretary Zwelinzima Vavi, PSC spokesperson Salim Vally, South African Council of Churches General Secretary Eddie Makue, and ex-Minister Ronnie Kasrils. Rally starts at 19:30. ? Sunday, 8 February: A protest at the Durban Harbour Mouth, off Victoria Embankment. Protestors will be addressed by, among others, COSATU President Sdumo Dlamini. Protest starts at 10:00. ? Sunday 8 February: A mass rally in Cape Town at Vygieskraal Rugby Stadium. The rally will be addressed by, among others, COSATU General Secretary Zwelinzima Vavi. Rally starts at 14:30. From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Feb 8 18:51:46 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 17:51:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] =?utf-8?q?Where_has_Ch=C3=A1vez_taken_Venezuela=3F?= In-Reply-To: <672655586.838391233793921195.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <2030356279.887361234144306339.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0202/p01s03-woam.html Christian Science Monitor February 2, 2009 Where has Ch?vez taken Venezuela? After 10 years as president, Hugo Ch?vez has polarized Venezuela, but inspired its poor. By Sara Miller Llana | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor Caracas, Venezuela - Jos? Luis Ramirez dropped out of school at age 13 and spent most of his life doing odd jobs. The father of six had little time to think beyond how to make ends meet. But after Venezuelan President Hugo Ch?vez was elected and began a series of social programs called "missions," Mr. Ramirez's life changed. He joined a literacy program and later one on television training. Today, he's not only a TV producer, but trains others and sets up everything from street cleaning to fundraising dinners. "I'm considered a community leader," says Ramirez, almost surprising himself. Ramirez has come of age alongside the presidency of Mr. Ch?vez, and he is not alone. This week marks 10 years since Ch?vez was inaugurated. His decade in power has been a controversial one. To his harshest critics, he is squandering the nation's oil wealth, lavishing it on programs to boost his popularity and on allies abroad while crime and inflation remain rampant and unattended. To his supporters ? and there are many ? he's the first modern president to care about the poor and offer leadership in a region that has long been overshadowed by US foreign policy. Love him or hate him, many residents, analysts, and politicians say his most lasting legacy will be a sense of participation that has bloomed here ? socially and politically ? and that has been embraced on both ends of the political spectrum. "In these 10 years, there is something that Hugo Ch?vez can take credit for, and that is the social question," says Teodoro Petkoff, a newspaper editor and leading Ch?vez critic. "The fight against poverty is now on the agenda of every sector." A polarizing figure When Ch?vez was elected in 1998, the national mood was one of exasperation: citizens, rich and poor, were sick of political leaders they considered corrupt and uncaring. But polarization, which has always been part of Venezuelan society, has only grown more intense under Ch?vez. He dismisses his opponents as the "oligarchy," while his opposition gives him little credit, if any at all, for what he's done well. Ch?vez's popularity has remained steady in the past decade, starting with massive support after a coup attempt in 2002. Later in 2006, he swept presidential elections. His administration claims that today's Venezuela is democracy at work: they say of 14 various types of referenda and elections in 10 years, he or his party have won 12. But his critics claim it's all an attempt to consolidate power. Venezuelans rose up in 2007 in protest against his decision not to renew a broadcasting license for a private television station critical of the government. Later that year, they claimed that a constitutional reform attempt, which included a measure to allow the indefinite reelection of heads of state, was another ploy. In his 10 years in power, Ch?vez has also risen as the US's most uncensored critic: calling former President Bush everything from a donkey to the devil. He has reached out to other US critics in an effort to create a "multipolar" world, sending subsidized oil and funding infrastructure projects across the region. An actor on the world stage Even his supporters have complained that as he presides over the world stage he is ignoring the day-to-day issues that affect most Venezuelans, like muggings and the price of milk. Still, they say, he has done more for the poor than any president that many can remember. Take El Valle, a hillside slum on the edge of Caracas, for example. Over the past few years it has bustled with social programs: Cuban doctors manning a health clinic, soup kitchens providing stew for the neediest residents, supermarkets with rice at subsidized prices. According to government figures, extreme poverty dropped from 16.9 to 7.9 percent between 2000 and 2007. The opposition disputes these numbers, arguing that the government's methods for measuring poverty do not meet international standards. Timoteo Zambrano, head of international relations for the opposition political party Un Nuevo Tiempo (A New Era), says that too many citizens featured in the government's figures work as independent street vendors or shoe shiners with no benefits or real security. They also reject the notion that the missions solve poverty in the long term. Although the health mission, called Barrio Adentro, for example, has brought free primary care to the poorest areas, many say state hospitals have been neglected and are in disarray ? a situation that helps no one. ?That doesn?t generate a fight against inequality. All those missions and other types of social programs give them transitory means while those citizens form part of a political court that he represents,? says Mr. Zambrano. ?And it doesn?t resolve the problem at its roots.? Even though the opposition lambastes Ch?vez?s ?21st-century socialism,? it has adopted his platform for the poor. ?The Ch?vez revolution has led some opposition sectors to engage their sense of social responsibility in actual projects of social, economic, and political empowerment rather than simply assume that inequality and marginality will be miraculously resolved by leaving people to their own devices,? says David Smilde, a sociologist and close observer of Venezuelan politics at the University of Georgia. Transforming the lives of the poor Indeed, few deny that literacy and education programs have had a transformative effect on people like Ramirez. On a November day, as reporters fanned out across Caracas covering local elections, Ramirez sat behind television screens, editing the reports flowing in. This is only part of a day?s work for him, though. He spends the other portion training others in his neighborhood in television and leading a community council. ?I always had a social conscience, I?ve always loved my neighborhood, but I couldn?t put it into use,? he says. It is this kind of awareness that leaders say is here to stay. ?A social consciousness has been created,? says Alberto Muller Rojas, vice president of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, Ch?vez?s political party. ?It?s improbable that we will regress to the way it was before,? he says, when the poor neither knew, nor asserted, their rights. Stifling dissent In city streets and office buildings across Caracas, pictures of revolutionary Che Guevara hang. ?Yankee imperialists? is scribbled on the chalkboard at the Catia TVe station where Rodriguez works. Critics of Ch?vez complain that among a burgeoning sense of participation, the only ones treated as participants, and rewarded with government support and contracts, are those who support his ?revolution.? Carlos Tablante, a former Ch?vez ally and ex-governor of the state of Argua, and now a member of Un Nuevo Tiempo, says he sees the missions and social programs as a ?positive? step by the government but argues that they are too politicized. Those who don?t tow the revolutionary line are excluded from the government?s benefits and even blacklisted, say opposition leaders. In 2004, politician Luis Tasc?n published a database on his website that included their national identity numbers, of more than 2.4 million Venezuelans who had signed a petition for a recall referendum against Ch?vez. Ch?vez ordered the list to be ?buried? some months later, but many claim they continue to be persecuted as a result of appearing on the Tasc?n list. ?This is a list of political segregation. Those who are on it don?t have access to passports, national identity cards, or work in the public sector,? says Zambrano. Most of the Ch?vez era of participation plays out in the ?barrios,? the tough Caracas neighborhoods that comprise Ch?vez?s base. The government has also reached out to rural areas, especially through technology programs such as wireless access and community radio and television stations. One such beneficiary is the tiny rural community of Rio Negro, in the state of Miranda, which the government connected to the Internet in 2007, thus sparking a sense a participatory zeal in the town. ?We want things to happen here,? says Nayetty Delgado, a community activist. ?If we don?t see results, we try to motivate people to participate.? ?We promote the sharing of knowledge as a tool to give society the opportunity to grow more quickly,? explains Carlos Figueira, the president of the National Center for Information Technology. ?It?s from a solidarity perspective to reduce the digital divide so not only the privileged actors in society grow.? Last year alone, they trained 454 communities in open-source software. Sparking civic participation ?The Ch?vez period has been all about making people ?participants? in the nation,? says Mr. Smilde. The clearest way to see what Smilde means is to look at civic participation. In recent regional elections for more than 300 mayors and 22 governors, 65 percent of the population turned out to vote. It was a modern record. In regional elections in 1998, only 54 percent turned out, according to Venezuela?s National Electoral Commission. Student movements have also risen, starting first to protect their freedom of expression as the RCTV television license battle waged on ? a movement that reached its height in December 2007 upon the constitutional referendum vote. Students supportive of Ch?vez rose in parallel protest. Part of growing participation comes from polarization and sheer anger, but the byproduct can be viewed as a positive one. ?Before, no one participated in anything,? says Eva Golinger, an American writer in Venezuela who denounces US intervention in the country. ?People are motivated and feel obligation to play a role in their country.? After 10 years, it is only recently that Ch?vez?s grip on power has seemed to have loosened a bit. The first blow came with the rejection of the 2007 constitutional referendum. Most recently, although his party won the majority of gubenatorial seats in local elections, they lost key races, including some in key areas of urban Caracas, losses that have emboldened the opposition. Chavez for life? On Feb. 15, Venezuelans will vote in another referendum, this one an amendment to the constitution that would abolish the limit on presidential terms, as well as those for other political offices. Ch?vez says he needs more time to continue his revolution. ?There?s still much to do,? he said in a recently released television ad. ?I need more time. I need your vote.? Some say that if he loses the referendum and his term ends in 2013, it will be the end of Ch?vismo, the name given to his social movement. But many say that the ideals that the movement has planted in society are here to stay. ?There is a major part of the population that is visible now that was once invisible,? says Ms. Golinger. ?You can?t make people invisible again.? Charlie Devereux contributed to this report from Caracas. From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Feb 8 18:52:49 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 17:52:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] DN! interview: Wm Greider on the Economy and Stimulous Package In-Reply-To: <1272493814.2404371233542158442.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <265626831.887651234144369192.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/29/economic_stimulus_moves_to_senate_following Democracy Now! January 29, 2009 Economic Stimulus Moves to Senate Following House Approval "WILLIAM GREIDER: We're not there yet. I think more likely, to be blunt, is that Seattle will look like an organized and civil appeal of popular distress compared to what I think we're going to see. And by that, I mean you can't do this to people year after year -- that is, upturn their lives, take away what they thought they had earned, and so forth and so on, without provoking rather intense political reactions." Interview with William Greider AMY GOODMAN: Obama's comments come at a time when the economy that is losing more than half a million jobs a month, including more than 65,000 layoffs announced just this week. William Greider joins us now, the national affairs correspondent for The Nation magazine; the author of several books, including The Soul of Capitalism: Opening Paths to a Moral Economy and One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism. His forthcoming book is called Come Home, America: The Rise and Fall (and Redeeming Promise) of Our Country. He joins us in our firehouse studio. Welcome to Democracy Now! WILLIAM GREIDER: Thanks, Amy. AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you here in the studio. WILLIAM GREIDER: Likewise, yes. AMY GOODMAN: The state of the economy right now, what President Obama just said, the fact that they've pushed through this more than $800 billion economic stimulus package. The House at this point, with -- as Boehner, I think, came onto the floor with a -- holding his hand up in a big zero, saying the Republicans are not going to give them anything. WILLIAM GREIDER: The Republicans, it's very clear, they are staking out a sort of -- what they think is a no-lose, hard-right position: "We will be against anything significant this new president is attempting, because we know it's going to fail, not because it's Obama's fault, but because this force, the negative forces bearing down on our economy and the world are overwhelming." So they think, you know, six months from now they will say, "We told you this was socialism," "We told you this was wasteful," etc. I think they're wrong on several -- I think the President is doing what he said he would do. He's trying to be bipartisan. And I suspect he will keep doing that, regardless of the Republican position, because he understands that the country is in deep trouble, and people are not interested in another cat -- and -- dog fight. They want to see something happen. If it doesn't work, do something more, try something else. But the idea of just standing back and making their ideological speeches about socialism is ridiculous. AMY GOODMAN: Seems like the person who's leading the way now, who lost a little support over the last few years but is coming back with a vengeance, is Rush Limbaugh leading the charge. WILLIAM GREIDER: Is he pounding that drum? Well, he's welcome to it. I think there's a long -- term political strategy that the President is following, which is good for him, and good for the country maybe, in which he said he's speaking not to Rush Limbaugh, not to John Boehner and the right -- wingers in the Congress; he's talking to just folks all across the country, including Republicans. AMY GOODMAN: Now, I'd like you to lay out what the terms of this bill are, what the package are. But then I want to go beyond the Democratic -- Republican spectrum -- WILLIAM GREIDER: Yeah, yeah. AMY GOODMAN: -- about what you think needs to happen. What's in this bill? WILLIAM GREIDER: A lot of really good stuff that will be stimulative, just because it keeps -- either keeps people working or it creates new jobs and begins -- only begins, but begins -- these deeper reform imperatives the country faces, like energy conservation and conversion, like ecological protection, expanding healthcare for people, especially at the bottom end of the income ladder. In any other season, Amy, it would be quite extraordinary to stand back and see what they're doing. In our present circumstances, I have to say, it is probably not enough to -- AMY GOODMAN: Well, you've said it's two or three times too small. WILLIAM GREIDER: Yeah. I mean, you can measure what's missing now in demand and business activity and lay it alongside this package, and this package looks way inadequate. I think the White House understands that, but they're not going to triple it. What they are doing is starting a process that will at least, perhaps, slow the hemorrhage. That's -- I'm sure that's their hope. There are a bunch of obstacles that I think make it very difficult to get out of this ditch. One of them is scale, the scale of what kind of response you're -- another is the financial system, which, despite the hundreds of billions pumped into banks, is still essentially dysfunctional. And they're now wrestling at the Treasury Department and the White House with, OK, how do we change the game that Henry Paulson and the Republicans played for six, nine months unsuccessfully? AMY GOODMAN: And do you expect someone like Timothy Geithner, who -- yesterday we had on Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who is opposed to his confirmation, saying he was part of this massive problem. Do you expect that he would be able to? WILLIAM GREIDER: Well, I am among those who urged our new president not to appoint him for that very reason. And -- AMY GOODMAN: Did you talk to Obama about that? WILLIAM GREIDER: No. I'm just -- in the pages of The Nation -- I'm not sure he's a reader, but perhaps he will become a reader as things get worse. I've been writing for some months, the system is not just broken and not just injured; it is collapsed. And as long as the government continues to play putting Humpty Dumpty back together again, I think it will fail. That's not an ideological statement. It's just -- I think it's the reality. And so, I hope, without great confidence, that Larry Summers, the economic adviser, and Tim Geithner and the President decide to take a deep breath, jump over the political barriers and say, "We are taking control of the banking system, temporarily, maybe for a few years. But we have to make this system function for the American economy right now." And handing them the money and asking them to do the right thing is not sufficient. We know that. It's not just their excesses; it's the fact that the banks have a very clear self -- interest in not lending, in not beginning investment. They're hunkering down, trying to save themselves from total failure. Once the government makes that recognition, then it can direct things more forcefully and intelligently. And I don't expect them to do that, but I just add this: I hope, I hope that the President is saying to his economic wizards, "OK, we're going to do your plan, your halfway steps and the many parts to it. But what's your second plan? When this doesn't succeed, what do I do then?" because if they don't do that, they're going to wind up caught in the same game that Henry Paulson and George Bush were caught in. You try this, you throw some money this way, you throw it that way, nothing happens, and then you come back with a new plan, and so forth. AMY GOODMAN: Bill Greider, we're going to come back to this discussion. I want to ask you more about nationalizing the banks. Bill Greider is with us, national affairs correspondent for The Nation magazine. His forthcoming book, Come Home, America. Stay with us. [break] AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Bill Greider. He is with The Nation magazine. His forthcoming book is called Come Home, America: The Rise and Fall (and Redeeming Promise) of Our Country. So, you're on the train yesterday. You bump into Bill Parsons, the -- WILLIAM GREIDER: Richard Parsons. AMY GOODMAN: Richard Parsons, rather. WILLIAM GREIDER: You don't bump into Richard Parsons. He's -- he was the leader of Time Warner. He's just now been made chairman of the board at Citigroup. AMY GOODMAN: And you've been calling for the nationalizing of banks like Citigroup. WILLIAM GREIDER: Well, I think they should just get it over with and close Citigroup down, because it's insolvent. And -- AMY GOODMAN: Did you tell Richard Parsons this on the train? WILLIAM GREIDER: I didn't. That would be, first of all, impolite. But secondly, we were in what Amtrak calls the quiet car, where you do not talk. So that's my excuse for not badgering him. But you know what he was doing. He witnessed what happened to the three executives of the auto companies when they flew their private jet to Washington with their hands out for money, and he decided, given that Citigroup has now received, what, $45 billion straight up and another $300 billion in guarantees, it would be awkward for him to fly in to his meeting with the President. Obama had a bunch of corporate execs in yesterday to lead cheers for them and get them going. And good for him, right? He's down with the folks. Of course, it was in Acela train, which is the fast train. AMY GOODMAN: Well, I guess the question is, is Citigroup down with the folks? And what has happened to the billions of dollars that have been given to bail out these companies that they are not accounting for? And it's not just President Bush. It's not just Henry Paulson. The Democrats joined with the Republicans in supporting this. WILLIAM GREIDER: Absolutely. This has been, up to now, bipartisan failure, and it continues not to have the crucial feature, which is answering the question: What does the public get for this money? And this sounds unbelievable, but it's literally true. The government, Treasury and the Federal Reserve pumps this money in and demands almost nothing in return, in terms of a prescribed behavior, guaranteed conduct -- we will do this, we will stop doing that, so forth and so on. So these guys are all going out and -- you know, Citigroup was embarrassed just last week, because somebody revealed that they had on order and were about to get a new $50 million executive jet. And that's why Richard Parsons is on the train this week, because as soon as the public finds that out, they're thinking, "Oh, no. They've done it again!" And it's just very simple political logic for Washington to say, "We have to exercise control over these institutions, at some level of penetration, to stop this misbehavior, first, and then to make them do some positive things that the country needs right now." And in the case of Citigroup, this is -- AMY GOODMAN: You say it's insolvent. WILLIAM GREIDER: Yeah, that's not an opinion of mine. I mean, I talk to people who are really serious bank specialists, and they've been saying that for many months. It's the so -- called toxic assets in their -- and this is not unique to Citigroup -- but the toxic assets that build up in a way that you -- that the government -- if it tried to do this for every one of the largest banks, it would make this stimulus package look like peanuts. It's huge. It's maybe a couple of trillion dollars still out there. I think you can get pretty old -- fashioned about this. The bank examiners go in, and they make Citigroup lay it all out. And at some point, they can decide: "This bank is too gone to save. It's too big to save, and it's got too much failure already in it. So we will organize its liquidation." The other alternative is to nationalize it and begin to deconstruct the bad pieces and build new banks. I mean, to me, this is the exciting prospect. This is boring to a lot of people, but it's the heart of the matter. If you don't nationalize it, then you're simply sort of prettying up, you know, the old roses and hoping that they bloom again. What government should be doing now, and it's a long process, is rebuilding the banking and financial system across the entire country so that it serves the economy, serves the society, rather than being these little citadels of high profit and extraordinary salaries. What happened in the last twenty -- five years is that everything got concentrated in big guys, including really strong regional banks that got swallowed up by the bigger banks. Thousands of smaller community banks got wiped out. Either they got sold or they closed down, etc. This is a huge project, and we won't get back to what Americans at large can regard as an equitable and prosperous economy until that structure is rebuilt. Citigroup is not going to do that. Even if you prop it up for ten years, it's not going to do that. AMY GOODMAN: What are the forces that would do that? WILLIAM GREIDER: Politics, actually. I mean, and people around the country. I've done a lot of reporting over the years, on the ground, with just people in different parts of this country trying to -- as I described them in my earlier book, trying to reinvent capitalism, trying to make it not just humane but socially supportive to industry, small businesses, consumers, workers, etc. They're terrific people. They're very smart. A number of them are veterans of Wall Street. They did a few years making high salaries and ripping and running in the markets, and they said, "That's not what my life is about," and they went to Oklahoma or California or wherever and started firms, that are investment firms, that operate on very different principles. If I were king, or if I had the President's ear, I would say, "Get those people into the White House now." There are thousands of them. AMY GOODMAN: Can you think of examples? WILLIAM GREIDER: Well, the names are -- there's a -- I just heard from her. I'm going to blank her name, but she's from Portland or somewhere on the West Coast. She has -- I think it's called 21st Century Investments. Don't hold me to the names. But she is one of those people, and she just sends out a report every once in a while: "These are the companies we've just invested in." And, of course, the investment standards of those companies -- for those companies are the same standards any of us would want to apply. Are they sound ecologically? Do they treat their workers with equity and fairness and include them in the decision making? Are they viable? Do they have a future? Are they making something the country will need? All I'm getting at is, if we get our heads out of Washington for a minute and look across the country, there is enormous potential for reinvention and innovation, and not just in that area but in others. And that's what I'm hoping this president will get to. AMY GOODMAN: Bill Greider, I want to ask you what role economic globalization played in all of this. Right now, at the World Economic Forum, Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, said Beijing blames the United States for the economic breakdown, saying, "inappropriate macroeconomic policies [.] and [.] unsustainable model of development characterized by prolonged low savings and high consumption; [.the] blind pursuit of profit; [.] and the failure of financial supervision" all contributed. WILLIAM GREIDER: Wow! That's strong. That's very. AMY GOODMAN: And China is the largest holder of US government debt. WILLIAM GREIDER: Did he -- China is our banker. I mean that literally. China, having accumulated huge trade surpluses and capital, has been the lender. It's not the only one -- there are others -- but it's the lead lender that has kept Americans going in the illusion that you could, year after year, borrow and spend more than you produced. Economics doesn't allow that, not forever -- for a while maybe, but not forever. And so, we're in a position now where China -- we have to get a bailout from China and Japan, the Arab oil states and some others to keep us going as we work through this huge global recession. And I think the deal that's possible is that the US can say to those creditors, "OK, give us the loans. We'll go a bit deeper in the hole of debt. But we -- because we're such good consumers, we will be the lead engine that pulls the world out of this recession. In exchange, we are telling you now that the trade system, the global trading system, must be reformed and balanced. We can't go on like this. Ultimately, you can't go on like this." And by that, I mean bringing down the trade deficits, which have rung up more than $5 trillion in debt over the last fifteen years; imposing some rules on US multinationals, so that they can't just roam the world as free riders, moving jobs and production wherever they choose without regard to the home country. I mean, there's a long list of reforms, which I've written about and I write about in this new book. My point is, this is a moment. If the Obama administration has the nerve to go for a global compact that doesn't just help a recovery but actually rearranges the world in fundamental terms -- I don't know if they're big enough to do that -- AMY GOODMAN: And those terms are.? WILLIAM GREIDER: Well, you'd start with balanced trade, not perfectly, but -- and you'd start with a new global institution for finance that represents both, not just the advanced countries with strong economies, but the developing countries, and balances their interests through currency exchange and other -- it would begin to build a structure of global rights for workers and communities, which is, of course, absent, utterly now. And by that, I mean a way to mediate between the high -- wage workers in countries like ours, in Europe, Japan, and those folks at the bottom who are in the sweatshops. I mean, the reality of our time, not so well understood, is that it's very much like the English Industrial Revolution. The workers are exploited on both ends. If you think of the -- you know, William Blake, the poet, wrote about the "dark Satanic mills" in England in 1800. The skilled craft workers were thrown out of their jobs, and they were replaced with children. And the children, of course, were completely defenseless and exploited. But so were those other workers who had been cut out of the prosperity that their country was achieving. That's a small picture of what is happening globally now. And I'm among those who have been railing at this for twenty years, actually, without much effect. But now we're in a crisis that maybe will awaken the governing elites to the reality that they have to confront this and build labor rights and other protections into the system, or we'll go right back into that hole. AMY GOODMAN: It's interesting you talk about building labor rights, because last fall it was reported Bank of America received something like, what was it, $25 billion from the government. Three days later, according to the Huffington Post, Bank of America's top executives were busy. Were they trying to right the sinking ship? No, they were coordinating a conference call to organize opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act -- WILLIAM GREIDER: Absolutely. AMY GOODMAN: -- the top legislative priority of organized labor unions. WILLIAM GREIDER: Of course, yes. I was at a forum last night in New York City and talked. And a woman and her husband came up afterwards, who were employees of IBM, and they were saying, you know, IBM is at the White House meeting with the President and doing good talk about the economy and all that, and meanwhile is shutting down jobs and moving them to Asia. So what's the nature of this game? Are we trying now to revive the American economy for everybody? Or are we simply facilitating the process that's already underway, which is that the US multinationals, for the last twenty -- five years, have systematically gutted high value -- added jobs, the ones with the good wages, when they could, when they needed to, and gone to cheap labor elsewhere? AMY GOODMAN: Do you see the system -- right now, the World Economic Forum is going on at Davos. WILLIAM GREIDER: Yeah. AMY GOODMAN: The World Social Forum is going on in Brazil. Do you see going back to 1999, when you had those thousands of people in the streets of Seattle, with Bill Clinton coming in on a plane in the middle of the night, in the teargas, who had pushed so hard for so-called free trade -- WILLIAM GREIDER: Yeah. AMY GOODMAN: -- really twisted the arms of Congress members, when NAFTA was clearly going down, to force it all to happen? WILLIAM GREIDER: We're not there yet. I think more likely, to be blunt, is that Seattle will look like an organized and civil appeal of popular distress compared to what I think we're going to see. And by that, I mean you can't do this to people year after year -- that is, upturn their lives, take away what they thought they had earned, and so forth and so on, without provoking rather intense political reactions. We're just, just beginning to see a few bubbles like that around this country. They're rioting in eastern Europe and some places in Asia. I don't say we're going to have riots, but I think people will -- and I hope for this -- people, out of their own distress and anger, will organize their own politics, and they will make themselves seen and heard around this country. And we've seen some -- sit -- down strike in Chicago, which actually succeeded in getting the workers their rights. We're seeing the beginnings of a foreclosure, anti-, stop the foreclosure movement. The Nation has a terrific piece this week by Ben Ehrenreich describing that. That's what happened in the '30s, of course, that the people did not finally wait for Washington to do the right thing and solve the problem. They recognized that that wasn't in the cards, and they would take their action, as they could, on the ground, in the workplace, elsewhere, politics. This is -- this gets messy really fast. And some of it gets ugly. But if people understand their own power as citizens and act on it -- takes some courage -- that will be the core of this politics we're in. AMY GOODMAN: Bill Greider, I want to thank you for being with us. He is national affairs correspondent for The Nation magazine. Forthcoming book, Come Home, America: The Rise and Fall (and Redeeming Promise) of Our Country. From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Feb 8 22:33:34 2009 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 00:33:34 -0500 Subject: [R-G] Khatami (Finally) Declares His Candidacy Message-ID: Khatami finally declared his candidacy: ; . Now the elections will be interesting. Yoshie From fentona at shaw.ca Sun Feb 8 22:35:15 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 21:35:15 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Israel's Propaganda War in Gaza Message-ID: 4 February 2009 Israel's Propaganda War in Gaza Losing the Moral High Ground This commentary discusses Israel's intent to dominate the information space in its military campaign against Hamas in Gaza. The author argues that Israel is currently not able to retain public support and credibility both nationally and internationally, and that it has already lost the war morally. ? 2009 S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) .pdf: http://snipr.com/bk5l5 From hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org Mon Feb 9 09:07:59 2009 From: hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org (Hunter Gray) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 09:07:59 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Academic Freedom: Always Smouldering, Often Burning Message-ID: <001701c98ad0$94ba5580$0400a8c0@computer> NOTE BY HUNTER BEAR: February 9 2009 This current piece from NYT, not especially noteworthy in its clarity, does illustrate what's all too frequently the " quasi-liberal" perspective on basic freedom of expression issues -- in this case, academic freedom. Taking the admittedly interesting and provocative -- and essentially atypical --case of a professed "anarchist" professor at the University of Ottawa, and drawing apples-and-oranges analogies with law firms and corporations, the writer edges rapidly toward the "responsible" interpretation of this fundamentally critical and necessary principle -- fundamentally critical and necessary for not only professors but certainly for students and society. Academic institutions aren't law firms or corporations. They are, presumably, committed to opening all of the doors to Truth -- at least in the relative sense -- and letting the also presumably free minds of those within range draw their own individual conclusions, and go on from there with their lives and destiny. I become extremely wary when I read of ostensibly "reasonable" efforts to limit freedom of expression [or any other basic freedoms as well.] Far, far more prevalent than "mad professors" in the academic groves are those administrators and their sycophants, generally conscious of open and shadowy economic and political power structure concerns, who display perennial distrust of free expression and who work, overtly and covertly, to curtail it. Although I give my "vocation" the handle of Organizer, I have taught many years in the college and university setting -- many places -- while organizing usually controversial things on the side. I've certainly never been an "objective" professor. And, frankly, if this has made, sooner or later, most academic administrators unhappy and downright uneasy, almost all students I've encountered [regardless of their own respective views] have liked this much [as I did when I was a student] and my classes were always notably quite large and characterized by very lively discussion indeed. Well, you can get flack from the time-serving bureaucrats. If non-tenured, one's contract might not be renewed [that's happened to me] and, if you have tenure, that may still hold fairly well to a point -- but petty harassment, often officially initiated and generally officially sanctioned, can make one's life outside the pleasant classroom and inside the unpleasant departmental offices, something of a trial. [And that's happened to me.] This can frequently be the case if the professor is involved in meaningful social justice work "out in the community." I've been on all of those trails. And I certainly know other good souls who have as well -- though there are never nearly enough of them in academia. A good friend and colleague, himself a professor at Winnipeg, recently summed up my eventual situation at the University of North Dakota: "I was happy to have received a nice review from Hunter for my book. He was one of the old school Native Studies Professors who were as much or more activists than they were simply scholars. This included people like Art Solomon and others who were defining what Native Studies should be about in the late 60's and early 70's. A lot of them disassociated themselves from programs such these, not liking the direction they were heading in. People like Hunter were vilified by Anthropologists who believed Native Studies wasn't academic enough. In other words, they should be the ones teaching Native Studies. Many of these types such as at the University of North Dakota where Hunter taught, now run the programs. There are very few social activists left in the discipline who are involved in prison reform and such." [Brian Rice, Mohawk] Keep fighting, keep talking, keep fighting. And swat the mosquitoes. Hunter [Hunter Bear] February 8, 2009, 10:00 pm NYT The Two Languages of Academic Freedom [Stanley Fish] Last week we came to the section on academic freedom in my course on the law of higher education and I posed this hypothetical to the students: Suppose you were a member of a law firm or a mid-level executive in a corporation and you skipped meetings or came late, blew off assignments or altered them according to your whims, abused your colleagues and were habitually rude to clients. What would happen to you? The chorus of answers cascaded immediately: "I'd be fired." Now, I continued, imagine the same scenario and the same set of behaviors, but this time you're a tenured professor in a North American university. What then? I answered this one myself: "You'd be celebrated as a brave nonconformist, a tilter against orthodoxies, a pedagogical visionary and an exemplar of academic freedom." My assessment of the way in which some academics contrive to turn serial irresponsibility into a form of heroism under the banner of academic freedom has now been at once confirmed and challenged by events at the University of Ottawa, where the administration announced on Feb. 6 that it has "recommended to the Board of Governors the dismissal with cause of Professor Denis Rancourt from his faculty position." Earlier, Rancourt, a tenured professor of physics, had been suspended from teaching and banned from campus. When he defied the ban he was taken away in handcuffs and charged with trespassing. What had Rancourt done to merit such treatment? According to the Globe and Mail, Rancourt's sin was to have informed his students on the first day of class that "he had already decided their marks : Everybody was getting an A+." But that, as the saying goes, is only the tip of the iceberg. Underneath it is the mass of reasons Rancourt gives for his grading policy and for many of the other actions that have infuriated his dean, distressed his colleagues (a third of whom signed a petition against him) and delighted his partisans. Rancourt is a self-described anarchist and an advocate of "critical pedagogy," a style of teaching derived from the assumption (these are Rancourt's words) "that our societal structures . . . represent the most formidable instrument of oppression and exploitation ever to occupy the planet" (Activist Teacher.blogspot.com, April 13, 2007). Among those structures is the university in which Rancourt works and by which he is paid. But the fact of his position and compensation does not insulate the institution from his strictures and assaults; for, he insists, "schools and universities supply the obedient workers and managers and professionals that adopt and apply [the] system's doctrine - knowingly or unknowingly." It is this belief that higher education as we know it is simply a delivery system for a regime of oppressors and exploiters that underlies Rancourt's refusal to grade his students. Grading, he says, "is a tool of coercion in order to make obedient people" (rabble.ca., Jan. 12, 2009). It turns out that another tool of coercion is the requirement that professors actually teach the course described in the college catalogue, the course students think they are signing up for. Rancourt battles against this form of coercion by employing a strategy he calls "squatting" - "where one openly takes an existing course and does with it something different." That is, you take a currently unoccupied structure, move in and make it the home for whatever activities you wish to engage in. "Academic squatting is needed," he says, "because universities are dictatorships . . . run by self-appointed executives who serve capital interests." Rancourt first practiced squatting when he decided that he "had to do something more than give a 'better' physics course." Accordingly, he took the Physics and Environment course that had been assigned to him and transformed it into a course on political activism, not a course about political activism, but a course in which political activism is urged - "an activism course about confronting authority and hierarchical structures directly or through defiant or non-subordinate assertion in order to democratize power in the workplace, at school, and in society." Clearly squatting itself is just such a "defiant or non-subordinate assertion." Rancourt does not merely preach his philosophy. He practices it. This sounds vaguely admirable until you remember what Rancourt is, in effect, saying to those who employ him: I refuse to do what I have contracted to do, but I will do everything in my power to subvert the enterprise you administer. Besides, you're just dictators, and it is my obligation to undermine you even as I demand that you pay me and confer on me the honorific title of professor. And, by the way, I am entitled to do so by the doctrine of academic freedom, which I define as "the ideal under which professors and students are autonomous and design their own development and interactions." Of course, as Rancourt recognizes, if this is how academic freedom is defined, its scope is infinite and one can't stop with squatting: "The next step is academic hijacking, where students tell a professor that she can stay or leave but that this is what they are going to do and these are the speakers they are going to invite." O, brave new world! The record shows exchanges of letters between Rancourt and Dean Andre E. Lalonde and letters from each of them to Marc Jolicoeur, chairman of the Board of Governors. There is something comical about some of these exchanges when the dean asks Rancourt to tell him why he is not guilty of insubordination and Rancourt replies that insubordination is his job, and that, rather than ceasing his insubordinate activities, he plans to expand them. Lalonde complains that Rancourt "does not acknowledge any impropriety regarding his conduct." Rancourt tells Jolicoeur that "Socrates did not give grades to students," and boasts that everything he has done was done "with the purpose of making the University of Ottawa a better place," a place "of greater democracy." In other words, I am the bearer of a saving message and those who need it most will not hear it and respond by persecuting me. It is the cry of every would-be messiah. Rancourt's views are the opposite of those announced by a court in an Arizona case where the issue was also whether a teaching method could be the basis of dismissal. Noting that the university had concluded that the plaintiff's "methodology was not successful," the court declared "Academic freedom is not a doctrine to insulate a teacher from evaluation by the institution that employs him" (Carley v. Arizona, 1987). The Arizona court thinks of academic freedom as a doctrine whose scope is defined by the purposes and protocols of the institution and its limited purposes. Rancourt thinks of academic freedom as a local instance of a global project whose goal is nothing less than the freeing of revolutionary energies, not only in the schools but everywhere. It is the difference between being concerned with the establishing and implementing of workplace-specific procedures and being concerned with the wholesale transformation of society. It is the difference between wanting to teach a better physics course and wanting to save the world. Given such divergent views, not only is reconciliation between the parties impossible; conversation itself is impossible. The dispute can only be resolved by an essentially political decision, and in this case the narrower concept of academic freedom has won. But only till next time. HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk Protected by Na?shdo?i?ba?i? and Ohkwari' Check out our Hunterbear website Directory http://hunterbear.org/directory.htm [The site is dedicated to our one-half Bobcat, Cloudy Gray: http://hunterbear.org/cloudy_gray.htm I have always lived and worked in the Borderlands. http://hunterbear.org/outlaw_trail1.htm In our Gray Hole, the ghosts often dance in the junipers and sage, on the game trails, in the tributary canyons with the thick red maples, and on the high windy ridges -- and they dance from within the very essence of our own inner being. They do this especially when the bright night moon shines down on the clean white snow that covers the valley and its surroundings. Then it is as bright as day -- but in an always soft and mysterious and remembering way. [Hunter Bear] http://www.hunterbear.org/GRAY%20LANDS%20AND%20GRAY%20GHOSTS.htm From fentona at shaw.ca Mon Feb 9 10:04:37 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 09:04:37 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Everybody shall accept results on the coming elections, Chavez says Message-ID: <6A826E88-B596-4BD1-8E3C-C97CF43B0351@shaw.ca> http://www.abn.info.ve/go_news5.php?articulo=169045&lee=17 Everybody shall accept results on the coming elections, Chavez says Caracas, Feb 09 ABN.- ?We will accept the results, whatever these are. That is my call, that is my compromise,? stated the president of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV, Spanish abbreviation), Hugo Chavez Frias. During at an interview in a private TV channel, the leader of the Bolivarian Revolution expressed that he expects the opposition to also accept the results of the referendum for the constitutional amendment, which will take place next February 15. ?I call you all to vote (...) Do not get confused, Yes for the future,? he stressed. The President affirmed that the constitutional amendment of articles 160, 162, 174, 192 and 230, for the continuous nomination of candidates is not only for the President of the Republic, but for all the popularly elected posts. ?The idea is to increase alternation, alternation is not eliminated (...) Democracy will increase,? Chavez said. He also stressed that nobody is going to eternize in power, it is just that people can nominate successively and they can just be reelected through the people's vote. Bolivarian Revolution and inclusion ?Venezuela's government decisions to strengthen economy, to grant social security, health and food, are taken for everybody; it is for the gentlemen from Lagunita (high class urbanization), from Petare (popular neighborhood in Caracas); all the policies of the Revolution are for all Venezuelans,? Hugo Chavez Frias stated. ?Had it not been for this process of democratic and peaceful Revolution, I do not know what would be happening in Venezuela, I do not know how many Caracazos (wave of protests and riots on February 1989) we would have (...) Bourgeois people would not be living placidly as they are doing now,? he emphasized. President Chavez added that ?This Revolution aims at including all Venezuelans.? He remarked that the opposition task forces, made by Venezuelan students, are part of a conspiracy plan financed by the US empire; however, he commented that even though everybody enjoys the social and economic achievements of the Bolivarian Revolution. Poverty zero Hugo Chavez Frias ratified that in 10 years of Bolivarian Revolution, poverty reduced to 25%, and this percentage of the Venezuelan population today has free health, education and other social benefits. Besides, he added that 10 years ago, more than half of the Venezuelan population was in extreme poverty. ?Today, Venezuela is a free, sovereign country as it was never before. Venezuela has improved remarkably (...) I want to see Venezuela without poverty; we have to take that figure to zero,? Chavez stressed. Security for all We will not rest until we give security to all Venezuelans and until diminishing crime rates, Chavez expressed on Sunday. ?We take strong measures everyday to give security to Venezuelans,? he added. He mentioned that murder for hire and kidnapping are part of the Colombian conflict overflowing. According to him, with the Revolution, insecurity rates decreased remarkably, though there are still many things to be done. To fight insecurity, Chavez expressed that the National Government is working on refounding the police bodies and justice, a long-range plan that is already progressing. He expressed however that insecurity is a shared issue and all Venezuelans, as well as the media, are responsible in the fight against it. Furthermore, he recalled that the insecurity is a very important social issue, in which media and their pro-violence advertisings play an important role. The President referred to information from the Center for Peace from the Universidad Central de Venezuela, which show that violence in Venezuela raised after the Caracazo, when people exploited because of injustice. He ratified that the Bolivarian Government condemns all the anti- Semite acts and practices, stressing that Venezuela's security bodies are investigating forcefully the attack against the main synagogue in Caracas. ?We have to condemn violence, no matter where it comes from,? he emphasized. Fight against corruption President Hugo Chavez expressed that the battle against corruption aims especially at refounding Venezuelans values, and socialism plays an important role in this point. ?Socialism is the best antidote against corruption in society,? he affirmed. He said some cultural values, as well a the judiciary system, have to be reviewed, because there are some weaknesses. Protection against world crisis The President of Venezuela ratified that the National Government has been taking measures to prevent Venezuela is affected from the world crisis, like Petrocaribe or the Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of our America, among others. ?This crisis has not affected us because we have a stable economy (...) We have savings for two years of importations. We have a stability that we must protect.? The capitalist speculation harms the country very much; however, governmental missions such as Mercal (a food program) strengthen country's sovereignty and help to fight the food corruption promoted by the private sector. From fentona at shaw.ca Mon Feb 9 10:17:41 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 09:17:41 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Tanker serves as oil stockpile Message-ID: <9056B462-C57C-4C01-B3EF-3C16FE7E5B9E@shaw.ca> http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090207/BUSINESS/386867450/0/FORIEGN Tanker serves as oil stockpile Tamsin Carlisle * Last Updated: February 07. 2009 6:41PM UAE / February 7. 2009 2:41PM GMT In the latest sign that energy producers are still pumping too much oil, Koch Supply and Trading, the US oil firm, has booked a supertanker for six months to store about 2 billion barrels of crude off the east coast of the Emirates. The move to stockpile oil at sea near Fujairah, a Middle East fuel bunkering hub, is part of a worldwide trend towards offshore storage that has developed because onshore oil depots are full, and most oil traders expect prices to rise in coming months, analysts said. But it also means global oil demand is falling faster than producing countries, primarily those within OPEC, are cutting output. ?Demand is so bad at the moment, where are you going to push the oil to?? asked a crude oil trader. The UAE recently told customers it would reduce contracted March crude deliveries in line with the lower OPEC production target announced in December, when the organisation pledged to cut output by a record 2.2 million barrels per day (bpd). Saudi Arabia, the world?s biggest oil exporter, has already cut production to 7.9 million bpd, its lowest level since Oct 2002, and below the kingdom?s 8.05 million bpd OPEC quota. Yet, for the next few months, the tanker, Artemis Glory, will be anchored off the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula, ready to receive Gulf oil production in excess of immediate demand. Those supplies are most likely to come from Oman, a small non-OPEC producer intent on increasing its crude output, and Iraq, which is exempt from OPEC quotas as it rebuilds its shattered energy infrastructure, traders said. Meanwhile, oil stocks in the US, the world?s biggest market, hit their highest level in 18 months last week, rising by 7.2 million barrels. At the nation?s main storage facility at Cushing, Oklahoma, the delivery point for crude traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange, inventories rose by 800,000 barrels to a record 34.3 million barrels. According to Merrill Lynch, that is because Canada has been flooding the US Midwest with oil from its oil sands, resulting in ?a major supply glut? around the Cushing depot. That development has already put strong downwards pressure on the price of the North American benchmark West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude, keeping its price close to US$40 a barrel in recent weeks. So, should the price of oil fall by another $10 per barrel, it could be due to Canada maintaining a ?continuous flow of Canadian crude? through pipelines linking its oil production centres to Chicago and Cushing. The Merrill Lynch Canadian equity research team said in a report it estimated that existing Canadian oil sands projects ?should generate positive cash flows all the way down to about $32 per barrel WTI?. ?Thus, should the OPEC output cuts fail to balance the global oil markets, WTI crude oil prices may need to temporarily dip below this level to force a reduction in Canadian oil flows.? Canada is by far the biggest exporter of oil to the US. In November, the latest month for which the US government provides data, it exported nearly 76 million barrels of crude oil and refined products to its southern neighbour, compared with 45 million barrels from the number two supplier, Saudi Arabia. The biggest Canadian oil production centre is the Athabasca oil sands region of the country?s western province of Alberta. The Athabasca is the world?s largest crude deposit, containing an estimated 1.7 trillion barrels of oil, of which at least 179 billion barrels can be recovered with existing technology. Canada exports about half of its oil sands output of about 1.2 million bpd to the US, with much of that flowing to refineries near Chicago and Cushing that have special equipment for processing the tar-like crude. Not all of those refineries are operating at full capacity. Marathon Oil, which has major refining operations in the US Midwest, is one of several refiners that have cut processing in response to lower fuel demand. Others with refineries near Chicago or in Oklahoma include ConocoPhillips, Valero and Sunoco. That means less Canadian oil is being delivered to US refineries, while more is being stored at Cushing, forcing excess oil from the Gulf, the North Sea, and other producing regions that ship oil to the US, into floating storage. The sticky crude that Canada mines or steams from its oil sands is some of the world?s most expensive to produce. Recent studies by the Canadian Energy Research Institute and the Canadian Associate of Petroleum Producers estimate that crude prices of $80 to $90 a barrel would be needed for new projects to achieve a 10 per cent return on investment. At current prices, even oil sands producers with established projects are losing money. Royal Dutch Shell, the only major international oil company to have broken down its year-end financial results by product, last week reported a fourth-quarter loss of $30 million (Dh110.1m) on its Canadian oil sands operations. Petro-Canada, a large Canadian oil company with extensive oil sands operations, lost C$691m (Dh2.07 billion) in the final three months of last year, compared with a C $522m net profit a year earlier. But for operating decisions, oil producers watch cash flow, which excludes non-cash costs such as depreciation. And the huge open-pit mines and steam-injection facilities that are part of oil sands operations are expensive to stop and start. That is why OPEC, when it meets next month to decide whether to cut output further, should keep an eye on Canada. ?This year and next, the US could continue to suffer from an oversupplied crude oil market on the back of a bleak demand picture,? Merrill Lynch predicted. ?Should consumption in other parts of the world deteriorate further in the next few months, the supply glut in North America could continue.? tcarlisle at thenational,ae From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Feb 9 10:47:33 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 09:47:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Ronnie Kasrils to speak in Vancouver on "Apartheid: From South Africa to Israel" In-Reply-To: <43E55B381D4C4B16926490D456B9AF87@twubby.com> Message-ID: <444511976.1224381234201653595.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Ronnie Kasrils A leader in the struggle against South African Apartheid and member of the African National Congress, speaking on Apartheid: From South Africa to Israel Sunday, March 8, 2009, 7pm Vancouver Public Library, Alice MacKay Room 350 West Georgia Street ?Travelling into Palestine's West Bank and Gaza Strip, which I visited recently, is like a surreal trip back into an apartheid state of emergency [in South Africa]. ... It is shocking to discover that certain roads are barred to Palestinians and reserved for Jewish settlers. I try in vain to recall anything quite as obscene in apartheid South Africa.? ???? ? Ronnie Kasrils, Israel 2007: worse than apartheid ??????? Mail & Guardian, May 21, 2007. Co-Sponsored by the Canada-Palestine Support Network ( www.canpalnet.ca ) and Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights?UBC ( sphr.ubc at gmail.com ) A lecture presented as part of Israeli Apartheid Week Admission by donation. $10 - $20 suggested. Ronnie Kasrils has been a leader in the struggle against Apartheid in South Africa since he joined with Nelson Mandela in the African National Congress in 1960, after the Sharpeville Massacre. ? Raised in Johannesburg in a family of Jewish immigrants from Latvia and Lithuania, he was a member of Umkhonto weSizwe (MK), the armed wing of the ANC, since its inception in 1961. ? He was soon forced to flee the country and joined the ANC in exile. Since 1994, Kasrils has held several posts in the ANC government including Deputy Minister of Defense, Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry, and Minister for Intelligence Services. As he wrote in the summer of 2006: ?With the illegal Jewish settlements, security road network and the construction of the monstrous wall around the militarily occupied West Bank, the remaining Palestinians are ghettoised within 12% of their original territory. This dispossession is reminiscent of apartheid and its 13% of Bantustan homelands. For many this is the fundamental cause of the conflict.? ???? ? Ronnie Kasrils, Rage of the elephant: Israel in Lebanon ?? ????? Mail & Guardian, September 2, 2006 Kasrils has passionately espoused the cause of the Palestinian people for justice and self-determination and believes this is the only way to secure peace and security for both Israeli and Palestinian peoples. Ronnie Kasrils has been a leader in the struggle against Apartheid in South Africa since he joined with Nelson Mandela in the African National Congress in 1960, after the Sharpeville Massacre. ? Raised in Johannesburg in a family of Jewish immigrants from Latvia and Lithuania, he was a member of Umkhonto weSizwe (MK), the armed wing of the ANC, since its inception in 1961. ? He was soon forced to flee the country and joined the ANC in exile. Since 1994, Kasrils has held several posts in the ANC government including Deputy Minister of Defense, Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry, and Minister for Intelligence Services. As he wrote in the summer of 2006: ?With the illegal Jewish settlements, security road network and the construction of the monstrous wall around the militarily occupied West Bank, the remaining Palestinians are ghettoised within 12% of their original territory. This dispossession is reminiscent of apartheid and its 13% of Bantustan homelands. For many this is the fundamental cause of the conflict.? ? Ronnie Kasrils, Rage of the elephant: Israel in Lebanon ?? Mail & Guardian, September 2, 2006 Kasrils has passionately espoused the cause of the Palestinian people for justice and self-determination and believes this is the only way to secure peace and security for both Israeli and Palestinian peoples. From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Feb 9 13:29:00 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 12:29:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] AJJP Press Release: Call To Action... please circulate In-Reply-To: <1AF7ACE1-083D-4E36-AC5C-ABAF496F837F@cc.umanitoba.ca> Message-ID: <870424007.1316401234211340255.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> February 1, 2009????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ? NEW NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF American Jews ISSUES STATEMENT AGAINST ISRAEL?S WAR ON PALESTINE ? American Jews for a Just Peace, a new alliance of progressive and predominantly Jewish activists working in the United States working to ensure equal rights, safety, and dignity for all the people of historic Palestine, today issued the following statement: ? ??????????? Israel's recent War on Gaza resulted in worldwide, popular condemnation. Perhaps this marks an important turning point in the relationship between Israel and the world community. We will not stand by while Israel instigates a war, annihilates civilian infrastructure, targets civilian shelters, blocks medical teams from reaching victims, uses chemical weapons, such as white phosphorous, on civilians, prevents medical equipment from entering the war zone, cuts off fuel, electricity and running water, and forcibly prevents civilians including children from escaping their carnage. These are only the latest in a long and shameful history of violent, illegal and immoral actions taken by the government of Israel against the Palestinian people over the last 61 years. They are not the actions of a state that respects international laws or norms. On the contrary, they are actions of a rogue state that flouts international law while justifying its atrocities by invoking the suffering of our forebears. ? ??????????? These atrocities have been fully supported by the U.S. government, which, in this last war, ran diplomatic interference for Israel. This allowed Israel to destroy as much of Gazan society as it could before the new U.S. administration took office. ? ??????????? In the wake of this illegal war, AJJP expresses our outrage and pledges to support all efforts that are aimed at ending Israel's Occupation and undoing the apartheid system that it has constructed. The ongoing illegal occupation and ever-expanding illegal settlements of now some 450,000 Jews in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is a clear violation of the 4 th Geneva Convention. This Occupation is an obstacle to peace, as is the apartheid system of separation and oppression that is the organizing structure of life and resources in Israel/Palestine. U.S. tax dollars and foreign policy goals continue to support what is fundamentally an undemocratic and racist system of government that serves to sustain and deepen the ongoing ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine. ? ??????????? For all of these reasons, as Jews of conscience, we reach out to all other activists in the United States and around the world to work together to end, once and for all, these atrocities, which Israel claims to commit in our names. ? ??????????? Dedicated to working with all like-minded groups to build an effective, worldwide movement, American Jews for a Just Peace calls for: ? ? immediate suspension of all U.S. military aid to Israel pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act; ? ? ? the U.S. Congress to open an investigation into possible war crimes as well as violations of the Arms Export Control and Foreign Assistance Acts in the war on Gaza; ? ? ? businesses and individuals to refuse to purchase Israeli-made products that originate in or support Jewish settlements in Occupied Palestine and the apartheid system of racial separation and oppression in Israel/Palestine; ? ? ? the Israeli government to sign the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid that was adopted by the United Nations in 1973, or explain its refusal to do so to the world community; ? ? the Israeli government to end the blockade and siege of Gaza and allow unhindered access to all humanitarian aid organizations as well as international journalists; ? ? ? efforts by all activists and to promote awareness of and resistance to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, which continues through the ongoing blockade, siege, displacement, annexation, and Israeli state-sponsored terror. ? ??????????? Toward these ends, AJJP calls on the human rights and global justice community to engage in coordinated actions to bring the apartheid policies and criminal activities of the Israeli government to an end. We support all strategies, up to and including acts of non-violent civil disobedience. We will continue to support Palestinian civil society groups. AJJP activists will sponsor teach-ins, write op-ed articles, engage in viral outreach campaigns, ask businesses and individuals to join our boycott, visit our legislators, contact U.S. officials, place paid advertisements, sponsor public demonstrations and vigils, show films, present speakers and exhibits and poetry readings and street theater, and otherwise pledge to be widely and creatively visible and vocal in building the international movement for justice and peace in Israel/Palestine. ? CONTACT: info at ajjp.org . or (866).977.AJJP or WWW.ajjp.org From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Feb 9 13:39:14 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 12:39:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Adrienne Rich explains her support for the US Campaign to a Cultural and Academic Boycott of Israel In-Reply-To: <38E65700-CB08-4E45-AA4C-4E7665D7AEEF@cgocable.ca> Message-ID: <528498244.1321671234211954549.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> February 3 2009 ? Dear All, ? Last week, with initial hesitation but finally strong conviction, I endorsed the Call for a U.S. Cultural and Academic Boycott of Israel. http://usacbi.wordpress.com/ . I?d like to offer my reasons to friends, family and comrades. I have tried in fullest conscience to think this through. ? My hesitation: I profoundly believe in the visible/invisible liberatory social power of creative and intellectual boundary-crossings. I?ve been educated by these all my life, and by centuries-long cross-conversations about human freedom, justice and power?also, the forces that try to silence them. ? As an American Jew, over almost 30 years, I?ve joined with other concerned Jews in various kinds of coalition-building and anti-Occupation work. I?ve seen the kinds of organized efforts to stifle?in the US and elsewhere--critiques of Israel?s policies--the Occupation?s denial of Palestinian humanity, destruction of Palestinian lives and livelihoods, the ?settlements,? the state?s physical and psychological walls against dialogue?and the efforts to condemn any critiques as anti-Semitism. Along with other activists and writers I?ve been named on right-wing ?shit-lists? as ?Israel-hating? or ?Jew-hating.? I have also seen attacks within American academia and media on Arab American, Muslim, Jewish scholars and teachers whose work critically explores the foundations and practices of Israeli state and society. ? Until now, as a believer in boundary-crossings, I would not have endorsed a cultural and academic boycott. But Israel?s continuing, annihilative assaults in Gaza, and the one-sided rationalizations for them have driven me to re-examine my thoughts about cultural exchanges. Israel?s blockading of information, compassionate aid, international witness and free cultural and scholarly expression has become extreme and morally stone-blind. Israeli Arab parties have been banned from the elections, Israeli Jewish dissidents arrested, Israeli youth imprisoned for conscientious refusal of military service. Academic institutions are surely only relative sites of power. But they are, in their funding and governance, implicated with state economic and military power. And US media, institutions and official policy have gone along with all this. ? To boycott a repressive military state should not mean backing away from individuals struggling against the policies of that state. So, in continued solidarity with the Palestinian people?s long resistance, and also with those Israeli activists, teachers, students, artists, writers, intellectuals, journalists, refuseniks, feminists and others who oppose the means and ends of the Occupation, I have signed my name to this call. ? Adrienne Rich From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Feb 9 13:48:04 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 12:48:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Hamas leader ready for truce with Israel Message-ID: <11793150.1325501234212484369.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/4570633/Hamas-leader-ready-for-truce-with-Israel.html ? Daily Telegraph ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 9 Feb 2009 ? Hamas leader ready for truce with Israel ? One of the most senior leaders of Hamas has claimed that the radical Islamist movement is ready to embrace a prolonged truce with its bitter enemy Israel. ? By Damien McElroy in Damascus ? In the first Hamas interview with the Western media since last month's ceasefire in Gaza, its deputy leader Musa Abu Marzouk told The Daily Telegraph that the Palestinian group was ready for a period of "calm". ? A chandeliered room in the Syrian capital Damascus - where several Hamas leaders live in exile - is a long way from the ruins of the Gaza Strip but a weary frustration with the deprivations of war was pervasive. ? "We need to rebuild the buildings destroyed in the aggression," said Mr Marzouk. "We need to treat the wounded - more than 5,000 need serious treatment. We need to help all the families without food and shelter. We need the gates of Gaza to open to lift the siege. ? "All this can only be dealt with by period of calm between the two sides." ? Hamas negotiators have been instructed to accept the terms of a ceasefire pact negotiated by Egyptian mediators in Cairo. ? Hamas regards its offer as a Tahdia , an Arabic word indicating non-aggression in a stand-off, usually described as a "calm". A longer-term Hudna , or ceasefire, would be withheld until a peace agreement that would see Israel withdraw from Palestinian territory. ? "Israel owns the West Bank and Gaza Strip right now but if it withdrew from these and let the Palestinians have access to Jerusalem, we would turn our face to rebuild our lives and live alongside as in other parts of the world," said Mr Marzouk. ? Operation Cast Lead and the Palestinian rocket fire that terrorised Israel's southern towns in the preceding months, left deep divisions within Hamas. Splits between the exiled political leaders in Damascus and the Gaza-based officials have been privately acknowledged. ? Two strands of indirect negotiations with Israel have converged. One arrangement would allow the rebuilding of shattered parts of the Gaza Strip in return for an end to rocket attacks. Another deal would see the release of a captured Israel soldier, Cpl Gilad Shalit, in return for the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. ? The timing is reminiscent of the political fallout of the Iranian hostage crisis. Tehran held American embassy staff until after the 1980 election effectively dooming the campaign of President Jimmy Carter against Ronald Reagan. By announcing a release Hamas would shore up the incumbents. ? Mr Marzouk rejected the parallel, claiming Israel's centrist government held no more promise for it than the Right-wing Likud party of the former prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. "We don't have any reason to favour any side," he said. "But the Americans, Europeans and Egyptians appear to want the same leaders for Israel and for that reason they are very active on the issue of the calm and solving the Gilad Shalit issue." ? The shuttle diplomacy around Hamas is dizzying. Hamas and Israel alternate at meetings in Cairo with Egypt's intelligence chief, Gen Omar Suleiman. French and Turkish officials have holed up in Damascus hotels attempting to close the terms of the prisoner swap. The Hamas leader in Gaza, Mahmud Zahar, travelled to the Syrian capital to lobby for the acceptance of the ceasefire. Supportive governments in Sudan, Iran and Qatar have received Hamas leaders. ? Hamas has been in the ascendant in Palestinian politics since it won assembly elections three years ago and then drove supporters of the Western-backed Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, out of Gaza in 2007. Throughout, the exiled leadership headed by Khaled Meshaal and Mr Marzouk has maintained a hardline defence of the organisation's founding dream of wiping out Israel. "History has shown that you have to take by force your rights from Israel," said Mr Marzouk. "You can't make peace unless you make Israel pay the price of occupation. It's the only strategy." ? But its rise to prominence has already changed Hamas's character. Half the crowd at a "Triumph in Gaza" rally in a Damascus basketball stadium last week were middle-aged. The MC's amplified cries of "martyrdom" drew no more than half-hearted repetitions. Instead of armed men in balaclavas, there was a marching band in gold braid. ? Practical concessions on the independent delivery of foreign aid in Gaza have been taken, even as it seized United Nations aid at gunpoint. The border checkpoints are likely to be run by Palestinian officials again, granting Mr Abbas a new toehold in the enclave. ? One of Israel's stated war aims was to turn Gazans' frustration with Hamas into anger but Mr Marzouk countered that "inhuman acts" in the 22-day conflict that killed an estimated 1,300 Palestinians inclkuding hundreds of civilians had strengthened his support. "You will not see one voice who blames Hamas for what happened because there were too many massacres to blame us," he claimed. "In fact we are more popular in Gaza and the West Bank." ? Ultimately Hamas is waiting for President Barack Obama and his regional envoy George Mitchell to abandon what it describes as George W Bush's "with us or against us" approach, probably after the new Israeli government emerges after Tuesday's election. ? "George Mitchell is a unique American, the first official to make a report calling on Israel stop the settlements," said Mr Marzouk. "He made peace in Ireland by allowing the Republicans to hold their dream while dealing with a different reality on the ground." ? Tony Blair, the Middle East peace envoy, recently declared that direct negotiations with Hamas are inevitable but Mr Mitchell has insisted the US boycott will continue. ? But Hamas senses its moment has come and is emboldened enough to claim its covert discussions with the West occur more frequently than in most alliances. "We talk to many official and unofficial agencies, sometimes two or three daily," he said. "They choose to keep the dialogue secret and we respect that, after all we can't say we are a normal country or a normal state party." From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Feb 9 13:51:29 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 12:51:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Kahane won Message-ID: <472863821.1327351234212689517.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=1062338 ? w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m ??????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????? 08/02/2009 ? Kahane won ? By Gideon Levy ? Rabbi Meir Kahane can rest in peace: His doctrine has won. Twenty years after his Knesset list was disqualified and 18 years after he was murdered, Kahanism has become legitimate in public discourse. If there is something that typifies Israel's current murky, hollow election campaign, which ends the day after tomorrow, it is the transformation of racism and nationalism into accepted values. ? If Kahane were alive and running for the 18th Knesset, not only would his list not be banned, it would win many votes, as Yisrael Beiteinu is expected to do. The prohibited has become permitted, the ostracized is now accepted, the destestable has become the talented - that's the slippery slope down which Israeli society has skidded over the past two decades. ? There's no need to refer to Haaretz's startling revelation that Yisrael Beiteinu chairman Avigdor Lieberman was a member of Kahane's Kach party in his youth: This campaign's dark horse was and is a Kahanist. The differences between Kach and Yisrael Beiteinu are minuscule, not fundamental and certainly not a matter of morality. The differences are in tactical nuances: Lieberman calls for a fascist "test of loyalty" as a condition for granting citizenship to Israel's Arabs, while Kahane called for the unconditional annulment of their citizenship. One racist (Lieberman) calls for their transfer to the Palestinian state, the other (Kahane) called for their deportation. ? Now the instigator of the new Israeli racism will apparently become the leader of a large party once again in the government. Benjamin Netanyahu has already pledged that Lieberman will be an "important minister" in his government. If someone like Lieberman were to join a government in Europe, Israel would sever ties with it. If anyone had predicted in Kahane's day that a pledge to turn his successor into an important minister would one day be considered an electoral asset here, they would have been told they were having a nightmare. ? But the nightmare is here and now. Kahane is alive and kicking - is he ever - in the person of his thuggish successor. This is not just a matter of disqualifying Yisrael Beiteinu; it is not even a matter of this party's growing strength to terrifying proportions, becoming the fulcrum that will decide who becomes prime minister. This is a matter of legitimization. All society bears responsibility for it. ? Kahane was ostracized; Lieberman is a welcome guest in every living room and television studio. Imagine: Ehud Barak does not rule out a coalition with him; Uzi Landau, considered a "democrat," is now Lieberman's number two; a former senior ambassador and a retired police major general also adorn the list. Did we know that Israel was being represented in Washington by an avowed racist in the person of Daniel Ayalon? Did we know that former Border Police chief and deputy police commissioner Yitzhak Aharonovich was one, too? They have come out of the closet, these racists, breaking out of the heart of the establishment to the despicable right, and the attitude toward them has not changed a bit. ? Lieberman and his soldiers are borne on the tides of hatred for Arabs, hatred of democracy and the rule of law, and the stink of nationalism, racism and bloodthirstiness. These have turned, horrifically, into the hottest electoral assets on the market. Like all others of his political ilk, he cynically fans these base urges, particularly among the weaker classes, the rejected, the poor and the immigrants. But not just there. Many young people, among them brainwashed soldiers, will give him their vote, and no one ostracizes them. He chose an easy, relatively weak target, Israel's Arabs, and sets his supporters on them. But his doctrine has seeped in much deeper than that. ? Lieberman is the voice of the mob, and the mob craves hatred, vengeance and bloodshed. A useless war in which hundreds of children were killed was received here sympathetically, if not happily. The parties from the right and center have tried to disqualify the Arab parties; these lists are also excluded ahead of time in every political calculation. And Arab students cannot rent an apartment. ? When the intifada of Israel's Arabs breaks out here one day, we will know whom to blame - those who criminally incited against them and, no less, those who turned this incitement into something acceptable and legitimate. This cancerous growth has spread to all parts of society; it remains only to issue a desperate last call: Keep away from this abomination. Anything but Yisrael Beiteinu, lest it really become Israel, our home. From realiteee1 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 9 14:55:20 2009 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:55:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] HELP DEBUNK THE NAYSAYERS ABOUT Closing GITMO :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <233986.42194.qm@web111511.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> A Sample Letter :) ? Dear Sirs, ? Hello. Convicted terrorists have been prosecuted and successfully incarcerated in high-security federal prisons -- including Colorado?s Supermax facility -- without posing any risk to the public?s safety, including Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheik convicted in the first World Trade Center attacks. Our justice system, although not perfect, is the best in the world. It is fully capable of handling sensitive national security issues without compromising fundamental rights. The federal prison system has proven time and again that it is capable of holding convicted terrorists. Some of the convicted terrorists in federal prisons include Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheik convicted in the first World Trade Center attacks and Richard Reid, known as the ?shoe bomber.? Dangerous criminals who have committed horrible crimes are locked up in prisons all over this country every day and nobody wages campaigns objecting to that. This is clearly a politically motivated fear-mongering effort from those who wish to perpetuate the Bush administration?s failed illegal detention policies. It was the Bush administration?s detention and torture policies that made us less safe and more reviled by the Muslim world. Former President Bush?s torture and detention policies certainly radicalized many individuals across the Muslim world, and President Obama?s executive orders are a first step to defusing that hatred and giving us an America we can be proud of again.? Guant?namo and the sham military commissions are more likely to produce terrorists? both those detained in Guant?namo and elsewhere ? than adherence to the rule of law and a return to American values. Thank you for your attention, time, and all your efforts. ? Truly, ? (add your name, address, and phone # (needed for letters to the editor)) ? Sites to send emails, letters, and letters to the editor, et al :) ? http://capwiz.com/fconl/home ? http://www.congress.org/ ? Actions on Change.org :) ? Close GITMO Now :) ? http://criminaljustice.change.org/actions/view/close_gitmo_now ? Please, Make calls to your Congressmen and Congresswomen, too :) Find your elected officials phone #'s, etc. :) http://capwiz.com/fconl/home ? HELP DEBUNK THE NAYSAYERS ABOUT Closing GITMO Link :) ? http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/643/t/8679/letter/? letter_KEY=1093 ? Some groups where you can independently advocate on :) ? http://change.gov/openforquestions ? http://www.change.org/ ? Yet, that will not be enough to realize the possibility of the stopping of the extinction of humanity and large mammals we can see racing towards us from the future, on the horizon; we must change everything. Tell Everyone what you think :) ? http://globalwarming.change.org/actions/view/tell_congress_your_priori ty ? Tell President Obama that you agree with him, etc. :) ? Phone: To just leave a comment message: 202-456-1414 ? Direct Comment: 202-456-1111 ? FAX: 202-456-2461 ? TTY/TDD Comments: 202-456-6213 ? E-Mail: You can use BOTH of the following: ? http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ ? Office of Public Liaison: ? http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/opl/ ? Some of the groups I moderate, etc. :) ? Disabled Greens News and discussion, Group: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DisabledGreensNews/ Abuse in Therapy, Group : http://www.health.groups.yahoo.com/group/AbuseinTherapy/ Diffabled, Mental Health, all related issues, advocacy, and professionals: Invite link: http://passport.care2.net/invite.html?g=880 , Homepage: http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/Diffabled_MentalHealth_Action reality's 360 page and blog : http://360.yahoo.com/jamesmnordlund reality's My Space page, blog : http://myspace.com/jamesmnordlund Rights for Imprisoned People with Psychiatric Disabilities: United to Demand Justice and Social Change: http://rippdnycnetwork.ning.com/profile/realiteee Prison Abuse Social Network! Welcome to all Abolitionists: http://sdicks4msnetwork.ning.com/profile/realiteee reality's Windows Live Space : http://jamesmnordlundreality.spaces.live.com/default.aspx? owner=1&wa=wsignin1.0 reality's geocities website : http://www.geocities.com/jamesmnordlund/index.html Poets For Human Rights : http://groups.google.com/group/Poets-for-Human-Rights/web/realitys- twigs-of-poetree-pour-vous Poets For Human Rights :) http://poetsforhumanrights.ning.com/profile/reality ? What do you think? "Painting is poetry which is seen and not heard, and poetry is a painting which is heard but not seen." ~ Leonardo da Vinci. For those interested :) "of or pertaining to the morning, day :) relating to or happening in the morning or in the early part of the day ( formal ), (Mid-16th century, from late Latin matutinalis, from Matuta, goddess of the dawn.)". As always, feel free to copy and share, as well. Thanx! Enjoy a festive eve' as you can. Ciao, for now. ? Matutinally Yours, ? james m nordlund reality (aja) :) ? ? RE: HELP DEBUNK THE NAYSAYERS ABOUT Closing GITMO :) ? "I WANT TO SUGGEST THAT THE LETTER HAS A MISTAKE. IF YOU DON'T CARE,THAT'S OK TOO BUT IT IS AN ALL TOO COMMON MISTAKE. SHEIK OMAR WAS NEVER CHARGED OR CONVICTED IN WTC1. HIS IMAGE IN DARK GLASSES AND TURBAN WAS ALWAYS USED BY THE MEDIA WITH THE BACKDROP OF THE SMOKING BUILDING. HE WAS CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY TO COMMITT SEDITION BY BOMBING NY LANDMARKS.(NO BOMBINGS OCCURED). INCLUDED IN A LAUNDRYLIST OF OVERT ACTS WAS WTC 1 BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE JURY DECIDED. THERE WAS ONLY A GUILTY VERDICT OF THE CONSPIRACY; NO SPECIFICS. ALSO SHEIK OMAR IS CURRENTLY HELD AT A MEDICAL FACILITY IN BUTTNER NC (BLIND, DIABETIC,HEART) I DO THINK IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE TO EXTOL THE VIRTUES OF THE ON SHORE GUANTANAMOS. IT ALSO PRESUPPOSES EVERYONE'S GUILTY AS CHARGED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND AND THAT THEY DESERVE TO BE ENTOMBED IN THE FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM. ? LOVE STRUGGLE LYNNE" ? ? ? Dear Lynne Stewart, ? Ni hao. Thanx for the efforts, your work is impressive. I hope you and yours are well and will continue to be. Very cool, yet, maybe you could correct the National office of the ACLU about it, as it's their talking points, altered to provide a SAMPLE letter to the editor (more people will participate if we make it easier for them to), I'd hope people would alter as they see fit (see the title of their alert and a link to it in my alert); as it would mean extremely more to them if you did- and, I do care about everything, not just accuracy!? "Painting is poetry which is seen and not heard, and poetry is a painting which is heard but not seen." ~ Leonardo da Vinci. Enjoy a festive eve' as you can. Lest "we" forget, if you don't exercise responsibility, its Siamese twin sister, freedom, will wither, like a muscle, as well. Sadly, now, it first needs to be exorcized before its exercised. Viva la evolution! ? Matutinally Yours, ? james m nordlund reality (aja) :) ? Music is life's song accompanying the abundance of joy's Spring. For those interested :) "of or pertaining to the morning, day: relating to or happening in the morning or in the early part of the day (formal), (Mid-16th century, from late Latin matutinalis, from Matuta, goddess of the dawn.)". I look forward to hearing from you. Copy, share, as you will. Goodbye. From shniad at sfu.ca Mon Feb 9 16:02:42 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 15:02:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] The Blair War Crimes Foundation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <596981464.1396961234220562665.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://blairfoundation.wordpress.com/ ? THE BLAIR WAR CRIMES FOUNDATION ? To The President of The United Nations General Assembly, H.E. Father Miguel d?Escoto Brockmann, and The Attorney General of the United Kingdom, and their successors in office. ? RE ANTHONY CHARLES LYNTON BLAIR ? We, the citizens of the United Kingdom and other countries listed, wish to uphold The United Nations Charter, The 1998 Rome Statute of The International Criminal Court, The Hague and Geneva Conventions and the Rule of International Law, especially in respect of:- ? 1: 1949 Geneva Convention IV: Article 146 The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention. ? 2: 1907 Hague Convention IV: Article 3 A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all the acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces. ? We therefore call on you to indict Anthony Charles Lynton Blair in his capacity as recent Prime Minister of the UK, so long as he is able to answer for his actions and however long it takes, in respect of our sample complaints relating to the 2003 Iraq War waged by the UK as ally to the United States of America. ? We are concerned that without justice and respect for the rule of law, the future for us and our progeny in a lawless world is bleak, as revealed by recent US declarations about the use of torture and the events of December 2008 in Gaza show. ? The following are our sample complaints relating to the Iraq War 2003-2009: ? 1: Deceit and conspiracy for war, and providing false news to incite passions for war, causing in the order of one million deaths, 4 million refugees, countless maimings and traumas. ? 2: Employing radioactive ammunition causing long-term destruction of the planetary habitat. ? 3: Causing the breakdown of civil administration, with consequent lawlessness, especially looting, kidnapping, and violence, and consequent breakdown of womens? rights, of religious freedom, and child and adult education. ? 4: Failing to maintain the medical needs of the populace. ? 5: Despoliation of the cultural heritage of the country. ? 6: Supporting an ally that employs ?waterboarding? and other tortures. ? 7: Seizing the assets of Iraq. ? 8: Using inhumane restraints on prisoners, including dogs, hoods, and cable ties. ? 9: Using Aggressive Patrolling indiscriminately, traumatising women and children and wrecking homes and property. ? 10: Marking bodies of prisoners with numbers, writing, faeces and other degrading treatment. ? 11: The use of cluster bombs and other indiscriminate weapons including white phosphorous on ?shake and bake? missions. ? 12: Supporting indiscriminate rocket attacks from F16 fighter planes on women and children in Fallujah in Nov 2004 ? 13: Supporting the shooting up of ambulances and medical personnel in Fallujah in Nov 2004 ? 14: Supporting the expulsion of the entire population of Fallujah save for young men of military age, for a reprisal attack on that city in Nov 2004. ? Copy to the Secretary General of The United Nations, Ban Ki-moon ? Issued by secretaries to Foundation: David Halpin, MB, FRCS and Nicholas Wood MA, RIBA, FRGS PO BOX 64656 NW3 9NG (UK) Email: blairfoundation at yahoo.co.uk ? You too can sign the letter at ? http://www.petitiononline.com/BWCF/petition.html ? From fentona at shaw.ca Mon Feb 9 16:21:32 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:21:32 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Obama Means Blood, Sweat and Tears for Germany Message-ID: 02/09/2009 http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,606368,00.html OPINION Obama Means Blood, Sweat and Tears for Germany By Claus Christian Malzahn German enthusiasm for the new US administration could soon fade. The Americans made it very clear at the Munich Security Conference that they expect solidarity from their European allies -- and that means blood, sweat and tears. This year, it's going to be hard to escape the slew of German anniversaries. The list includes the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest 2,000 years ago, the invasion of Poland and the outbreak of World War II 70 years ago, the founding of East and West Germany 60 years ago and the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago. In 2009, hardly any other country in the world will spend so much time intensively examining its own past as Germany. At the Munich Security Conference, which ran from Friday to Sunday, politicians from all over the world dared to take a look into the future. As difficult as forcasts might be in this time of terrorist threats, global financial meltdown and innumerable intractable regional conflicts, one prediction can be safely made: The phase of German military intervention that began 10 years ago during the Kosovo war is in no way coming to an end, despite the fact the majority of Germans wish it would. On the contrary: The era of foreign deployments for Germans and their military forces has just begun. In his highly anticipated speech at the conference, US Vice President Joe Biden did not make the slightest effort to talk around the problem. The good news for America's European allies is that, from now on, Washington intends to ask for their input often and to listen to it. And the bad news? "America will do more, but America will ask for more from our partners." Biden is obviously referring to Afghanistan, where the Obama administration intends to station an additional 30,000 soldiers in the near future. And let's make one thing very clear: Unlike the German forces who are helping with reconstruction efforts, the US troops are not going to Afghanistan to build schools or roads. They are going there to kill Taliban fighters, and their commander-in-chief will not be George W. Bush but Barack Hussein Obama. Afghanistan -- which will be even more heatedly discussed in Germany than usual during this election year -- is not the only international conflict in which Germany is playing an active role. There are also the international efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Here, too, the agenda of the US government appears to be clear: The Obama administration will hold talks with Tehran, but it is also prepared to pursue other avenues if such talks fail to achieve their intended goal. And that goal is non-negotiable: Iran can not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. In his speech, Ali Larijani, the speaker of the Iranian parliament and Tehran's former chief nuclear negotiator, showed himself to be highly unimpressed by these American announcements. In fact, Larijani used his speech in Munich as an opportunity to turn the tables on the Americans. He spoke of how the United States currently has a "golden opportunity" to change its aggressive policies. He declared that it goes without saying that Iran will carry on with its nuclear program. And he said he was "surprised by the sensitivity" with which the West reacts to the subject of the Holocaust. Sitting only a few meters from the podium was former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who in 1938 at the age of 15 had, together with his family, fled his hometown of F?rth in Bavaria to escape the Nazis. In the end, it was British Foreign Secretary David Miliband who let Larijani know in his speech that the US offer "is not going to get any better." A US government that holds out its hand in the direction of Tehran, that offers the mullahs a guarantee they will stay in power and that is prepared to promise Iran considerable influence in Iraq -- who would have thought just a short time ago that such an offer from Washington was possible? But Larijani described such initiatives as a "carrot and stick approach" which is suitable only for "animals." Tehran would "prefer to play chess," Larijani continued. But if Tehran views its aggressive policy of increasing its influence in Lebanon, in the Gaza Strip and in Shiite Iraq as chess, what would it look like if Ahmadinejad were to start playing the world-domination game "Risk?" The Americans will be scrupulously careful that the confrontation with Tehran does not develop into a one-on-one battle between the US and Iran. Biden's message from Munich is the following: Every NATO country and every member of the European Union is now involved, as of today. This is the price for the new trans-Atlantic openness and cooperation. But cracks are already appearing in the German government on precisely this point. Last week Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier failed, at least for the time being, in his attempt to put together a package of potential sanctions against Iran that would be used in the event that direct talks between Washington and Tehran fail and the mullahs choose to push on with their nuclear plans. Miliband's drastic description of the situation has clearly not yet been understood by everyone in Berlin. Merkel's assurances in Munich that Germany is prepared to tighten sanctions do not change anything in that respect. Germany's most important neighbors were sitting to the left and right of Merkel on Saturday morning as the chancellor discussed the future of European security with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Sarkozy posed a politically charged question: Does Europe want peace -- or does it want to be left in peace? The two things, he said, should not be confused with each other. In response, a British member of parliament said that she knows this difference very well -- but fewer and fewer voters know it. Germany's neighbors made it clear just how different their stances on foreign missions are from Germany's. Tusk reported that Poland's political parties have agreed that they will not make the question of the foreign deployment of the Polish army into an issue during election campaigns. And Sarkozy made a declaration of honor on behalf of the French media and electorate: The French are ready to send soldiers to Kabul to fight for the rights of Afghan women. Angela Merkel can expect neither of those things from Germany's political parties, voters and media. All the polls indicate that the Germans are light years away from their neighbors on these questions. While the Americans are once again giving the Germans a friendly embrace, the Germans would prefer to return to the era before the fall of the Berlin Wall, when the German army -- whose deployments have to be approved by parliament -- obediently remained in its barracks when trouble broke out elsewhere in the world. And Barack Obama will not change that, no matter how charmingly and cooperatively he packages his demands for greater trans-Atlantic solidarity -- and no matter how justified these demands may be. In this election year, Angela Merkel and Frank-Walter Steinmeier need to explain to the electorate that there can be no way back to the era in which Germany was left in peace -- by no means an enviable task. George W. Bush's departure from office was met with jubilation in Germany. But his departure also means that Germany's poster child for its convenient policy of not getting its fingers dirty in international conflicts has now gone. It's safe to predict that some Obama worshipers in Germany will soon be missing the 43rd president -- because things will no longer be as comfortable for Europe as they were during his time. From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Mon Feb 9 16:30:11 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:30:11 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Poverty of Imagination Message-ID: <4990BC83.80808@ashisuto.co.jp> Clusterfuck Nation by Jim Kunstler Comment on current events by the author of The Long Emergency (2005) www.kunstler.com (February 09 2009) Venturing out each day into this land of strip malls, freeways, office parks, and McHousing pods, one can't help but be impressed at how America looks the same as it did a few years ago, while seemingly overnight we have become another country. All the old mechanisms that enabled our way of life are broken, especially endless revolving credit, at every level, from household to business to the banks to the US Treasury. Peak energy has combined with the diminishing returns of over-investments in complexity to pull the "kill switch" on our vaunted "way of life" - the set of arrangements that we won't apologize for or negotiate. So, the big question before the nation is: do we try to re-start the whole smoking, creaking hopeless, futureless machine? Or do we start behaving differently? The attempted re-start of revolving debt consumerism is an exercise in futility. We've reached the limit of being able to create additional debt at any level without causing further damage, additional distortions, and new perversities of economy (and of society, too). We can't raise credit card ceilings for people with no ability make monthly payments. We can't promote more mortgages for people with no income. We can't crank up a home-building industry with our massive inventory of unsold, and over-priced houses built in the wrong places. We can't ramp back up the blue light special shopping fiesta. We can't return to the heyday of Happy Motoring, no matter how many bridges we fix or how many additional ring highways we build around our already-overblown and over-sprawled metroplexes. Mostly, we can't return to the now-complete "growth" cycle of "economic expansion". We're done with all that. History is done with our doing that, for now. So far - after two weeks in office - the Obama team seems bent on a campaign to sustain the unsustainable at all costs, to attempt to do all the impossible things listed above. Mr Obama is not the only one, of course, who is invoking the quest for renewed "growth". This is a tragic error in collective thinking. What we really face is a comprehensive contraction in our activities, especially the scale of our activities, and the pressing need to readjust the systems of everyday life to a level of decreased complexity. For instance, the myth that we can become "energy independent" and yet remain car-dependent is absurd. In terms of liquid fuels, we're simply trapped. We import two-thirds of the oil we use and there is absolutely no chance that drill-drill-drilling (or any other scheme) will change that. The public and our leaders can not face the reality of this. The great wish for "alternative" liquid fuels (bio fuels, algae excreta) will never be anything more than a wish at the scales required, and the parallel wish to keep all our cars running by other means - hydrogen fuel cells, electric motors - is equally idle and foolish. We cannot face the mandate of reality, which is to do everything possible to make our living places walkable, and connect them with public transit. The stimulus bills in congress clearly illustrate our failure to understand the situation. The attempt to restart "consumerism" will be equally disappointing. It was a manifestation of the short peak energy decades of history, and now that we're past peak energy, it's over. That seventy percent of the economy is over, especially the part that allowed people to buy stuff with no money. From now on people will have to buy stuff with money they earn and save, and they will be buying a lot less stuff. For a while, a lot of stuff will circulate through the yard sales and Craigslist, and some resourceful people will get busy fixing broken stuff that still has value. But the other infrastructure of shopping is toast, especially the malls, the strip malls, the real estate investment trusts that own it all, many of the banks that lent money to the REITs, the chain-stores and chain eateries, of course, and, alas, the non-chain mom-and-pop boutiques in these highway-oriented venues. Washington is evidently seized by panic right now. I don't know anyone who works in the White House, but I must suppose that they have learned in two weeks that these systems are absolutely tanking, that the previous way of life that everybody was so set on not apologizing for has reached the end of the line. We seem to be learning a new and interesting lesson: that even a team that promises change is actually petrified of too much change, especially change that they can't really control. The argument about "change" during the election was sufficiently vague that no one was really challenged to articulate a future that wasn't, materially, more-of-the-same. I suppose the Obama team may have thought they would only administer it differently than the Bush team - but basically life in the USA would continue being about all those trips to the mall, and the cubicle jobs to support that, and the family safaris to visit Grandma in Lansing, and the vacations at Sea World, and Skipper's $20,000 college loan, and Dad's yearly junket to Las Vegas, and refinancing the house, and rolling over this loan and that loan ... and that has all led to a very dead end in a dark place. If this nation wants to survive without an intense political convulsion, there's a lot we can do, but none of it is being voiced in any corner of Washington at this time. We have to get off of petro-agriculture and grow our food locally, at a smaller scale, with more people working on it and fewer machines. This is an enormous project, which implies change in everything from property allocation to farming methods to new social relations. But if we don't focus on it right away, a lot of Americans will end up starving, and rather soon. We have to rebuild the railroad system in the US, and electrify it, and make it every bit as good as the system we once had that was the envy of the world. If we don't get started on this right away, we're screwed. We will have tremendous trouble moving people and goods around this continent-sized nation. We have to reactivate our small towns and cities because the metroplexes are going to fail at their current scale of operation. We have to prepare for manufacturing at a much smaller (and local) scale than the scale represented by General Motors. The political theater of the moment in Washington is not focused on any of this, but on the illusion that we can find new ways of keeping the old ways going. Many observers have noted lately how passive the American public is in the face of their dreadful accelerating losses. It's a tragic mistake to tell them that they can have it all back again. We'll see a striking illustration of "phase change" as the public mood goes from cow-like incomprehension to grizzly bear-like rage. Not only will they discover the impossibility of getting back to where they were, but they will see the panicked actions of Washington drive what remains of our capital resources down a rat hole. A consensus is firming up on each side of the "stimulus" question, largely along party lines - simply those who are for it and those who are against it, mostly by degrees. Nobody in either party - including supposed independents such as Bernie Sanders or John McCain, not to mention President Obama - has a position for directing public resources and effort at any of the things I mentioned above: future food security, future travel-and-transport security, or the future security of livable, walkable dwelling places based on local networks of economic interdependency. This striking poverty of imagination may lead to change that will tear the nation to pieces. _____ My new novel of the post-oil future, World Made By Hand, is available at all booksellers. http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2009/02/poverty-of-imagination.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From mstainsby at resist.ca Mon Feb 9 22:11:08 2009 From: mstainsby at resist.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:11:08 -0700 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Poverty of Imagination In-Reply-To: <4990BC83.80808@ashisuto.co.jp> References: <4990BC83.80808@ashisuto.co.jp> Message-ID: <49910C6C.3000202@resist.ca> Kunstler is a rank, dyed in the wool Zionist. Anyone who has shown such a paucity of being able to read or comprehend basic facts-- never mind humanity-- deserves to never be read again. This creepy racist shitbag is not worth our time. Bill Totten wrote: > Clusterfuck Nation > > by Jim Kunstler > > Comment on current events by the author of > The Long Emergency (2005) > > www.kunstler.com (February 09 2009) > > > Venturing out each day into this land of strip malls, freeways, office > parks, and McHousing pods, one can't help but be impressed at how > America looks the same as it did a few years ago, while seemingly > overnight we have become another country. All the old mechanisms that > enabled our way of life are broken, especially endless revolving credit, > at every level, from household to business to the banks to the US Treasury. > > Peak energy has combined with the diminishing returns of > over-investments in complexity to pull the "kill switch" on our vaunted > "way of life" - the set of arrangements that we won't apologize for or > negotiate. So, the big question before the nation is: do we try to > re-start the whole smoking, creaking hopeless, futureless machine? Or do > we start behaving differently? > > The attempted re-start of revolving debt consumerism is an exercise in > futility. We've reached the limit of being able to create additional > debt at any level without causing further damage, additional > distortions, and new perversities of economy (and of society, too). We > can't raise credit card ceilings for people with no ability make monthly > payments. We can't promote more mortgages for people with no income. We > can't crank up a home-building industry with our massive inventory of > unsold, and over-priced houses built in the wrong places. We can't ramp > back up the blue light special shopping fiesta. We can't return to the > heyday of Happy Motoring, no matter how many bridges we fix or how many > additional ring highways we build around our already-overblown and > over-sprawled metroplexes. Mostly, we can't return to the now-complete > "growth" cycle of "economic expansion". We're done with all that. > History is done with our doing that, for now. > > So far - after two weeks in office - the Obama team seems bent on a > campaign to sustain the unsustainable at all costs, to attempt to do all > the impossible things listed above. Mr Obama is not the only one, of > course, who is invoking the quest for renewed "growth". This is a tragic > error in collective thinking. What we really face is a comprehensive > contraction in our activities, especially the scale of our activities, > and the pressing need to readjust the systems of everyday life to a > level of decreased complexity. > > For instance, the myth that we can become "energy independent" and yet > remain car-dependent is absurd. In terms of liquid fuels, we're simply > trapped. We import two-thirds of the oil we use and there is absolutely > no chance that drill-drill-drilling (or any other scheme) will change > that. The public and our leaders can not face the reality of this. The > great wish for "alternative" liquid fuels (bio fuels, algae excreta) > will never be anything more than a wish at the scales required, and the > parallel wish to keep all our cars running by other means - hydrogen > fuel cells, electric motors - is equally idle and foolish. We cannot > face the mandate of reality, which is to do everything possible to make > our living places walkable, and connect them with public transit. The > stimulus bills in congress clearly illustrate our failure to understand > the situation. > > The attempt to restart "consumerism" will be equally disappointing. It > was a manifestation of the short peak energy decades of history, and now > that we're past peak energy, it's over. That seventy percent of the > economy is over, especially the part that allowed people to buy stuff > with no money. From now on people will have to buy stuff with money they > earn and save, and they will be buying a lot less stuff. For a while, a > lot of stuff will circulate through the yard sales and Craigslist, and > some resourceful people will get busy fixing broken stuff that still has > value. But the other infrastructure of shopping is toast, especially the > malls, the strip malls, the real estate investment trusts that own it > all, many of the banks that lent money to the REITs, the chain-stores > and chain eateries, of course, and, alas, the non-chain mom-and-pop > boutiques in these highway-oriented venues. > > Washington is evidently seized by panic right now. I don't know anyone > who works in the White House, but I must suppose that they have learned > in two weeks that these systems are absolutely tanking, that the > previous way of life that everybody was so set on not apologizing for > has reached the end of the line. We seem to be learning a new and > interesting lesson: that even a team that promises change is actually > petrified of too much change, especially change that they can't really > control. > > The argument about "change" during the election was sufficiently vague > that no one was really challenged to articulate a future that wasn't, > materially, more-of-the-same. I suppose the Obama team may have thought > they would only administer it differently than the Bush team - but > basically life in the USA would continue being about all those trips to > the mall, and the cubicle jobs to support that, and the family safaris > to visit Grandma in Lansing, and the vacations at Sea World, and > Skipper's $20,000 college loan, and Dad's yearly junket to Las Vegas, > and refinancing the house, and rolling over this loan and that loan ... > and that has all led to a very dead end in a dark place. > > If this nation wants to survive without an intense political convulsion, > there's a lot we can do, but none of it is being voiced in any corner of > Washington at this time. We have to get off of petro-agriculture and > grow our food locally, at a smaller scale, with more people working on > it and fewer machines. This is an enormous project, which implies change > in everything from property allocation to farming methods to new social > relations. But if we don't focus on it right away, a lot of Americans > will end up starving, and rather soon. We have to rebuild the railroad > system in the US, and electrify it, and make it every bit as good as the > system we once had that was the envy of the world. If we don't get > started on this right away, we're screwed. We will have tremendous > trouble moving people and goods around this continent-sized nation. We > have to reactivate our small towns and cities because the metroplexes > are going to fail at their current scale of operation. We have to > prepare for manufacturing at a much smaller (and local) scale than the > scale represented by General Motors. > > The political theater of the moment in Washington is not focused on any > of this, but on the illusion that we can find new ways of keeping the > old ways going. Many observers have noted lately how passive the > American public is in the face of their dreadful accelerating losses. > It's a tragic mistake to tell them that they can have it all back again. > We'll see a striking illustration of "phase change" as the public mood > goes from cow-like incomprehension to grizzly bear-like rage. Not only > will they discover the impossibility of getting back to where they were, > but they will see the panicked actions of Washington drive what remains > of our capital resources down a rat hole. > > A consensus is firming up on each side of the "stimulus" question, > largely along party lines - simply those who are for it and those who > are against it, mostly by degrees. Nobody in either party - including > supposed independents such as Bernie Sanders or John McCain, not to > mention President Obama - has a position for directing public resources > and effort at any of the things I mentioned above: future food security, > future travel-and-transport security, or the future security of livable, > walkable dwelling places based on local networks of economic > interdependency. This striking poverty of imagination may lead to change > that will tear the nation to pieces. > > _____ > > My new novel of the post-oil future, World Made By Hand, is available at > all booksellers. > > http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2009/02/poverty-of-imagination.html > > > TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click > on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this > essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > From fentona at shaw.ca Mon Feb 9 23:04:35 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 22:04:35 -0800 Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?Q=26A=3A_Energy_Independence=2C_Obama_and_?= =?windows-1252?q?Canada=92s_Oil_Sands?= Message-ID: <17175235-1393-48F5-9B68-7C6E5F96EBEA@shaw.ca> http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/qa-energy-independence-obama-and-canadas-oil-sands/ February 9, 2009, 6:29 am Q&A: Energy Independence, Obama and Canada?s Oil Sands By John Lorinc ?There are two perspectives on the oil sands,? the author Andrew Nikiforuk says. ?You have companies that want to make it the next Saudi Arabia. The other is that it?s a transitional resource to a low- carbon economy.? Andrew Nikiforuk, a journalist based in Calgary, has closely followed the development of northern Alberta?s massive deposits of bitumen ? a heavy black oil impregnating the sand and soil over hundreds of square miles northeast of Edmonton. The oil sands, or tar sands, as they are sometimes known, must undergo rigorous processing to extract useable oil ? an expensive and dirty undertaking that becomes more attractive to developers as oil prices climb, and less so as they fall. The province saw unprecedented growth at the oil sands over the last decade, but low global oil prices have now stalled Alberta?s bitumen boom. In his 2008 book, ?Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent,? Nikiforuk offers a scathing critique of what he calls the corporate greed and regulatory indifference that have attended development of Canada?s vast oil patch. Mr. Nikiforuk spoke with Green Inc. recently about how President Barack Obama, who has promised to pursue energy independence for the United States and who is expected to make a state visit to Canada later this month, might regard the tar sands. *** Do you expect the Obama administration to change in the way the oil sands are regarded as a continental resource? It?s not clear. George Bush and Dick Cheney saw the resource as a pillar of economic activity and energy security for the United States. But the tar sands have delivered neither security nor sustainability. How [President Obama] deals with the rapid development of the tar sands will pretty much indicate how serious he is about a switch to alternative and renewable energies. You talk about the oil sands as being a transitional resource to a low- carbon economy. Do you think there?s any recognition of this notion in the new administration? There is among people like Henry Waxman, chairman of the energy committee in the U.S. Congress. But, again there?s no indication the Obama administration gets this point. There are two perspectives on the oil sands. You have companies that want to make it the next Saudi Arabia. The other is that it?s a transitional resource to a low-carbon economy and to regard it as anything else is to drain the continent?s financial resources. What?s the impact of the current economy on the future development of the oil sands? The slowdown is quite phenomenal. We?re already looking at a withdrawal of anywhere from $50 to $100 billion in capital at the moment. It?s a fantastic opportunity for both the United States and Canada to reassess the world?s largest energy project. There?s been virtually no clear thinking about the project in Canada. It gives the United States also an opportunity to say, O.K., we?re already addicted to this resource to some degree. Much of the U.S. Midwest is already running on bitumen. Do we want to extend this addiction and at what cost? Or should we set other goals and say, one to two million barrels of oil a day from the tar sands is all we really need to make the transition? Do you think the move towards national and possibly continental cap- and-trade systems will further that goal? I?m not quite sure. Cap-and-trade has had a checkered career in Europe and it takes us away from the real focus, which is that maybe we shouldn?t be making these emissions in the first place. Maybe we should really be focusing on smart grids, electric cars and a whole new approach to doing things. The problem with cap-and-trade and programs such as carbon capture and storage is that they all assume that business as usual can continue. The financial meltdown and peak oil has pretty much demonstrated that business as usual?s not going to work. From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Feb 10 09:56:46 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:56:46 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Mohamed Elmasry: The Islamophobia machine is a new growth industry Message-ID: <2B82D6CC-F8DF-43BA-8F78-88946CF59A14@shaw.ca> http://www.straight.com/article-200522/mohamed-elmasry-islamophobia-machine-new-growth-industry Mohamed Elmasry: The Islamophobia machine is a new growth industry By Mohamed Elmasry Just as some Jews betrayed their coreligionists by aiding the Nazi propaganda machine before and during WWII, today there are Muslims just as eagerly and effectively helping the Islamophobia industry to stereotype and marginalize their brothers and sisters of the faith. These Muslims are very much appreciated and celebrated by those who stand to benefit from the promotion of Islamophobia; in fact, they are in such demand that the hate-and-fear industry can?t find enough of them. Islamophobia has been around for quite some time, but since 9/11 it began to take on form and structure, supported by financiers, researchers, writers, and academics, many of whom were self-styled ?experts? on Islam and terrorism. The Islamophobia industry directly filled a need created by right-wing politicians, war mongers, racists, lobbyists, and the military war business (from professional mercenary companies to arms dealers and manufacturers). Every time a perceived need is revealed in a capitalist society, an industry is created, sometimes by design, to fill that need. The West led by the U.S. saw and promoted the need for an Islamophobia industry; and now that it is established, it will be around for years to come. There are five central reasons for this phenomenon: 1. The Muslim world is rich in resources, especially crude oil, and the West is determined not to pay fair market value for it. Capitalist financial powers would rather rob Muslims and the entire Muslim world of this valuable resource, using violence if necessary, as in the case of Iraq. 2. In geopolitical terms, the Muslim world covers a strategically vital area, in which the West is determined to establish a permanent presence; military occupation is one favoured means of doing so, as in the case of Afghanistan. 3. The Muslim world represents a huge market of close to 1.5 billion people, whose buying power is essential if the West is to succeed in controlling the one-way flow of its goods?no matter how inferior they may be, compared to those of emerging economies in Asia and the flow of accumulated Muslim capital the other way. 4. The Israeli factor wields a persistently strong influence in western politics, especially the powerful American Israeli lobby in Washington. The U.S. and its allies are determined to maintain Israel as a strong military outpost in the Middle East and ensure that its anti-Muslim policies are immune from any negative judgment; hence the Israel-can-do-no-wrong bias. 5. The U.S.-led ?war on terror?, plus the politicization of all terrorist attacks dating from 9/11 and later, translates in practical terms to a need for Islamophobes and other organizations to work together in both the public and private sphere. This has led to the enactment of anti-civil-liberty laws, Muslim profiling by authorities, the restriction of Muslim immigration to the West, and the further marginalization of Muslim minorities already established in western society. Like other corporate entities, the Islamophobia industry has been very active in creating a public ?branding? for its product and a new lingo or jargon to identify its artificially created place in our language. Thanks to the Islamophobia industry, terms like Islamist, Islamofascism, and Eurabia are commonplace. In the past, Islamist was used within academia to legitimately identify specialists in Islam, just as the word Orientalist indicated someone specializing in the study of the Orient. But Islamophobes have mis-appropriated the term Islamist as a shorthand indicator of every imaginable negative idea pertaining to Muslims and Islam. The term Islamofascism became familiar after the September 2001 attacks as a way to describe any ideology based on Islam, even if it had no connection whatsoever to negative constructs. The American group FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) found in its search of a major reference database that Islamofascism was mentioned just twice before 9/11; both times in the British media. In 1990, a remark by Independent writer Malise Ruthven about governments in predominantly Islamic countries stated: ?Authoritarian government, not to say ?Islamo-fascism,? is the rule rather than the exception from Morocco to Pakistan.? Ironically, considering the term?s current usage, most of these authoritarian governments?including Morocco and Pakistan?were backed by the U.S. at the time. The second mention, also from the Independent in 1990, came in a response criticizing Ruthven for coining the term. Reviewing the term?s subsequent history, however, FAIR reports that: ?Since 2001, use of the expression has exploded. That year, according to a search of major English-language papers in the Nexis database, the word and its variant ?Islamofascist? appeared 12 times, nearly all in reference to Al-Qaeda. The next year that number rose to 69, and it reached 92 in 2003 as the word?s definition began expanding to include Saddam Hussein?s historically non-religious and somewhat ecumenical Ba?athist regime. (As an example, Tariq Aziz, Hussein?s familiar spokesperson, was a Christian.) ?The word?s prevalence continued to increase in 2005,? FAIR continues, ?the year George W. Bush used it in a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy (10/6/05); and in 2006 it appeared 594 times in major papers. David Horowitz?s ?Islamofascism Awareness Week? (IFAW)? organized on about a hundred (American) college campuses in October 2007?was a sign that the term had fully arrived in some right-wing circles...? The word Eurabia is another volatile word, coined to create a growing fear that every good thing in Europe (culture, economy, ethnic identity, et cetera) will end as its Muslim population increases. The term motivates violence against Europe?s Muslim minorities. Meanwhile, American Islamophobes are using it to promote the idea that ?you have to deal with the problem before it comes here?. FAIR also reported that ?At Michigan State University, the campus chapter of Young Americans for Freedom invited a bona fide fascist? Nick Griffin, the head of the racist British National Party?to speak on how Europe is becoming ?Eurabia?.? These days, it seems any writer?including those who have never achieved much in the way of popularity, profile or status?can get a book, op-ed, article, or editorial letter easily published through the influence of the Islamophobia industry in western publishing and media. Books on such a ?hot? topic as the Islamic/Muslim ?threat? are sure to be widely reviewed from coast to coast, regardless of their accuracy or quality. Mohamed Elmasry is professor emeritus of computer engineering at the University of Waterloo, founder of the Canadian Islamic Congress, and member of the editorial board of The Canadian Charger. From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Feb 10 10:15:25 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:15:25 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Petraeus Leaked Misleading Story on Pullout Plans Message-ID: POLITICS-US: Petraeus Leaked Misleading Story on Pullout Plans Analysis by Gareth Porter* http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45720 WASHINGTON, Feb 9 (IPS) - The political maneuvering between President Barack Obama and his top field commanders over withdrawal from Iraq has taken a sudden new turn with the leak by CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus - and a firm denial by a White House official - of an account of the Jan. 21 White House meeting suggesting that Obama had requested three different combat troop withdrawal plans with their respective associated risks, including one of 23 months. The Petraeus account, reported by McClatchy newspapers Feb. 5 and then by the Associated Press the following day, appears to indicate that Obama is moving away from the 16-month plan he had vowed during the campaign to implement if elected. But on closer examination, it doesn't necessarily refer to any action by Obama or to anything that happened at the Jan. 21 meeting. The real story of the leak by Petraeus is that the most powerful figure in the U.S. military has tried to shape the media coverage of Obama and combat troop withdrawal from Iraq to advance his policy agenda - and, very likely, his personal political interests as well. This writer became aware of Petraeus's effort to influence the coverage of Obama's unfolding policy on troop withdrawal when a military source close to the general, who insisted on anonymity, offered the Petraeus account on Feb. 4. The military officer was responding to the IPS story 'Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision' published two days earlier [link below]. The story reported that Obama had rejected Petraeus's argument against a 16-month withdrawal option at the meeting and asked for a withdrawal plan within that time frame, and that Petraeus had been unhappy with the outcome of the meeting. It also reported that Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and retired Army general Jack Keane, a close ally of Petraeus, had both made public statements indicating a determination to get Obama to abandon the 16-month plan. The officer told IPS that, contrary to the story, Petraeus had been "very pleased" with the direction of the discussions. He said that there had been no decision by Obama at the meeting and no indication that Obama had a preference for one option over another. The military source provided the following carefully worded statement: "We were specifically asked to provide projections, assumptions and risks for the accomplishment of objectives associated with 16-, 19- and 23-month drawdown options." That was exactly the sentence published by McClatchy the following day, except that "specifically" was left out. The source also said Petraeus, Odierno and Ambassador Ryan Crocker had already reached a "unified assessment" on the three drawdown options and had forwarded them to the chain of command. But a White House official told IPS Monday that the Petraeus account was untrue. "The assessments of the three drawdown dates were not requested by the president," said the official, who insisted on not being identified because he had not been authorised to comment on the matter. "He never said, 'Give me three drawdown plans'." McClatchy's Nancy Youssef reported a similar account from aides to Obama. "Obama told his advisors shortly after taking office that he remained committed to the 16-month timeframe," Youssef wrote, "but asked them to present him with the pros and cons of that and other options, without specifying dates." That suggests that the only specific plan for which Obama requested an assessment of risks was the 16-month plan, but that he agreed to look at other plans as well. The sentence given to this writer as well as to McClatchy bore one obvious clue that the request for the assessments of three drawdown plans did not come from Obama: the sentence used the passive voice. It also failed to explicitly state that the request in question was made during the meeting with Obama. Petraeus did not respond to a request through the intermediary to say who requested the studies and whether they had been proposed by the military commanders themselves. McClatchy's Youssef also noted that it is "unclear who came up with the idea..." of the 19- and 23-month withdrawal plans. By implying that Obama had requested the three plans without saying so explicitly, the sentence leaked by Petraeus seems to have been calculated to create a misleading story. One of Petraeus's objectives appears to have been to counter any perception that he is seeking to undermine Obama on Iraq policy. Petraeus wishes to remain out of the spotlight in regard to any conflict regarding withdrawal over the Iraq issue. "He has been very careful to keep a very low profile," said the military officer close to Petraeus, "because this is a new administration." But the Petraeus leak also serves to promote the idea that Obama is moving away from his campaign pledge on a 16-month combat troop withdrawal, which has already been the dominant theme in news media coverage of the issue. That idea would also justify continued sniping by military officers at the Obama 16-month plan as too risky. In a new book, 'The Gamble', to be published Tuesday, Washington Post reporter Tom Ricks confirms an earlier report that in his initial encounter with Petraeus in Baghdad last July, Obama had made no effort to hide his sharp disagreement with the general's views. Obama interrupted a lecture by Petraeus, according to Ricks, and made it clear that, as president, he would need to take a broader strategic view of the issue than that of the commander in Iraq. Ricks, who interviewed Petraeus about the meeting, writes that Obama's remarks "likely insulted Petraeus, who justly prides himself on his ability to do just that..." That strongly implies that Petraeus expressed some irritation at Obama over the incident to Ricks. On top of the interest of Petraeus and other senior officers in keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for as long as possible, Petraeus has personal political interests at stake in the struggle over Iraq policy. He has been widely regarded as a possible Republican Presidential candidate in 2012. Petraeus evidently believed the White House was promoting a story that made him look like the loser at the Jan. 21 meeting. "I imagine the White House is not too happy that this information is out there," said the military source, referring to the Petraeus account he had provided to IPS. Obama is obviously treading warily in handling Petraeus. His concern about Petraeus's political ambitions may have been a factor in the decision to bring four-star Marine Corps Gen. James Jones in as his national security adviser. "I've been told by a couple of people that one of the reasons for Jones being chosen was to have him there as a four-star to counter Petraeus," says one Congressional source. *Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006. (END/2009) From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Feb 10 13:14:14 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:14:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Let Netanyahu win In-Reply-To: <1B539147B4DB44D28DEC39A0E93A1B76@twubby.com> Message-ID: <1799018743.1890591234296854113.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1061736.html w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 05/02/2009 Let Netanyahu win By Gideon Levy Benjamin Netanyahu will apparently be Israel's next prime minister. There is, however, something encouraging about that fact. Netanyahu's election will free Israel from the burden of deception: If he can establish a right-wing government, the veil will be lifted and the nation's true face revealed to its citizens and the rest of the world, including Arab countries. Together with the world, we will see which direction we are facing and who we really are. The masquerade that has gone on for several years will finally come to an end. Netanyahu's election is likely to bring the curtain down on the great fraud - the best show in town - the lie of "negotiations" and the injustice of the "peace process." Israel consistently claimed these acts proved the nation was focused on peace and the end of the occupation. All the while, it did everything it could to further entrench the occupation and distance any chance of a potential agreement. For 16 years, we have been enamored with the peace process. We talk and talk, babble and prattle, and generally feel great about ourselves; meanwhile the settlements expand endlessly and Israel turns to the use of force at every possible opportunity, aside from a unilateral disengagement which did nothing to advance the cause of peace. With the election of a prime ministerial candidate who speaks of "economic peace," the naked truth will finally emerge. If, however, Tzipi Livni or Ehud Barak are elected, the self-delusion will simply continue. Livni herself is enamored with futile, useless and cowardly negotiations, and Barak has long abandoned the brave efforts he made in the past. The election of either will only perpetuate the vacuum. The world, including Washington, will breathe a sigh of relief that for once, Israel has elected a leadership that will pursue peace. But there is no chance of that happening. The record of each of these candidates, and the positions they have championed until now, proves that what has been will continue to be. Livni and Barak will rush to every photo opportunity with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan. The Americans and Europeans will be pleased, but nothing will come out of it other than the sowing of a few more illusions. We will move from war to war, uprising to uprising, settlement to settlement, and the world will continue to delude itself into thinking an agreement is within reach. Hamas will grow stronger, Abbas weaker and the last chance for peace will be irretrievably lost. Netanyahu would offer something else. First, he is a faithful representative of an authentic "Israeli" view - an almost complete distrust of Arabs and the chance of reaching peace with them, mixed with condescension and dehumanization. Second, he will finally arouse the world's rage towards us, including that of the new U.S. administration. Sadly, this may be the only chance for the kind of dramatic change that is needed. The Palestinian Authority, another mendacious facade, will finally collapse, and Israel will face the non-partner it has wanted and sought all these years. The world may not rush to embrace Netanyahu as it would the "moderates" - Livni or Barak, who have led Israel to more unnecessary wars than Netanyahu, the "extremist" - while the real difference between them is almost non-existent. Lifting the veil will lead to a crisis situation, which unfortunately is the only one that can bring about change. We must hope that both Kadima and Labor do not join a Netanyahu government (regrettably, another futile hope), as Israel's exposure will then be that much starker. A government composed of Netanyahu, Shas and Avigdor Lieberman will not, of course, have to deal with an opposition of Netanyahu, Shas and Avigdor Lieberman, and may therefore behave differently once in power than one might expect. Have we mentioned Menachem Begin? But even if Netanyahu is the same old Netanyahu, this will be an opportunity to place the right's policies under the microscope. Let's see him stand before Barack Obama and speak of the grotesque idea of "economic peace," or wage foreign or security policies according to his stated positions. Let's see him answer just what exactly his vision is for 20 to 30 years down the road. In due course, his anticipated failure may just hasten an alternative route, on condition that Kadima and Labor do not join the government and bring us another year of fraud. The lemons may yet yield lemonade - maybe the establishment of a right-wing government will remove all of the masks for good. The alternative, known and expected by all, is far more ambiguous, dangerous and threatening. So let Netanyahu win. There is no alternative at this point anyway. From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Feb 10 13:15:17 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:15:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Irish trade unionists launch boycott of Israeli goods In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2044690176.1891291234296917241.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/trade-unionists-launch-boycott-of-israeli-goods-14181932.html Belfast Telegraph ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? February 10, 2009 Trade unionists launch boycott of Israeli goods Trade unionists are to launch a boycott of Israeli goods as part of a major campaign to secure a peaceful settlement in the Middle East, Stormont heard today. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) launched a report on Israel and Palestine compiled by senior members who visited the troubled region. As controversy continues to rage over the death toll in Gaza caused by the recent Israeli military attacks, trade union leaders announced they are to hold a major conference this year to act as a springboard for their campaign. While the DUP [ Ian Paisley's Democratic Unionist Party ] dismissed the report as unbalanced and urged unions to concentrate on local economic issues, Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams who hosted the report's launch in Stormont's Long Gallery commended the trade unionists. ICTU President Patricia McKeown led the Middle East visit that involved 11 senior members of the umbrella group representing trade unions across Ireland, including 36 trade unions with 250,948 members in Northern Ireland. The delegation met Israeli trade unionists and politicians, plus Hamas political leaders, but said they were shocked by the conditions they found in Palestinian areas. "I was profoundly shocked by what we found," said Ms McKeown. "I didn't expect the denial of human rights and the discrimination to be so evident and to be an obvious part of daily life. "To see unemployment on the West Bank rising to 80%, to see people having to get up at three in the morning, and virtually sleep outside the the army controlled crossings in order to get into work - that's something we didn't expect to see." The ICTU trip took place more than a year ago, but its campaign will move up a gear this year with a major conference to highlight the Palestinian/Israeli situation, while research on a boycott of Israeli goods to press for a settlement will also be finalised. The ICTU delegates urged an end to rocket attacks on Israel during their a face-to-face meeting with Hamas politicians. But Ms McKeown said her colleagues were deeply shocked by the conditions they saw in the Palestinian areas they visited and felt compelled to push for international action, with talks already under way with trade unions in Britain and the United States. But she said she was angry the debate split along unionist/nationalist lines in Northern Ireland. "Nelson Mandela described this as the most important problem on this planet," she said. "To come back and find out that this is the way in which it is treated in certain quarters... I put that down to a couple of things, an absence of knowledge... but it is also, in some quarters, extreme fundamentalism responding to extreme fundamentalism." Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams told today's event: "Since the visit by the ICTU delegation, Gaza has been the target of an all-out military assault by Israeli forces. Over 1,300 people were killed, many of them children. "Unless the international community and that includes the Irish government, the British government, the EU and the US government exercises its considerable influence and authority, any relaxation of the current assault on Gaza will only bring a short respite for citizens there." He said a sustained international effort was needed to secure a durable settlement and added: "If the conflict here taught us anything, that is that no conflict is intractable. There are solutions." The ICTU praised Ulster Unionist Fred Cobain for providing the necessary cross-party support to host the event in Stormont and the trade unionists insisted an open debate on the Middle East was vital. But the DUP's Robin Newton said the ICTU report was unbalanced and he warned sanctions would hurt innocent Israelis and Palestinians. "I can only wonder about the attitude of the ordinary member of a trade union who witnesses the senior members of their union traipsing around the Middle East delving into complex problems when the employees of local firms are facing redundancy, cutbacks or at least very challenging times," he said. Mr Newton said: "The report takes no cognisance of the difficulties of Israeli men women and children, the daily deadly Hamas rockets launched into homes, shops and schools, the many suicide bombers and the need for innocent Israeli families to enjoy peace and security. "ICTU would be better concentrating their efforts on behalf of the local TU members rather than delving into complicated international relationships that have perplexed the best minds in the UN, USA and Europe." The ICTU said it was in favour of a just settlement of the conflict, but Ms McKeown said it was a fact that Palestinians endured very difficult living conditions and needed the support of the outside world. The SDLP's Carmel Hanna told today's event that the experience of the Troubles should inspire support for peace in the Middle East. "We have learned from the conflict here that violence does not work and creates bitterness," she said. From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Feb 10 13:17:56 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:17:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Obama's Iranian Overture Might Complicate Relations With Israel In-Reply-To: <00AC24D9DA5F4E86963427B822EC3768@twubby.com> Message-ID: <1800015088.1892621234297076476.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/us/politics/11web-sanger-in-was-14-48.html New York Times ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????? February 10, 2009 On Washington Iranian Overture Might Complicate Relations With Israel By DAVID E. SANGER When President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran took up President Obama ?s oft-repeated invitation for direct talks between the United States and Iran ? something that hasn?t happened in 30 years ? he seemed to be signaling the start of a long-delayed war-or-peace drama that may define the Obama administration?s first engagement with the rest of the world. It was only three weeks ago today, in his inaugural address, that Mr. Obama promised a new relationship with nations willing to ?unclench their fist,? an offer he repeated at his news conference on Monday evening. And it is too early to know quite how to read Mr. Ahmadinejad?s declaration that ?Our nation is ready to hold talks based on mutual respect and in a fair atmosphere.? After all, it?s never exactly clear who is running the country?s foreign policy, and there is good reason to question whether the fiery Iranian president will overcome his mismanagement of the country?s economy to survive the June 12 elections there. But there is no question a new dynamic is afoot, one that seems likely to become even more complicated after today?s election in Israel is settled. If the government that emerges is even more determined to end the Iranian nuclear program by any means necessary, Mr. Obama may find himself trying to negotiate with one of America?s most determined adversaries while restraining one of its closest allies. ?I could draw you a scenario in which this new combination of players leads to the first real talks with Iran in three decades,? one of the key players on the issue for President Obama said last week, declining to speak on the record because the new administration has not even named its team, much less its strategy. ?And I could draw you one in which the first big foreign crisis of the Obama presidency is a really nasty confrontation, either because the Israelis strike or because we won?t let them.? In public, Mr. Obama is talking only about the first scenario. On Monday evening, he talked about ?looking for areas where we can have constructive dialogue, where we can engage directly with them,? and said he was looking for ?diplomatic overtures.? But he cautioned that ?there?s been a lot of mistrust built up over the years,? and that after thirty years of a deep freeze, openings are ?not going to happen overnight.? To protect his right flank, Mr. Obama quickly added the caveat that Iran should know that ?we find the funding of terrorist organizations unacceptable? and that ?a nuclear Iran could set off a nuclear arms race in the region that would be profoundly destabilizing.? But curiously, he did not repeat the warning he made repeatedly during the campaign that he would never allow Iran to obtain a weapon, or even the nuclear fuel and capability to build one. It took only a few hours for Mr. Ahmadinejad, during the 30th anniversary of the Iranian revolution, to respond, even using similar language about the need for mutual respect. Whether this comes to anything, or founders on the question of Iran?s race to enrich more uranium even while the two presidents circle each other, is anyone?s guess. But it is bound to make the new government in Israel nervous, and as we have already learned, the clock in Jerusalem is ticking a lot faster on the Iranian nuclear problem than it is in Washington. As the Times reported last month, a little less than a year ago the Israeli government came to President Bush seeking the bunker-busting bombs, the refueling capability and the overflight rights over Iraq to take out Iran?s main nuclear enrichment plant, at Natanz. President Bush ? the man who elevated preemption to a ?doctrine? and who declared he would never, ever allow Iran to develop the capability to build a nuclear weapon ? turned the Israelis down. Mr. Bush told Prime Minister Ehud Olmert , now in his last days in office, to wait. A new, American covert effort to disable the Natanz facility, Mr. Bush said, needed time to work. Reluctantly, the Israelis agreed, and when the Bush administration disbanded last month, it was still unclear whether Mr. Olmert had really intended to go ahead with the attack or was just bluffing in an effort to force the United States to deal with the problem. Now comes the replay, this time with some new players. Over the weekend Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. offered up the warning that Mr. Obama sidestepped on Monday night: If Iran stays on its current course, sanctions will intensify. The subtext of the Israeli election has been even clearer: To various degrees, all the candidates have made clear they plan to take on not only Hamas , but its Iranian sponsors. And in Iran itself, the June 12 race for the presidency has been energized by the announcement over the weekend by former president Mohammad Khatami , the reformist who never garnered the power or the will to implement much reform, that he wants his old job back. Presumably that?s a relief to Washington, which desperately wants to see President Ahmadinejad sent to an early and permanent retirement, and with him Iran?s proclamations about Israel?s eventual destruction and America?s inevitable decline. But it was under Mr. Khatami the reformer, of course, that the expansion of Iran?s nuclear ambitions blossomed. If the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran?s nuclear ambitions is correct, the push to develop a weapons design (and the suspension of that effort in 2003) all happened on his watch. Iran?s contention is that its nuclear program is solely for energy production, but many Western countries, the United States and Israel included, say the program is just a cover for attempts to build a bomb. Mr. Obama?s task over the next few months will be to demonstrate that he can simultaneously make progress with the Iranians and buy a little time from the Israelis. That will require some hard decisions, first among them whether the United States will stick to its insistence that the entire nuclear infrastructure in Iran, down to the last centrifuge, must be dismantled. It?s almost inconceivable, some of Mr. Obama?s aides acknowledge, that the Iranians will be willing to give up everything needed to produce a weapon. And it is hard to imagine that the Israelis will settle for anything less. From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Feb 10 13:18:29 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:18:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Obama dodges reporter's question about Israel's nuclear weapons In-Reply-To: <416919F85FA64E5088CDD01E99AAF8DE@twubby.com> Message-ID: <1025653521.1892981234297109945.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/02/obamas_first_white_house_press.html Obama dodges reporter?s question about Israel?s nuclear weapons Excerpt from Barack Obama?s first press conference: HELEN THOMAS: Mr. President, do you think that Pakistan are maintaining the safe havens in Afghanistan for these so-called terrorists? And also, do you know of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons? THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that Pakistan -- there is no doubt that in the FATA region of Pakistan, in the mountainous regions along the border of Afghanistan, that there are safe havens where terrorists are operating. And one of the goals of Ambassador Holbrooke, as he is traveling throughout the region, is to deliver a message to Pakistan that they are endangered as much as we are by the continuation of those operations. And that we've got to work in a regional fashion to root out those safe havens. It's not acceptable for Pakistan or for us to have folks who, with impunity, will kill innocent men, women and children. I believe that the new government of Pakistan and Mr. Zardari cares deeply about getting control of this situation. We want to be effective partners with them on that issue. From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Feb 10 13:31:08 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:31:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Pakistan heads toward crisis as coalition flounders In-Reply-To: <912804644.1435601234225499044.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <201082077.1898411234297868702.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Globe and Mail ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? February 7, 2009 GOVERNMENT INSTABILITY Pakistan heads toward crisis as coalition flounders U.S. looks on with alarm as key Western ally's inability to deal with jihadist menace threatens to destabilize region SAEED SHAH Special to The Globe and Mail Islamabad -- Almost a year after elections were held in Pakistan, which restored democracy after more than eight years of military rule, growing Islamist violence, a crisis of governance and an economy in a tailspin threatens this key Western ally with collapse. The new U.S. administration of President Barack Obama has made Pakistan one of its foreign policy priorities. Aides say that the U.S. President is "scared" by what he sees in Pakistan, a country that is crucial to meeting his goals of stabilizing Afghanistan and routing al-Qaeda. Next week, Richard Holbrooke, the special envoy just appointed to handle Afghanistan and Pakistan, arrives in Islamabad on a fact-finding mission, which is expected to be followed by swift action by Washington. Critics say the Pakistani government is gripped with paralysis, as patronage, not policy, occupies Islamabad under President Asif Zardari. Some see echoes of the last period of civilian rule in Pakistan, between 1988 and 1999, when a series of floundering governments were repeatedly toppled by the army amid allegations of massive corruption and misrule. Already the military and civilians are privately blaming each other for inaction as jihadists push ever deeper into the country from the northwest, with a de facto extremist mini-state now existing in Swat, a valley just 160 kilometres from the capital, Islamabad. Along the border with Afghanistan, Taliban and al-Qaeda enjoy a safe haven, undermining the international coalition's fight against insurgents in Afghanistan. "The civilian leadership is weak and fearful of the inevitable in Pakistan, that it oversteps the mark and runs the risk of being removed [by the army]," said Rashed Rahman, a political analyst based in Lahore. "It is a non-functional government. There is no legislative program. Parliament was always a talking shop in Pakistan but they have taken it to new heights." A coalition central government led by Mr. Zardari's Pakistan People's Party is made up of an unwieldy 70 ministers from four different political parties - ranging from the secular to reputed Taliban sympathizers. But power is said to rest with the President, leading to a logjam. Critics say it is simply too much work for one man. Mr. Zardari's government enjoyed no honeymoon period. In a poll taken last October by the International Republican Institute, a U.S. pro-democracy group [sic], just 21 per cent of people responded positively to the government, while Mr. Zardari's personal approval rating was a paltry 19 per cent. Since October, conditions in the country have sharply deteriorated by most measures. The violence seems to mount every week. On Thursday, a bombing of a Shia religious procession in the central town of Dera Ghazi Khan, in Punjab province, claimed at least 27 lives - the Taliban and al-Qaeda belong to the majority Sunni sect of Islam. Yesterday, attacks by government helicopter gunships killed 52 militants in the Khyber area of the tribal borderland with Afghanistan, the army said. There is little doubt about Mr. Zardari's personal commitment to fighting terrorism, which claimed the life of his wife, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, in 2007. In a speech in Peshawar yesterday, he pledged to "finish off this cancer or it will dictate to us." But the government has been unable to forge a political consensus on the campaign against terrorism, with opinion deeply divided - even within the ruling coalition - between those political parties who favour military action against the extremists and those who want to negotiate with them. As a result, no clear direction has been given to the army by the government. "The civilian government just doesn't have enough capacity, especially in security issues," said a retired general with experience of dealing with the government, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject. "When there's a vacuum like that, it has to be filled, and who else is there but the army?" Worse, there are many in Pakistan, including members of parliament, who question the army's commitment to fighting the extremists, pointing to its apparent helplessness against the insurgency in Swat and its inconsistent actions elsewhere - the military is fighting Taliban in one part of the tribal area, Bajaur, but there are no active military operations in other parts, including Waziristan, the base for the Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaeda. "There is this notion that the Taliban can be an ally," said Hasan Askari Rizvi, author of the book Military, State and Society in Pakistan . "It's a question of Pakistan's identity: Was it created for Islam? This kind of confusion is a threat to Pakistan's existence as a nation state." The army insists that, after the terrorist attacks in the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, it abandoned a policy that had seen it openly patronize the Afghan Taliban and Pakistan-based jihadist groups. The problem, the army says, is a lack of manpower to fight on so many fronts - the border with traditional enemy India to the east is given priority even before the militancy-plagued tribal area on western frontier in Afghanistan - and a lack of key military hardware, including night-fighting equipment. It is unclear whether Pakistani politics is heading toward its familiar meltdown or whether civilian rule is just taking time to establish itself. "We have been through a very long military dictatorship. Transitions take time," said Afrasiab Khattak, a senior member of the Awami National Party, part of the Islamabad government. "Democracy is a messy, noisy business." From shniad at sfu.ca Tue Feb 10 13:32:06 2009 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:32:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Associated Press CEO: Bush Turned Military Into Propaganda Machine In-Reply-To: <1532406504.1422241234223695547.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> Message-ID: <1277654074.1898781234297926076.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/06/ap-ceo-bush-turned-milita_n_164812.html Huffington Post ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????? February 6, 2009 AP CEO: Bush Turned Military Into Propaganda Machine Does America need to resort to al-Qaida tactics? Should the U.S. government be running Web sites that appear to be independent news organizations? Should the military be planting stories in foreign newspapers? Should the United States be trying to influence public opinion through subterfuge, both here and abroad? ??????????? ? Questions posed by Associated Press chief executive Tom Curley Lawrence, Kan. ? The Bush administration turned the U.S. military into a global propaganda machine while imposing tough restrictions on journalists seeking to give the public truthful reports about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Associated Press chief executive Tom Curley said Friday . Curley, speaking to journalists at the University of Kansas, said the news industry must immediately negotiate a new set of rules for covering war because "we are the only force out there to keep the government in check and to hold it accountable." Much like in Vietnam, "civilian policymakers and soldiers alike have cracked down on independent reporting from the battlefield" when the news has been unflattering, Curley said. "Top commanders have told me that if I stood and the AP stood by its journalistic principles, the AP and I would be ruined." Curley said in a brief interview that he didn't take the commanders' words as a threat but as "an expression of anger." Late in 2007, Curley wrote an editorial about the detention of AP photographer Bilal Hussein, held by the military for more than two years. Eleven of AP's journalists have been detained in Iraq for more than 24 hours since 2003. Last year, according to cases AP is tracking, news organizations had eight employees detained for more than 48 hours. AP, the world's largest newsgathering operation, is a not-for-profit cooperative that began in 1846 to communicate news from the Mexican War. Curley has been the company's president and CEO since 2003. Before his speech, Curley met for about a half-hour with Lt. Gen. William Caldwell IV, a former spokesman for the U.S. military in Iraq. Caldwell is commander at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., where military doctrines are drafted and a staff college trains both American and foreign officers. "It's important for us to be very transparent," Caldwell said during an interview after Curley's speech. "If we do those things, ultimately, we're both trying to do the same thing." Curley came to the University of Kansas to receive this year's national citation for journalistic excellence from the William Allen White Foundation. Curley also won national awards in 2007 and 2008 for his work on First Amendment and open records issues. Answering questions from his audience of about 160 people, Curley said AP remains concerned about journalists' detentions. He said most appear to occur when someone else, often a competitor, "trashes" the journalist. "There is a procedure that takes place which sounds an awful lot like torture to us," Curley said. "If people agree to trash other people, they are freed. If they don't immediately agree to trash other people, they are kept for some period of time ? two or three weeks ? and they are put through additional questioning." His remarks came a day after an AP investigation disclosed that the Pentagon is spending at least $4.7 billion this year on "influence operations" and has more than 27,000 employees devoted to such activities. At the same time, Curley said, the military has grown more aggressive in withholding information and hindering reporters. Curley said a military program to embed reporters with battlefield units in Iraq was successful in 2003, the war's first year. But afterward, the military expanded its rules from one to four pages, and Curley said they're now so vague, a journalist can be expelled on a whim if a commander doesn't like what's being reported. "Americans understand hardships and setbacks," he said. "They expect honest answers about what's happening to their sons and daughters." Caldwell now requires officers who attend Fort Leavenworth's staff college to blog and "engage" the media. "Not only when it's good stuff, but when it's challenging," Caldwell said. Curley acknowledged that upon taking office, President Barack Obama rolled back many of the policies instituted by George W. Bush. But he said when the Pentagon faces difficulties again ? perhaps in Afghanistan, with the new administration's focus on it ? experience has shown, "the military gets tough on the journalists." "So now is the time to re-negotiate the rules of engagement between the military and the media," he said. "Now is the time to insist that the First Amendment does apply to the battlefield." He added: "Now is the time to resist the propaganda the Pentagon produces and live up to our obligation to question authority and thereby help protect our democracy." Curley said examining the Defense Department's spending on its public relations efforts and psychological operations is difficult because many of the budgets are classified. He said the Pentagon has kept secret some information that used to be available to the public, and its public affairs officers at the Pentagon gather intelligence on reporters' work rather than serve as sources. Curley traced the propaganda efforts to former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He cited a 2003 operations "road map" signed by Rumsfeld, declaring that psychological operations had been neglected for too long. Curley also noted that the current secretary, Robert Gates, has defended such efforts, including in a speech at Kansas State University in 2007. "But does America need to resort to al-Qaida tactics?" Curley said. "Should the U.S. government be running Web sites that appear to be independent news organizations?" Should the military be planting stories in foreign newspapers? Should the United States b