Rants II

Transferred from the Society & Ecology blog... [April 21, 2004]

I realize that this blog is turning more and more into rants about the abysmal state of the US, and although well deserved, I want to consolidate the rants and attempt more entries on positive solutions. These not only show some of the ways out, but focusing on solutions is a more effective way of changing the situation. They open up for partnerships rather than confrontation, and give hope.

First, here are some recent rants consolidated (note that these are relatively one-sided...!):


The Crumbling of the US Empire [April 18, 2004]

There is no doubt that the US empire will fall, after all - everything is transient. The only question is when. And it may come much sooner than many expect, as Johan Galtung outlines in the essay below.

This does not mean that the US republic disintegrates, only that the empire will crumble. Most likely through a combination of over-extension (militarily, economically), alienating allies, not taking care of domestic issues (gap between rich and poor etc), and an ill/mis-informed population (which is not good in a democracy).

Some of the signs I am aware of:

- The feedback loops that any society is dependent upon to make course corrections and decisions are severely impaired. This is mainly due to corporate media which is highly selective in which stories they report on, and which angles they take.
- Multinational corporations control both US media and politicians. This means that the public conversation (to the extent it exists) and US policies are largely determined by corporationd and their narrow/short-term interests. The interests of regular people, and future generations, is overlooked. This erodes the long-term prosperity of the country.
- People in the US, largely due to the abysmal state of US media, are mostly not concerned with the serious issues (ecology, increasing gap between wealthy and poor within the US and in the world, lack of decent health care system, massive amounts of money to the military industry - and not enough to basics such as healthcare and education, etc.) but focus on the irrelevant, fleeting, and symptoms of deeper problems (mindless entertainment, terrorism, etc).

Essay by Johan Galtung


Another Element... [April 18, 2004]

Their beliefs are bonkers, but they are at the heart of power: US Christian fundamentalists are driving Bush's Middle East policy

To understand what is happening in the Middle East, you must first understand what is happening in Texas. To understand what is happening there, you should read the resolutions passed at the state's Republican party conventions last month.

[...] The motion they adopted stated that Israel has an undivided claim to Jerusalem and the West Bank, that Arab states should be "pressured" to absorb refugees from Palestine, and that Israel should do whatever it wishes in seeking to eliminate terrorism.

In the United States, several million people have succumbed to an extraordinary delusion. In the 19th century, two immigrant preachers cobbled together a series of unrelated passages from the Bible to create what appears to be a consistent narrative: Jesus will return to Earth when certain preconditions have been met. The first of these was the establishment of a state of Israel. The next involves Israel's occupation of the rest of its "biblical lands" (most of the Middle East), and the rebuilding of the Third Temple on the site now occupied by the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosques. The legions of the antichrist will then be deployed against Israel, and their war will lead to a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. The Jews will either burn or convert to Christianity, and the Messiah will return to Earth.

What makes the story so appealing to Christian fundamentalists is that before the big battle begins, all "true believers" (ie those who believe what they believe) will be lifted out of their clothes and wafted up to heaven during an event called the Rapture. Not only do the worthy get to sit at the right hand of God, but they will be able to watch, from the best seats, their political and religious opponents being devoured by boils, sores, locusts and frogs, during the seven years of Tribulation which follow.

[...] We can laugh at these people, but we should not dismiss them. That their beliefs are bonkers does not mean they are marginal. American pollsters believe that 15-18% of US voters belong to churches or movements which subscribe to these teachings. A survey in 1999 suggested that this figure included 33% of Republicans.

[...] And among them are some of the most powerful men in America. John Ashcroft, the attorney general, is a true believer, so are several prominent senators and the House majority leader, Tom DeLay. Mr DeLay [...] travelled to Israel last year to tell the Knesset that "there is no middle ground, no moderate position worth taking".

So here we have a major political constituency - representing much of the current president's core vote - in the most powerful nation on Earth, which is actively seeking to provoke a new world war. Its members see the invasion of Iraq as a warm-up act, as Revelation (9:14-15) maintains that four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates" will be released "to slay the third part of men". They batter down the doors of the White House as soon as its support for Israel wavers: when Bush asked Ariel Sharon to pull his tanks out of Jenin in 2002, he received 100,000 angry emails from Christian fundamentalists, and never mentioned the matter again.

The electoral calculation, crazy as it appears, works like this. Governments stand or fall on domestic issues. For 85% of the US electorate, the Middle East is a foreign issue, and therefore of secondary interest when they enter the polling booth. For 15% of the electorate, the Middle East is not just a domestic matter, it's a personal one: if the president fails to start a conflagration there, his core voters don't get to sit at the right hand of God. Bush, in other words, stands to lose fewer votes by encouraging Israeli aggression than he stands to lose by restraining it. He would be mad to listen to these people. He would also be mad not to.

[source: the Guardian]


History? [April 18, 2004]

It only takes a high school level knowledge of the history of Iraq to predict the problems we currently see in Iraq.

Britain invaded the area in the 1920s, and - in imperialist fashion - created a country made up of ethnic/religious/political groups that did not have much affection for each other.

The people in the region has little reason to approve of another occupation, as the post WW1 history clearly tells us and the more recent history reinforces.

To imagine a true democracy emerging in the foreseeable future also seems naive, for two interlocked reasons: There are too many different etnich and religious groups in the region, with conflicting interests. They do not have a tradition of democracy. A tradition that is essential for such diverse groups to successfully work together. It is also interesting to note that if a true democracy emerges in foreseeable future, it will almost certainly not be what the US wants...

Here is an exerpt from an entry I made in March 2003, prior to the invasion.

Invasion

It is likely that the invasion and occupation of Iraq will run into a number of problems. The main one may be a persistent guerilla warfare. The history of the Iraqi people gives them strong reasons for resenting and opposing an invasion and occupation by the US and the UK. Some examples: (a) Great Britain invaded Iraq during WW1 and occupied the country for several years. (b) The US supported and created Saddam Hussein and supported and encouraged the Iraq-Iran war where large numbers of Iraqis were killed. (c) The US was responsible for a large number of civilian causalities during the first Gulf War. (d) During the first Gulf War, they destroyed the infrastructure (including water treatment plants) which led to massive suffering among the civilian population. (e) George Bush the First encouraging a failed upraising against Saddam Hussein, which led to thousands of Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein's government. The US did nothing to help them. (f) The sanctions has lead to massive suffering among the Iraqi population, while Saddam Hussein and his government have not been harmed. (g) The current invasion and war is again bringing massive suffering to the civilian population. (h) They plan to dictate and control the creation of the new Iraqi government. To believe that the Iraqi population will welcome them with open arms is remarkably naive, and publicly expressing that assumption must be a willful deception or coming from a surprising lack of insight in human nature in general and the Iraqi history in particular. The Iraqis, no matter their view of Saddam Hussein, will most likely defend their country with any means available against what they see as an illegitimate invasion and occupation.

And two current articles:

The Last Iraqi Insurgency

[...] President Bush, too, seems to miss the point. "We're not an imperial power," he insisted in his press conference on Tuesday. Trouble is, what he is trying to do in Iraq — and what is going wrong — look uncannily familiar to anyone who knows some British imperial history. Iraq had the distinction of being one of our last and shortest-lived colonies. This isn't 'Nam II — it's a rerun of the British experience of compromised colonization.

[...] A revolt against colonial rule is not the same as a war. Vietnam was a war. Although the American presence grew gradually, it reached a peak of nearly half a million troops by the end of the 1960's [...] By comparison, there are just 134,000 American troops in Iraq today — almost as many men as the British had in Iraq in 1920. Then as now, the enemy consisted of undisciplined militias. There were no regular army forces helping them the way the North Vietnamese supported the Vietcong.

[...] What lessons can Americans learn from the revolt of 1920? The first is that this crisis was almost inevitable. The anti-British revolt began in May, six months after a referendum — in practice, a round of consultation with tribal leaders — on the country's future [...] In other words, neither consultation with Iraqis nor the promise of internationalization sufficed to avert an uprising.

[...] Then as now, the insurrection had religious origins and leaders, but it soon transcended the country's ancient ethnic and sectarian divisions. The first anti-British demonstrations were in the mosques of Baghdad. But the violence quickly spread to the Shiite holy city of Karbala, where British rule was denounced by Ayatollah Muhammad Taqi al-Shirazi — perhaps the historical counterpart of today's Shiite firebrand, Moktada al-Sadr. The revolt stretched as far north as the Kurdish city of Kirkuk and as far south as Samawah, where British forces were trapped.

[...] There is much, then, to learn from the events of 1920. Yet I'm pessimistic that any senior military commander in Iraq today knows much about it. Late last year, a top American commander in Europe assured me that United States forces would soon be reinforced by Turkish troops; he seemed puzzled when I pointed out that this was unlikely to play well in Baghdad, where there is little nostalgia for the days of Ottoman rule.

[source: ny times]


'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux

[...] As the historian Niall Ferguson points out in his new book, "Colossus: The Price of America's Empire," President Bush's promise to Iraqis of "a peaceful and representative government" in place of Saddam's brutal regime was an uncanny, if unconscious, replay of what the British commander who occupied Baghdad in 1917 told the people of what was then still Mesopotamia. "Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators," Gen. F. S. Maude said back then, expressing the desire that his forces would help the populace build their own governmental institutions.

Iraq did not, however, give birth to an indigenous form of self-government. The country was run instead by a Bremer-like civil commissioner, Sir Arnold Wilson, for three often violent years. He and his deputy, Mr. Ferguson writes, "drew up a scheme for a unitary Iraqi state with almost no local consultation, simply ignoring those who advised against yoking together Assyria and Babylonia, Sunni and Shia." Eventually a British-style constitutional monarchy was installed, leading to decades of tumult and coups. By the time the revolution of 1958 overthrew the monarchy, the Baath party and Saddam were lurking in the wings.

To revisit "Lawrence" and the history it dramatizes in embryo is to feel not only déjà vu but also a roaring anger at the American arrogance and ignorance that has led to the current nightmare. Condoleezza Rice's use of the word "historical" to describe the Aug. 6, 2001, presidential briefing on Osama bin Laden was not the only tipoff to her limited understanding of history. In the opening filibuster of her testimony, she invoked the Lusitania, Hitler's rise and Pearl Harbor as analogues of 9/11 — an asymmetrical comparison that blurs the distinctions between nations' acts of war and the stateless conspiracies of modern terrorists. Apparently the administration's understanding of British colonial history in the Middle East is no sharper.

[...] Yet much as we misread Iraqi culture, we also misrepresent our own to the Iraqis. It's Ayatollah al-Sistani, not the Americans, who champions direct elections. We turned Mr. al-Sadr from a simmering menace into a martyr by shutting down his incendiary newspaper, Al Hazwa. (And we did so at the same time that the Coalition Provisional Authority's official Web site was running a headline: "Gallup Poll: Baghdad Residents Overwhelmingly Desire Freedom of Speech, Press and Assembly.") The First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams, who supported the war in Iraq, wrote in Newsday: "Of all the messages the United States could send to the people of Iraq, the sorriest is this: if you say things we disapprove of, we'll shut you up." And it wasn't the first such instance. The coalition has previously shut down another newspaper, Al Mustaqilla, and for a while closed the Baghdad office of Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera's principal satellite competitor. As an antidote we offer our own version of a "free press" — a TV station called Al Iraqiya that is so in thrall to the powers that be that for months it held back on reporting insurgent attacks on American forces. It's Fox News without the whoosh.

[...] "Once liberators turn into pacifiers, they've lost," Mr. Holbrooke said last week when we talked about "Lawrence of Arabia." Or, as Juan R. Cole, a professor of history and Iraq specialist at the University of Michigan, has said, "A hated occupier is powerless even with all the firepower in the world." Since we cannot cut and run and since we don't have any idea who should get the keys, it's clear that we, like the British before us, are in occupancy in Iraq for the long haul, no matter who officially has "sovereignty" 74 days from now. This is "Lawrence of Arabia," the sequel, and you can be certain it will play on every channel.

[source: ny times]


Bush & Hitler [April 18, 2004]

It is not uncommon to see comments comparing Bush to Hitler in the international press.

It may seem inappropriate. But - although it is dismissed by many in the US - there are some disturbing parallels.

For one, Bush's rethoric ("defending freedom") and terminology ("homeland" etc) is very close to that of Hitler. And there are deeper parallels when it comes to strategy: Creating and enhancing an athmosphere of fear (allowing laws to pass that normally would not). Erosion of civil liberties (abandoning the process of law). Creating strong enemy images. Stating that they are on the side of God and Truth. Lack of nuances, a black-and-white perception of the world ("you are either with us or against us").

Twelve Warning Signs of Facisim
Bush-Hitler Parallels
When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History


Privatization [April 14, 2004]

The US, as we know, is the main promoter of privatization in the world. Not surprisingly, as privatization benefits multi-national corporations, and elected officials - especially on a national level - are dependent on their (financial and otherwise) support to be elected.

Privatization rarely benefits regular people. Communally owned (national or coops) operations have as their main purpose to serve the people, and use a big picture and long term perspective. If they don't fulfill this function optimally, that means that we must look into different - still communal - structures and processes.

Privately owned operations has as their primary function to increasing profits for their shareholders. They only need to serve people as long as it is in their own (short term) financial interest, which means that they can be selective in how and who they serve. Even if they are more efficient than communally owned operations (which is not a given), the savings - in this case profits - goes to the people on top and the shareholders. It does not serve the people.

One instructive example is privatized healthcare in the US. It has created a gap between those with access to health care, and the many who currently don't.

It is in the interest of insurance companies to insure only a segment (the healthy) of the population. They will deny health insurance to those who have (or have had) a serious illness, or those they consider at risk for illness. It means that only a segment of the popluation, largely the healthy and wealthy, receive adequate health services. It is a great setup for the health industry, and not such a good (sometimes deadly) situation for regular people.


Physical Correlations to Social Policy [April 11, 2004]

Poverty and poor diet mean the average US man is getting smaller, while Europeans keep growing taller.

Researchers have made a startling discovery: Americans are shrinking. A nation once famed for its strapping, well-nourished youth is gradually diminishing in physical stature.

By contrast, the heights of men and women from Europe are increasing inexorably. The average Dutchman, whose country produces the Continent's loftiest men, is now more than six feet tall - almost two inches above his American counterpart. And he is still growing.

[...] New research has shown some unexpected disparities between statures of Americans and Europeans, indicating that recent social changes and diet are major influences on adult height.

[...] This surprising reappraisal of American and European physiques is the work of researcher John Komlos of Munich University. 'Much of the difference is due to the great social inequality that now exists in the United States,' Komlos told The Observer last week. 'In Europe, there is - in most countries - good health service provision for most members of society and plenty of protein in most people's diets. As a result, children do not suffer illnesses that would blight their growth or suffer problems of malnutrition. For that reason, we have continued to grow and grow.'

On the other hand, America has eight million people with no job, 40 million individuals with no health insurance, 35 million living below the poverty line, and a population that exists mainly on junk food. There, the rise in average height that marked its progress as a nation through the 19th and 20th centuries has stopped and has actually reversed - albeit very slightly - in recent years.

[...] This discovery, which has been revealed through research that Komlos has assembled over decades, amounts to an assault on the values of the free market economy espoused by Americans and provides powerful support for those who back European ideas about universal healthcare.

[source - The Guardian]


Appearance [April 11, 2004]

Within and among people there is a wide diversity of maturity levels.

And, as everywhere else, there are many in the US who express what is well informed, humane and mature, and many who express the less informed, inhumane and immature.

Unfortunately, most people around the world mostly see the latter half.

When it comes to the US, international media reflects US media: Entertainment that is shallow and does not touch the deeply human. Domestic policies that often appears absurdly backwards (no public health care). International policies that seem ill informed and dangerous.

The former, humane sides, opens up for a sense of understanding and connection. The latter, the image the US currently projects, closes people off from sympathy and give raise to resentment.


Karma [April 9, 2004]

The approach of the US government, supported by a significant amount of people in the US, is one that expresses arrogance, self-righteousness, lack of understanding and knowledge, and disrespect for international democracy and individuals (ironically, since people in the US often pride themselves in their individualism...).

Their policies appear designed to alienate those who could be their allies. Most recently seen in their brutal and indiscriminatory responses to the (very predictable) resistance in Iraq. This in turn increases thew anger and resentment towards the US among regular Iraqis and others in the region. It fuels the cycle of violence and increasing polarization.


[...] Yet the disasters of the past week, the worst in political terms since President Bush decided to invade Iraq, are in large measure self-inflicted. The US suddenly found itself fighting a two-front war because it over-reacted to pressure, political and military, from important minority groups in the Sunni and Shia communities.

[...] the US responded to the killing of the four US contractors in Fallujah by sending in 1,200 Marines to launch a medieval siege, one in which they initially refused to allow ambulances in or out. If the Americans really believed they were being attacked by a tiny minority, Iraqis asked, why were they attacking a city of 300,000 people? The result has been to turn Fallujah into a nationalist and religious symbol for all Iraqis.

[...] For the first time the armed resistance is becoming truly popular in Baghdad. Previously Iraqis often approved of it as the only way to put pressure on the US. But they were also wary of the guerrillas, because of fear of religious fanaticism or connections with Saddam's deeply unpopular regime. But thanks to Fallujah, this has changed: Iraqi nationalism is back in business.

[...] Why did Mr Bremer play so easily into the hands of America's opponents? One answer probably is that hardline civilians in the Pentagon retain their control of the Coalition Provisional Authority, which they have staffed with fellow neo-conservatives who share their over-simplistic agendas for Iraq. The State Department still has little influence. [source - The Independent, UK]


Views [April 7, 2004]

It is interesting to note how the US government is consistently using what is referred to in international media as "wild west" rhetoric.

A rhetoric that is black and white (little or no room for nuances) and reflects a certain level of immaturity and lack of humanity. It is also interesting, and not surprising, that the US government does not acknwledge the understandable reasons for the resentment many around the world experience towards the US.

After all, the US does promote an agressive imperialist foreign policy (to broaden their cultural, economic and military influence) and most people around the world have good reasons to resist it. Their motivation is understandable and must be taken seriously by looking at the deeper systems changes neccesary to remove the causes behind the resentment.


Systems Changes [April 6, 2004]

There were two Democratic candidates who focused on the need for deeper systems change: Kusinich and Dean.

Neither won the primaries, and they could not.

Their policies went beyond the informal rules of US politics: focus on the symptoms, not the underlying causes. In addition, and tied to these informal rules, their views were too threathening to those benefiting by the current system (corporations and indirectly corporate media).


Bush [March 11, 2004]

As many cartoonists and others have picked up on, Bush Jr. appears weak. Someone who gives off the aura of lacking authority.

Could it be that this need to "prove himself" is one of the reasons for the excessively "masculine" policies (including engaging in wars). ..?


Still Surprised [March 5, 2004]

I am still surprised by the thought processes of the US media and the US public.

Among the recent ones is the tempest-in-a-teapot around gay marriage. It seems that this could be a very simple issue: Give anyone - gay or not - legal rights of partnership. And keep the marriage (which is a religious institution) strictly between the couples and their minister.

But, in typical fashion, it is made into another debate taking focus from far more serious issues.

It is also disturbing how the media shapes the presidential election process. They decided early on which Democratic candidates were "serious", "presidential" and "electable", typically based on questionable reasoning. Through their filter and selective focus, they then set up an inevitable self-fulfilling prophecy cycle.

And, not surprisingly, they helped eliminate those candidates who could create, or at least help focus on, real changes in the system (Kusinich and Dean).


Waking Up...? [March 5, 2004]

There is a large number of issues of far greater importance than terrorism, especially that from smaller groups around the world.

Among the main ones are the unravelling of our ecosystems (GMOs genes escaping, toxins in water, air and soil, loss of bioproductive ecosystems, etc) and the increasing gap among the wealthy and poor (and the wealthy using policies and smoke screens such as terrorism to maintain that trend).

Climate change is a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism, the UK Government's chief scientific adviser has said.

Sir David King said the US had failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

And without immediate action flooding, drought, hunger and debilitating diseases such as malaria would hit millions of people around the world.

[...] "If we do not begin now, more substantial, more disruptive, and more expensive change will be needed later on."

[source: BBC]


And a Pentagon scenario:

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents. [full story - The Guardian]


Bush and Science [Feburary 20, 2004]

Not surprisingly, the Bush administration is now shown to systematically distort science to fit their agenda. The examples are abundant.

In AIDS prevention, successful programs combine a wide range of approaches. The Bush administration use these multi-approach programs as "evidence" that "abstinence only" programs are most effective (!). The logging to "prevent forest fires" is another example. Nature does not need management, corporations does.

Although the Bush administration is hardly the first to politicize science, no other U.S. presidency in recent memory has so shamelessly distorted scientific findings for policy reasons, or suppressed them when they conflicted with political goals, as George W. Bush's has. This is the nub of the indictment delivered last week by 60 prominent scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates.

Source: International Herald Tribune


NPR [January 4, 2004]

When I first came to the US, I was happy to find a national public radio station.

I soon realized that it has some obvious shortcomings.

The media culture in the US is one of avoiding asking the serious questions, and NPR falls into the same pattern - while appearing to be slightly more serious than most other media outlets.

Public broadcasting systems in Europe and Canda seems to do a far better job in this area. They take seriously their task of critical and investigative reporting, and serious questioning of the policies of their government, as well as typical - and less typical - views among the population.


Mad Cows [December 22, 2003]

They have finally found mad cow disease in the US, which has long been expected. Predicably, the Bush administration says they are confident that it is nothing to worry about (they are probably as confident about this as they were about Iraqi WMDs...!).

The Bush administration says it remains confident the food supply is safe, despite the detection of mad cow disease in a slaughtered dairy cow in Washington state. [Source: Voice of America]

Mad Cow disease is one of many symptoms of a deeply unhealthy food production system in the US. It is a system that has moved from a wide network of family farms, to a few nodes of large factory farms, over just a few decades. On the worker side, is has led to tens of thousands of families loosing their independent income and working situation, and thousands of others working in poor/inhuman/soulless conditions in the factory farms. On the ecological side, it leads to massive soil erosion (tens of times as much top soil lost than built up), pollution of rivers and waterways (soil erosion, manure), toxic soils and groundwater (pesticides, antibiotics), and massive suffering for the animals (cramped conditions, mutilations, no access to outdoors). On the disease side, it leads to bacterias resistant to antibiotics, dieseases such as mad cow, and massive local/regional problems due to manure centralization and toxins in the soil, water and air (leading to cancer and more). See the book Mad Cow USA published in 1997.

As with so many of our current problems, there are simple and good solutions. In this case, supporting small local farmers, and maybe especially Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farms. Through this, we support ecologically sound farming practices, local family farms and the local economy, and our own health and that of our community.


Election & Manipulations [December 20, 2003]

This is probably a cynical prediction, but there are some reasons for cynical predictions these days. I would be very surprised if Bush is not re-elected. Not because the democratic candidates are too "..." or not "..." enough (whatever is said about them), but because Bush has the ability to manipulate US media and public opinion to a degree rarely seen in a democratic country (although the US can be said to be only marginally democratic).

I think we can expect to see a string of manipulations of the media leading up to the election, which will make it very difficult for any opponent to win... The Bush administration has systematically fuelled and played on fear in the public (and a suprising portion of the public has bought into it), and will continue to do so to their own benefit.

One example: John Nichols: Unveiling Bush's mass deceptions, from Capitol Times in Madison, Wisconsin


Simple Minded [December 16, 2003]

Hm... I see that there seems to be a lot of excitement among the US government and media about the capture of Saddam Hussein. It seems remarkably simple minded to think that it will have any effect on the situation in Iraq. Why would the resistance be any less...? I guess it also highlights the fact that the Iraqis will be prosecuted (the ones not outright killed by US forces), while the crimes committed by US forces will be glossed over and ignored. What about all the civilians killed? Those who died from torture? An illegal invasion and occupation? It is sad to see the rest of the world accepting this, instead of forcefully standing up against abuse of power.


Death Threat from US Security Agency? [December 4, 2003]

A Canadian lawyer representing people (illegaly) held at Guantanamo Bay, has received death threats, which led him to drop all terror related cases. The voice was familiar to him, and connected to a death threat and subsequent disappearance of one of his clients. He said "he believed the source [of the threat] to be an American or Canadian intelligence agency." The US is torturing people to death, illegally holding people with no access to lawyer, and killing civillians in Iraq, so a death threat to those trying to defend terrorism suspects fits into the picture. Specifically, CIA has been involved in a long list of illegal and violent activities, including the violent overthrow of democratically elected governments and support of terrorism. Still, it is hard to believe that they are so crude about it. It will be interesting to see what comes our of this story, if anything.

A lawyer in Toronto representing a former terror suspect once held by the United States in Guant?namo Bay, Cuba, said he would withdraw from all terror-related cases after finding a death threat on his telephone-answering machine. [...] An emotional Mr. Galati played the coarse message for reporters and said the voice was familiar. He said he believed the source to be an American or Canadian intelligence agency.

[Source - New York Times]

"I'm on the verge of tears because it means that we now live in Colombia. It means that the rule of law is meaningless. It means that lawyer cannot represent anyone even in what you profess to be a democracy here in Canada," he said. [...] Galati says he's heard the voice before. He claims the same man threatened a past client, who has since disappeared. The lawyer says he has reason to believe the threat originated with a U.S. or Canadian intelligence agency.

[Source - CBC]


Big Trouble in Iraq [December 3, 2003]

It seems that the US government (and media) finally are beginning to see some of the long-term problems in Iraq.

Not surprisingly, the US occupation of Iraq is resented more strongly and by more people as time goes by (no-one wants their country to be occupied, especially not by someone with values very different from your own, perceived as primarily be after power and oil, violent, and indiscriminating in terms of who they arrest and kill).

The US administration express "democracy" as one of their primary goals in Iraq. For many reasons, this is most likely a smokescreen for other goals - such as gaining a foothold in the Middle East to control natural resources. One of the reasons it is most likely a smokescreen, is that it is a remarkably naive idea, and one that - if actually realized - will not operate in the interest of the US.

Democracy in Iraq is likely to be very difficult. Iraq is a country constructed in the past by the west, and - as so many African countries with a similar history - pits very different ethnic and religious groups against each other. It may work in a country with long and stable democratic traditions, but Iraq is not one of them.

It seems that one or a combination of several paths are most likely: (a) The US stays in Iraq for a very long time, and the resistance continues and gains more followers. (b) The US pulls out, and leaves Iraq to infighting among the various factions. (c) A form of democracy is actually established, but with serious problems between the various groups (most likely involving violence). If a true democracy emerges within a reasonable time horizon (which is not likely), it will not operate in a way that is in the interest of the US.

One solution whould be to create distinct and mostly autonomous regions, corresponding as much as possible with the religious/ethnic groups within Iraq. This is an intelligent solution on one level, although has serious problems in terms of what may/will happen to those living in "wrong" regions (remember India/Pakistan).


Media, Justice etc. [November 26, 2003]

Below is another example of how US media systematically engage in one-sided reporting, ignoring any views or topics that may disrupt the system they have contributed to create. A system where mass media is owned by just a few corporations, their interests are identical or closely aligned with that of multinational corporations (often the same corporations), and politicians are dependent on support from corporations and corporate media to be elected.

It is often amazing to see how blatantly they distort stories, ignoring important views and aspects. One example: When the recount in Flordia following the 2000 election, the headlines were "Gore would have lost". They "forgot" to mention, or buried it far into the story, that the Florida-wide recount showed that Gore would in fact have won. The lead-up to the Iraq war is another example, where European media consistently reported that there were no solid reasons for attacking Iraq and revealed the lies of the US officials. The US media consistently supported the view of the US government, and rarely reported on stories that showed the weaknesses in their arguments and non-existence of their "evidence".

Dyke attacks US war coverage

BBC director general Greg Dyke delivered a stinging criticism of US news coverage of the war in Iraq [...].

"News organisations should be in the business of balancing their coverage, not banging the drum for one side or the other. This is something which seemed to get lost in American reporting of the war," said Mr Dyke.

He said only four out of 840 experts interviewed on US news outlets during the conflict opposed the war and the situation would not have been tolerated at the BBC.

"Telling people what they want to hear is not doing them any favours. It may not be comfortable to challenge governments or even popular opinion but it's what we are here to do," he said.

[Full Story - The Guardian]


Law lord castigates US justice

A senior law lord last night delivered a scathing attack on the US government's and the American courts' treatment of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, branding it "a monstrous failure of justice".

Lord Steyn, one of the most senior judges in Britain's highest court, described the military tribunal for trying the detainees as a "kangaroo court".

The term, he said, implied "a pre-ordained arbitrary rush to judgment by an irregular tribunal which makes a mockery of justice". He asked whether the British government should not "make plain, publicly and unambiguously, our condemnation of the utter lawlessness" at Guantanamo Bay. [...]

[Full Story - The Guardian]


Motivations [November 25, 2003]

It is always difficult (and risky) to assign motivations to people. Still, it is important to do so when (a) there are strong reasons to assume that their expressed motivation is not the full picture, and (b) their actions have a strong impact on others.

In terms of the Bush administration and their actions following 911, there are good reasons to suspect that the explicit reasons behind their actions are far from the whole story.

The US government has systematically chosen strategies that fuels terrorism rather than reduce it. Strategies that systematically ignores root causes, applies massive violence (which fuels resentment), and leads to actions equally immoral as those of the terrorists (tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, torture, illegal detention).

Rather, their actions do fit into another scheme. A scheme that was in place long before 911: furthering their strategy of increased US cultural, economic and military worldwide dominance. Ironically enough, this is a strategy that quite possible initiated the 911 attacks in the first place, and is among the core root causes of western-oriented terrorism in general. It is a vicious cycle, and one that sadly enough suits the US governement.


Public Debate [November 22, 2003]

It is saddening to see how the public debate in this country (US) often gets hijacked and distorted.

A current example is the issue of "gay marriage". Which really is just an issue of providing purely legal rights for gay couples, similar to that of heterosexual couples. It seems a relatively neutral and straightforward issue, but is hijacked and made into a big issue about "marriage" (with all the different connotations that has for people), "morality" (something people in this country seems to use to knock each other down with), "evolution" (don't they know that homosexuality is prolific among other species?), and more.

Legal equality seems a no-brainer, while the "marriage" part seems to be purely a matter involving the couple itself and whomever is performing the cermony (it does not even need to be registered anywhere).


Cultural Differences [November 11, 2003]

I am puzzeled by much in the US culture, and especially by the reactions following 911. The typical reactions I saw in media and otherwise were often immensely odd to me - especially when they take the form of patriotism and violence... It is always a tragedy when people die, but how does that lead to what often became pathological patriotism? And how can killing thousands of people (civilians and soldiers) in Afghanistan and Iraq be an improvement of the situation, or a more ethical action than what led to the deaths on September 11 2001 (of far fever people one might add)?

It seems that these reactions are grounded in (a) a lack of understanding of the world and in particular the US position in the world, and (b) a deep insecurity which takes the form of choosing violence (low threshold for choosing violence as a tool, and pathological worship of violence as expressed in the rejoyicing in the deaths of Hussein's sons).


OK? [November 4, 2003]

I see that no new countries are sending troops to Iraq (Turkey decided against it today), there are daily attacks from the Iraqi resistance (including in the "Green Zone" in Baghdad), and there is increasing dissatisfaction among the Iraqis regarding the US occupation of their country...

On the other hand, the non-US/non-British countries are "irrelevant" (Bush's words), the green zone is proclaimed "safe", and everything is going very well in Iraq (again according to the Bush administration) - so I guess it is all OK.


Isolating the US [October 26, 2003]

It's been a while since I made an entry here, but it has not been for lack of material! The US government is continuing its habits of lies and intimidation (although modified somewhat lately).

As I mentioned in an earlier entry, each empire has its limited timespan, and there are many signs that the time of the US empire may soon be up. The foreign dept is immense, the majority of the US tax money is going directly or indirectly to cover military expenses, the gap between the few wealthy and the many poor is widening quickly, and the rest of the world is increasingly resenting the attitudes and actions of the US government.

A senior Norwegian offical went public just a couple of days ago, expressing a view shared by many (but not always expressed publicly): It is time for Norway to turn away from the US, and focus on establishing closer ties with the rest of Europe. The values of the US, as expressed in their foreign policies, are too far removed from that of the other western countries.


Cracking down on Dissent [September 21, 2003]

The latest in a long line of examples of how the US government is cracking down on dissent.

Fear as human shield faces jail

Sitting in her modest two-bedroom home on the west Florida coast, Faith Fippinger begins to cry as she talks about the prospect of going to jail.

This spring, the 62-year-old retired schoolteacher decided to travel to Iraq as a human shield.

To many she is a humanitarian, but in the eyes of the US Government she is a criminal. [...]

"War is death, I understand that. In my opinion though this war was illegal, unjust and unnecessary," she told me.

For three months she travelled around Iraq, guarding oil refineries, teaching in schools and working in hospitals.

[...]

Supporters argue that she was simply exercising her right to freedom of travel and speech and accuse the Bush administration of trying to make an example of her.

"You know, part of what democracy is all about is that you can have varying opinions and that we can express them," she says.

"It's in regimes like Saddam Hussein's where that freedom is not allowed."

But the US Treasury Department is standing firm.

[...]

It says it fully intends to proceed with her prosecution.

For travelling to Iraq Faith Fippinger will now probably lose her house, her pension and go to jail. [Full Story - BBC]


True Values [September 19, 2003]

To find someone's true values, look at their choices.

Bush chose to attack Iraq. He did this knowing (a) that there was absolutely no indication that Iraq was a danger to any of its neighbors (the neighboring countries as well as CIA made it clear they did not see Iraq as a threat), (b) that there was no connection between Iraq and terrorism (again as CIA made clear), and (c) with the knowledge that it would be a profoundly costly affair, in terms of human lives, loss of goodwill, increased resentment and risk of terrorism, and money (one example: 500 billion dollars estimated by an independent group in Australia).

Now, he has asked for an additional 87 billion dollars, in addition to the billions already spent. This money goes from the taxpayers to his buddies in the military industry and is on top of the 300 billion dollars lost due to his tax cuts for the wealthy.

It is quite telling to look at what 87 billion dollars, a fraction of the total cost of the Iraq operation, could fund: Hire more than 2 million new teachers. Spend an additional $1,824 on each child in American public schools. Spend 58 times the proposed federal funding for community health centers in 2004. Spend $7,909 on each American child without health insurance. Spend 27 times more on AIDS research than the federal government spent in fiscal year 2000. [Full Story - Newsweek]


Small Scale vs. State Sponsored Terrorism (US and Israel) [September 11, 2003]

Sporadic and small-scale terrorism. This is a phenomenon that currently receive much attention, and significant resources in terms of money, time and people is channeled into combating these symptoms. (The deeper causes are interestingly enough largely ignored: inequality; marginalization of large groups of people; increasing gaps between wealthy and poor; US policies to achieve stronger economic, military and cultural dominance etc).

But what about the much larger problem of systematic and state-sponsored terrorism? Why is it so often ignored? There is an elephant in the room, but we pretend it is not there.

The answer is simple: Might makes right. The US uses systematic intimidation, domestically (Patriot Act) and internationally (foreign policies), to deal with dissent. Even European countries are far weaker in dealing with the big bully policies of the US than they would be if they were not concerned about the (mostly economical) consequences. It may be a wise short-term policy (in terms of their local interests), but dangerous in the long term.

Another element may be what Chaplin said in Monsieur Verdoux. If you committ a crime on a small scale, you are a criminal and dealt with. But if you committ a crime on a large enough scale, you are considered a hero. ("...it's all business. One murder makes a villain; millions a hero. Numbers sanctify.")

Thirty years ago today, September 11, 1973, the popular and legally and democratically elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende, was overthrown in a bloody military coup. It was suspected at the time, and now confirmed by released documents, that the US was behind and supported the coup. The US later actively supported the brutal dictatorship of Pinochet, where hundreds of thousands of people were tortured, and thousands dissapeared.

There is an interesting parallel between the US involvement in Chile in 1973, and Israel vs. Palestine today. In both cases, the governments are involved in terrorist activities and in disposing of legally and democratically elected leaders.

Israel has for a long time engaged in systematic assasinations of Palestinian leaders, and has now announced that they will dispose of (exile or kill) Arafat.

These are just two of many cases (East Timor etc) that shows that the US and Israeli governments support, promote and engage in profoundly anti-democratic, illegal, terrorist activities, as long as it meets their goals.


The Pinochet files

A series of declassified US documents have revealed the extent of America's role in the Chilean coup, reports Jonathan Franklin.

September 11 1973 was a day of terror and bloodshed in Chile. After months of rising tension, army troops stormed the presidential palace, leaving President Salvador Allende dead and thousands prisoners throughout this previously democratic nation. [...]

"It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup," reads a CIA document from October 1970. "It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG [US government] and American hand be well hidden."

Two days after this document was written, top CIA officials proposed a terrorist campaign to stun the Chilean people into accepting a military regime. [...]

"That internal crisis was activated by the North American policies against it. We see how they energetically obstructed all types of credit from the World Bank and the InterAmerican Bank ... these were decisive actions. This were political and financial pressures that were very relevant [to the ensuing coup.]"

The US effort to destabilise Chile was led by a policy of massively funding and bribing non-leftwing Chilean politicians. [...]

As part of a particularly crude effort to remove army officers who supported democratic rule, the CIA organised to kidnap Rene Schneider, a Chilean army general.

That plot was botched; Schneider died, and today his family is suing the US government and Henry Kissinger in particular for playing a role in his murder. [...]

Even when the full extent of the torture and executions in Chile were well known, the US government sought to integrate the Pinochet regime into international business circles. [Full Story - The Guardian/UK]


Israel Announces Official Decision to Remove Arafat - By JAMES BENNET

The Israeli government decided in principle to "remove" Yasir Arafat, threatening the Palestinian leader with expulsion, jail or possibly death. [Full Story - New York Times]


False Connections [September 10, 2003]

I see that the US officials are still using the same rethoric of trying to connect Iraq with terrorism. There was never any connection before the recent war, and the large majority of the current attacks against the US is from homegrown resistance. If there is anything that can be called "terrorism", it is due to the lawless conditions in the country following the war.

Americans see link to Saddam

The Bush administration is so used to drawing rhetorical links between the war against Iraq and September 11 2001 that nearly 70 per cent of Americans think Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks, public opinion analysts say. [...]

Pippa Norris, an expert on public opinion at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, says this misconception "comes partly from President George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld drawing these links to justify US intervention in Iraq. [...]

"There was very little criticism of this way of seeing things in the US, compared with Europe, where there was a huge debate. So over time the link strengthened and became a rationalisation of events." [...] [Full Story - Financial Times]


Taxes [September 10, 2003]

I overheard someone talking about Norway and taxes the other day, saying (correctly) that Norway has universal healthcare and free higher education, and (incorrectly) that the taxes in Norway are much higher than in the US. I have heard this many times here, and it is a misconception that serves the current US system. If my wife and I lived in Norway, with the same income as here, we would pay about the same level of taxes - or more likely a little less taxes. In the US, about 50% of tax money goes to the military and paying off foreign debt caused by military expenses. In Norway, money goes to healthcare and education. It is a choice.


The Emperor's Clothes [September 9, 2003]


I am encouraged to see that more and more people are finally publicly saying that the Emperor has no Clothes.

War on terrorism may find few supporters, Annan says

Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, questioned yesterday whether Washington will succeed in convincing other countries to make the war on terrorism an international priority, saying most believe pervasive poverty poses a bigger threat to global stability.

"The United States has decided that terrorism is the key, which is fair," Mr. Annan said, but tackling the problems of the Third World are more important to people who live there.

He also asked whether the "hard threat" of terrorism is caused by the "soft threat" of poverty.

"Soft threats ... have an impact on stability and security around the world," Mr. Annan said. "And if you were to deal with the soft threats ... you might be able to make the world a safer place." [...]

The UN Secretary-General was speaking as he released a report on the international fight on poverty. His comments about the relationship between terrorism and poverty are expected to raise eyebrows in Washington, because they suggest fighting terrorism is best done through huge international social programs.

Such a view flies in the face of Washington's approach, which involves putting even U.S. social programs on virtual hold while funds are diverted to confronting the terrorists directly. [...]

Pundits noted the amount Mr. Bush seeks [US$87-billion] is equal to the U.S. government's annual spending on education. [...] [Full Story - CanWest News Service]

Kofi Annan is going to the root causes of terrorism, while the US is systematically focusing on the symptoms (and in the process fueling the root causes). Now, which is more intelligent...?