By Finian Cunningham
13 November, 2013
Mycatbirdseat.com
Archives: Articles
By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
10 November, 2013
@ Countercurrents.org
For the umpteenth time, Iran and the P5+1 are holding talks to ‘resolve’ the impasse in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program. And for the umpteenth time, the absurdity of these meetings is reflected in the futile, repetitious, meaningless dialogue amidst threats and ultimatums. Feigned smiles and optimism add to the theatrics. While theatrics are part and parcel of US foreign policy, surely one must wonder why the rest participate in this absurd political drama.
The current negotiations, as with past talks, place a great deal of emphasis on Iran’s enrichment activities giving the impression that enrichment is at the crux of the matter. It is, as far as Iran goes, but this is not the whole narrative. There is far more at stake in the outcome of these talks – America’s power to shape and implement international treaties according to its whim.
Leading up to the latest round of negotiations, Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman claimed that “”… it has always been the U.S. position that that article IV of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty does not speak about the right of enrichment at all [and] doesn’t speak to enrichment, period.” (Eminent scholars have successfully argued that Iran has the right to enrich uranium under the Treaty). This has not always been America’s ‘position’.
There is clear indication of a direct correlation between America’s ‘position’ on Article IV and the degree to which a nation is willing to comply with American demands. In this case, during the rule of the Shah, one of America’s pet dictators, Iran had the right not recognized today. During the administration of President Ford National Security Decision Memorandum (NSDM) 292, dated April 22, 1975, stated that the U.S. shall “Permit U.S. materials to be fabricated into fuel in Iran for use in its own reactors and for pass-through to third countries with whom we have Agreement.”
A year later, the United States went from giving its permission to enrich to demanding that Iran do so. In NSDM 324, dated April 20, 1976, President Ford authorized the U.S. negotiating team to “Seek a strong political commitment from Iran to pursue the multinational/binational reprocessing plant concept, according the U.S. the opportunity to participate in the project.” The United States was looking to make a profit from Iran’s nuclear enrichment activities.
However, the 1979 Iranian Revolution put an end to American plans and aspirations. Iranians sent a clear message: Iran would no longer seek America’s “permission” to declare its rights under international treaties. Iran’s insistence on reclaiming its sovereignty led to a decision by the United States to stop Iran’s nuclear program in its tracks (and overthrow the regime). It failed.
These negotiations are not about Iran, but they are centered on Iran. The outcome of these talks is equally important to all countries, specifically to Russia and China –and to a lesser degree, Europe. For the first time since the end of the Cold War, there is a perception of a shift away from the unipolar world. At this fateful juncture, should America prevail in hijacking international law to suit its polices of the day (dictated by Israel), then all nations will be subjugated – including Russia and China.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy.
By William Blum
08 November, 2013
Williamblum.org
The New York Times (November 2) ran a long article based on NSA documents released by Edward Snowden. One of the lines that most caught my attention concerned “Sigint” – Signals intelligence, the term used for electronic intercepts. The document stated:
“Sigint professionals must hold the moral high ground, even as terrorists or dictators seek to exploit our freedoms. Some of our adversaries will say or do anything to advance their cause; we will not.”
What, I wondered, might that mean? What would the National Security Agency – on moral principle – refuse to say or do?
I have on occasion asked people who reject or rationalize any and all criticism of US foreign policy: “What would the United States have to do in its foreign policy to lose your support? What, for you, would be too much?” I’ve yet to get a suitable answer to that question. I suspect it’s because the person is afraid that whatever they say I’ll point out that the United States has already done it.
The United Nations vote on the Cuba embargo – 22 years in a row
For years American political leaders and media were fond of labeling Cuba an “international pariah”. We haven’t heard that for a very long time. Perhaps one reason is the annual vote in the United Nations General Assembly on the resolution which reads: “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba”. This is how the vote has gone (not including abstentions):
Each fall the UN vote is a welcome reminder that the world has not completely lost its senses and that the American empire does not completely control the opinion of other governments.
Speaking before the General Assembly, October 29, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez declared: “The economic damages accumulated after half a century as a result of the implementation of the blockade amount to $1.126 trillion.” He added that the blockade “has been further tightened under President Obama’s administration”, some 30 US and foreign entities being hit with $2.446 billion in fines due to their interaction with Cuba.
However, the American envoy, Ronald Godard, in an appeal to other countries to oppose the resolution, said:
“The international community … cannot in good conscience ignore the ease and frequency with which the Cuban regime silences critics, disrupts peaceful assembly, impedes independent journalism and, despite positive reforms, continues to prevent some Cubans from leaving or returning to the island. The Cuban government continues its tactics of politically motivated detentions, harassment and police violence against Cuban citizens.” 1
So there you have it. That is why Cuba must be punished. One can only guess what Mr. Godard would respond if told that more than 7,000 people were arrested in the United States during the Occupy Movement’s first 8 months of protest 2 ; that their encampments were violently smashed up; that many of them were physically abused by the police.
Does Mr. Godard ever read a newspaper or the Internet, or watch television? Hardly a day passes in America without a police officer shooting to death an unarmed person?
As to “independent journalism” – what would happen if Cuba announced that from now on anyone in the country could own any kind of media? How long would it be before CIA money – secret and unlimited CIA money financing all kinds of fronts in Cuba – would own or control most of the media worth owning or controlling?
The real reason for Washington’s eternal hostility toward Cuba? The fear of a good example of an alternative to the capitalist model; a fear that has been validated repeatedly over the years as Third World countries have expressed their adulation of Cuba.
How the embargo began: On April 6, 1960, Lester D. Mallory, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, wrote in an internal memorandum: “The majority of Cubans support Castro … The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship. … every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba.” Mallory proposed “a line of action which … makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.” 3 Later that year, the Eisenhower administration instituted the suffocating embargo against its everlasting enemy.
The Cold War Revisited
I’ve written the Introduction to a new book recently published in Russia that is sort of an updating of my book Killing Hope. 4 Here is a short excerpt:
The Cold War had not been a struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union. It had been a struggle between the United States and the Third World, which, in the decade following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, continued in Haiti, Somalia, Iraq, Yugoslavia and elsewhere.
The Cold War had not been a worldwide crusade by America to halt Soviet expansion, real or imaginary. It had been a worldwide crusade by America to block political and social changes in the Third World, changes opposed by the American power elite.
The Cold War had not been a glorious and noble movement of freedom and democracy against Communist totalitarianism. It had typically been a movement by the United States in support of dictatorships, authoritarian regimes and corrupt oligarchies which were willing to follow Washington’s party line on the Left, US corporations, Israel, oil, military bases, et al. and who protected American political and economic interests in their countries in exchange for the American military and CIA keeping them in power against the wishes of their own people.
In other words, whatever the diplomats at the time thought they were doing, the Cold War revisionists have been vindicated. American policy had been about imperialism and military expansion.
Apropos the countless other myths we were all taught about the Soviet Union is this letter I recently received from one of my readers, a Russian woman, age 49, who moved to the United States eight years ago and now lives in Northern Virginia:
I can’t imagine why anybody is surprised to hear when I say I miss life in the Soviet Union: what is bad about free healthcare and education, guaranteed employment, guaranteed free housing? No rent or mortgage of any kind, only utilities, but they were subsidized too, so it was really pennies. Now, to be honest, there was a waiting list to get those apartments, so some people got them quicker, some people had to wait for years, it all depended on where you worked. And there were no homeless people, and crime was way lower. As a first grader I was taking the public transportation to go to school, which was about 1 hour away by bus (it was a big city, about the size of Washington DC, we lived on the outskirts, and my school was downtown), and it was fine, all other kids were doing it. Can you even imagine this being done now? I am not saying everything was perfect, but overall, it is a more stable and socially just system, fair to everybody, nobody was left behind. This is what I miss: peace and stability, and not being afraid of the future.
Problem is, nobody believes it, they will say that I am a brainwashed “tovarish” [comrade]. I’ve tried to argue with Americans about this before, but just gave up now. They just refuse to believe anything that contradicts what CNN has been telling them for all their lives. One lady once told me: “You just don’t know what was going on there, because you did not have freedom of speech, but we, Americans, knew everything, because we could read about all of this in our media.” I told her “I was right there! I did not need to read about this in the media, I lived that life!”, but she still was unconvinced! You will not believe what she said: “Yes, maybe, but we have more stuff!”. Seriously, having 50 kinds of cereal available in the store, and walmarts full of plastic junk is more valuable to Americans than a stable and secure life, and social justice for everybody?
Of course there are people who lived in the Soviet Union who disagree with me, and I talked to them too, but I find their reasons just as silly. I heard one Russian lady whose argument was that Stalin killed “30, no 40 million people”. First of all it’s not true (I don’t in any way defend Stalin, but I do think that lying and exaggerating about him is as wrong)*, and second of all what does this have to do with the 70s, when I was a kid? By then life was completely different. I heard other arguments, like food shortages (again, not true, it’s not like there was no food at all, there were shortages of this or that specific product, like you wouldn’t find mayo or bologna in the store some days, but everything else was there!). So, you would come back next day, or in 2-3 days, and you would find them there. Really, this is such a big deal? Or you would have to stay in line to buy some other product, (ravioli for example). But how badly do you want that ravioli really that day, can’t you have anything else instead? Just buy something else, like potatoes, where there was no line.
Was this annoying, yes, and at the time I was annoyed too, but only now I realized that I would much prefer this nuisance to my present life now, when I am constantly under stress for the fear that I can possibly lose my job (as my husband already did), and as a result, lose everything else – my house? You couldn’t possibly lose your house in Soviet Union, it was yours for life, mortgage free. Only now, living here in the US, I realized that all those soviet nuisances combined were not as important as the benefits we had – housing, education, healthcare, employment, safe streets, all sort of free after school activities (music, sports, arts, anything you want) for kids, so parents never had to worry about what we do all day till they come home in the evening.
* We’ve all heard the figures many times … 10 million … 20 million … 40 million … 60 million … died under Stalin. But what does the number mean, whichever number you choose? Of course many people died under Stalin, many people died under Roosevelt, and many people are still dying under Bush. Dying appears to be a natural phenomenon in every country. The question is how did those people die under Stalin? Did they die from the famines that plagued the USSR in the 1920s and 30s? Did the Bolsheviks deliberately create those famines? How? Why? More people certainly died in India in the 20th century from famines than in the Soviet Union, but no one accuses India of the mass murder of its own citizens. Did the millions die from disease in an age before antibiotics? In prison? From what causes? People die in prison in the United States on a regular basis. Were millions actually murdered in cold blood? If so, how? How many were criminals executed for non-political crimes? The logistics of murdering tens of millions of people is daunting. 5
Let’s not repeat the Barack fuckup with Hillary
Not that it really matters who the Democrats nominate for the presidency in 2016. Whoever that politically regressive and morally bankrupt party chooses will be at best an uninspired and uninspiring centrist; in European terms a center-rightist; who believes that the American Empire – despite the admittedly occasional excessive behavior – is mankind’s last great hope. The only reason I bother to comment on this question so far in advance of the election is that the forces behind Clinton have clearly already begun their campaign and I’d like to use the opportunity to try to educate the many progressives who fell in love with Obama and may be poised now to embrace Clinton. Here’s what I wrote in July 2007 during the very early days of the 2008 campaign:
Who do you think said this on June 20? a) Rudy Giuliani; b) Hillary Clinton; c) George Bush; d) Mitt Romney; or e) Barack Obama?
“The American military has done its job. Look what they accomplished. They got rid of Saddam Hussein. They gave the Iraqis a chance for free and fair elections. They gave the Iraqi government the chance to begin to demonstrate that it understood its responsibilities to make the hard political decisions necessary to give the people of Iraq a better future. So the American military has succeeded. It is the Iraqi government which has failed to make the tough decisions which are important for their own people.” 6
Right, it was the woman who wants to be president because … because she wants to be president … because she thinks it would be nice to be president … no other reason, no burning cause, no heartfelt desire for basic change in American society or to make a better world … she just thinks it would be nice, even great, to be president. And keep the American Empire in business, its routine generating of horror and misery being no problem; she wouldn’t want to be known as the president that hastened the decline of the empire.
And she spoke the above words at the “Take Back America” conference; she was speaking to liberals, committed liberal Democrats and others further left. She didn’t have to cater to them with any flag-waving pro-war rhetoric; they wanted to hear anti-war rhetoric (and she of course gave them a bit of that as well out of the other side of her mouth), so we can assume that this is how she really feels, if indeed the woman feels anything. The audience, it should be noted, booed her, for the second year in a row.
Think of why you are opposed to the war. Is it not largely because of all the unspeakable suffering brought down upon the heads and souls of the poor people of Iraq by the American military? Hillary Clinton couldn’t care less about that, literally. She thinks the American military has “succeeded”. Has she ever unequivocally labeled the war “illegal” or “immoral”? I used to think that Tony Blair was a member of the right wing or conservative wing of the British Labour Party. I finally realized one day that that was an incorrect description of his ideology. Blair is a conservative, a bloody Tory. How he wound up in the Labour Party is a matter I haven’t studied. Hillary Clinton, however, I’ve long known is a conservative; going back to at least the 1980s, while the wife of the Arkansas governor, she strongly supported the death-squad torturers known as the Contras, who were the empire’s proxy army in Nicaragua. 7
Now we hear from America’s venerable conservative magazine, William Buckley’s National Review, an editorial by Bruce Bartlett, policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan; treasury official under President George H.W. Bush; a fellow at two of the leading conservative think-tanks, the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute – You get the picture? Bartlett tells his readers that it’s almost certain that the Democrats will win the White House in 2008. So what to do? Support the most conservative Democrat. He writes: “To right-wingers willing to look beneath what probably sounds to them like the same identical views of the Democratic candidates, it is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton is the most conservative.” 8
We also hear from America’s premier magazine for the corporate wealthy, Fortune, whose recent cover features a picture of Clinton and the headline: “Business Loves Hillary”. 9
Back to 2013: In October, the office of billionaire George Soros, who has long worked with US foreign policy to destabilize governments not in love with the empire, announced that “George Soros is delighted to join more than one million Americans in supporting Ready for Hillary.” 10
There’s much more evidence of Hillary Clinton’s conservative leanings, but if you need more, you’re probably still in love with Obama, who in a new book is quoted telling his aides during a comment on drone strikes that he’s “really good at killing people”. 11 Can we look forward to Hillary winning the much-discredited Nobel Peace Prize?
I’m sorry if I take away all your fun.
William Blum is the author of:
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower
West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire
Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at www.williamblum.org
Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website.
Email bblum6 [at] aol.com
Notes
1. Democracy Now!, “U.N. General Assembly Votes Overwhelmingly Against U.S. Embargo of Cuba”, October 30, 2013
2. Huffingfton Post, May 3, 2012
3. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960, Volume VI, Cuba (1991), p.885
4. Copies can be purchased by emailing kuchkovopole@mail.ru
5. From William Blum, Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire (2005), p.194
6. Speaking at the “Take Back America” conference, organized by the Campaign for America’s Future, June 20, 2007, Washington, DC; this excerpt can be heard on Democracy Now!’s website
7. Roger Morris, former member of the National Security Council, Partners in Power (1996), p.415
8. National Review Online, May 1, 2007
9. Fortune magazine, July 9, 2007
11. Washington Post, October 25, 2013
12. Washington Post, November 1, 2013, review of “Double Down: Game Change 2012”
Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission, provided attribution to William Blum as author and a link to this website are given.
By Rob Hopkins
07 November, 2013
@ Transition Culture
While running the risk of sounding like a Hello! Magazine reporter, I must introduce this post by saying that while in the US recently, I joined Richard Heinberg and his wife Janet in their beautiful permaculture garden in Santa Rosa, California. Richard will be known to most readers of this blog as the author of The Party’s Over, Powerdown, The Oil Depletion Protocol, Peak Everything, Blackout and Snake Oil as well as one of the best communicators on the whole peak oil/everything question. This year marks the tenth anniversary of the publication of The Party’s Over. Richard has already reflected on this in September’s Museletter [10 Years After], but Richard and I pulled up a chair under a tree in his garden and chatted more about the book, its impact, and other related issues. The transcript follows below, or you can listen to or download the podcast below.
So Richard, it’s 10 years since The Party’s Over came out, which is certainly a book that turned my life upside down and the lives of many others, I suspect.
I have a lot to answer for, I’m afraid…
This guy came up to me at an event I was at recently in Austin, and said “I read your book 4 years ago and after I read it, I gave up the really well-paid job I had and I moved into a falling down house.” I thought, my God he’s going to burst into tears! But it was a story that ended well. What’s your sense, looking back on that book, knowing what we know now and how things have changed through the explosion of unconventional stuff, how well, looking back after 10 years do you feel that the analysis set out in that book has held up over that time?
Since it is the 10 year anniversary of publication, I actually went back and read the book for the first time in years. I was actually quite pleasantly surprised. In the book, although I cite the analysis of a number of different people, theorists if you will, the two people whose work rely upon most are Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrère. If you read carefully what they were saying in 1998, and the next few years, what’s actually transpired since then is essentially exactly what they were forecasting.
Richard Heinberg and Rob Hopkins in Richard’s garden, Santa Rosa.
They were forecasting a peak in regular, conventional oil around 2006 or so, which is exactly what we’ve seen. Yes, crude oil production has increased in the last few years, but all of the increase has been in tar sands or tight oil from North Dakota and Texas. If you take that out of the picture, oil production today is below what it was in 2005-2006. So that’s correct.
And they went further and said this would cause price increases which would incentivise more production of unconventionals. They didn’t specifically say we’re going to get more oil out of North Dakota, but how specific do you need? To my interpretation, what they were describing was exactly what we’ve been living through over the last few years. We’ve seen higher and more volatile oil prices, the oil industry is spending twice as much on exploration and production and yet producing very little more oil. They’re drilling twice as many wells and the 10 top oil companies have seen their actual production decline by about 25 % in the last decade. So if this isn’t peak oil I don’t know what is.
Now it’s true, there are some peak oil commentators who were saying that the result would be an almost immediate global economic crash and there’d be riots on the streets and mass starvation and so on before 2010, and that hasn’t happened. But if you pick up The Party’s Over and read it, there’s nothing in that book that would make such a claim.
The idea that the ‘party’ is over that’s so strong in the book, there seems that the book has motivated lots of people for whom the working assumption is that the party’s over, but our leaders are still desperately clinging to the fact that the party is revivable and is about to start swinging again with great gusto, based on this obsessive push for growth and what it takes to make that happen. What’s your take on this scale of denial or over-optimism that is gripping our leaders at the moment?
I wouldn’t characterise their attitude as one of optimism. I think their attitude is veering more and more toward desperation all the time, but it’s a failure of imagination. They cannot imagine a Plan B. The only definition of success in their lexicon is more economic growth as in what we saw during the mid-20th century. Of course, that’s just not on the cards. That presents an impossible situation for them. All they’ve managed to do so far is – and here it’s not only governmental leaders but also heads of central banks – to create a few years of fake economic growth through massive deficit spending and quantitative easing and so on.
That’s staving off economic collapse, but it’s certainly not capable of returning us to the glory days of easy economic growth. I think there’s a general understanding that this can’t go on forever, that there are inherent problems to deficit spending and central bank enlargement of the balance sheets of the Federal Reserve. That can’t go on in perpetuity, but what else do they do?
I described this in one recent essay as fingers in the dyke. With unconventional oil and with quantitative easing and deficit spending, we’re managing to maintain a façade of normality, at least for a large segment of the population. Certainly not for everyone, because every year more and more people fall off the edges of the table. But at what price, in the long run? The longer we try to maintain this false normality, the higher the cost in the end. The worse the crash will be once these back stops fail.
The latest book you’ve written, Snake Oil, has been looking at the whole fracking explosion, which in the UK has been a thing that the government is grasping on to, assuming that the same thing that can happen in the US can happen in the UK, and that’s how the economy is going to be got going again. But you argue there that actually fracking is a bubble, a very dangerous bubble. Could you tell us a bit more about that?
Here in the US, there has been a very substantial increase in natural gas production as a result of the application of hydro-fracking to shale deposits. However, there are only a few geological formations where this can be applied and in each of those there’s only a small core area where production is prolific and profitable. The drillers have, except for one, pretty much drilled out all of those core areas and production is dropping. The Barnett, which was the first of the shale plays, where it all started in Haynesville was the largest and most productive.
Before the end of the decade, probably round 2017 or so, we’ll begin to see the end of the bubble. Already, companies that got in late and missed the sweet spots are writing down assets and selling off leases. There are all the signs of a bubble bursting.
Shell pulled out of somewhere didn’t they…
Most of Shell’s assets were in liquid plays in Texas, in other words, oil. But the same principle applies with tied oil as with shale gas. We did a study at the Post-Carbon Institute called Drill, Baby, Drill. David Hughes, a retired petroleum geologist who worked for the Canadian geological survey gathered all the available data. Our study, actually, I’m very proud of it, is the best study that’s been done to date on shale gas and tight oil. It’s clear from the numbers that this is a short-term boom.
Is the same thing going to happen in the UK? I think it’s extremely unlikely. Firstly because if it’s such a short-term bubble here, is it likely to be any better there? No, probably not. But second, because the ownership structures are different. Here, it’s all private landowners who stand to make a little money from drilling leases. So there’s an incentive for people to accept the noise, the bad air, the compromise of water quality and all the other things that go along with fracking. The incentive to overlook those things is they’re going to get an immediate economic bonus from it. But in countries where some surface mineral rights are owned by the government, there’s no such incentive for ordinary people.
When people are confronted with these environmental and human health insults, there’s no reason why they should go along with it. There’s likely to be a much greater citizen backlash. The citizen backlash here in the US has been pretty substantial. A poll released just a couple of days ago showed that Americans are generally opposed to more fracking. So again, that kind of backlash is likely to be much greater in the UK and other countries.
You and I a while ago had a debate about planned descent strategies preparing for emergency. What’s your thinking about those issues there? Could you give us an update on your thinking about that?
I’d have to go back and refresh…
I guess it’s the ‘Powerdown’ scenarios, ‘Building Lifeboats’ and stuff. It seems to be that the governments are dashing off over the hill in ‘Last One Standing’, ‘Drill Baby Drill’ scenarios. But in terms of us as communities, which ones do you think we’re left with; are we ‘Building Lifeboats’ or are we ‘Powerdown’-ing?
We have to continue doing as much of both as we can. A few minutes ago I mentioned the fingers in the dyke scenario. We don’t know how long these back stops are going to last. We don’t know how long quantitative easing and deficit spending can go on for. It could be weeks: what’s going on with the US Congress and the debt ceiling right now could precipitate a global economic crash within a matter, literally of weeks. On the other hand, it could be years.
I think we have to assume that we have time to build community resilience, but while we’re doing that, it really makes sense, as families, as individuals, to have a well-stocked cupboard. The more prepared we are as households for disaster, the more resilient our communities are. If you have a whole community where nobody has any food put by, nobody has any backup systems ready, then the whole community is much less resilient. There’s every reason for people to have a sense of preparedness.
But when I say that, I don’t want to encourage a survivalist mentality. It’s quite the contrary. The big thing that the survivalists miss is that the only way we’ll get through this is together. If it’s lone individuals with shotguns then kiss the human race goodbye … game over.
You mentioned the thing about what’s happening here. I’m sure there’s no connection, but the government shut down the day I arrived. I’m sure it’s not going to open again the day I leave – if it does I’ll get a bit worried! [Editors note: it did] What are the implications of that, do you think? Where could that take this country? Could it be just a couple of weeks where people don’t get paid and then it all goes back to normal, or could the outcome of it be more serious?
Oh yes, it could be very serious. This is revealing a fundamental political dysfunction within the country. The insular, rightward drift of the Republican Party over the past three decades is really dramatic. One can argue whether a two-party system is a good idea, but in order for a two-party system to even work minimally, you have to have two healthy political parties. What we have now is one establishment, mainstream, centre, marginally centre-left but mostly centre political party which is the Democratic Party and one party that’s basically gone crazy.
It’s boxed itself into a corner but it has a die-hard base that is so radicalised and so cut off from reality that nothing is going to come between them and their cherished nutcase candidates. They’ll support them to the end. And I know that the crazier these politicians get, the more support they have. So if you look at the incentives on both sides, they need to have a stand-off, a constitutional crisis.
Surely that’s something that just happens in the White House. How does that create a knock-on that’s going to ripple through the world economy?
If they fail to increase the debt limit for the US, that will have enormous implications for the global economy, certainly for the US economy. Almost immediately, interest rates in the US would skyrocket, the stock market would crash, the US dollar might cease to be the currency of account for other countries. The whole global economic financial system would be hurtled back to the days of 2008 and possibly much worse.
How far can we just carry on going piling up those debts. Isn’t the Republicans saying let’s not increase the debt ceiling, isn’t there a good aspect of that? The party may be over, but we still keep on borrowing to keep the illusion going that there is a party. When is debt a good thing and when is debt a bad thing?
Debt is a good thing in the present instance, only to the extent that it enables business as usual to continue for a while so that people like you and I can go about our business and try to help systemically to build more resilience in society. Buying more time otherwise is not a good idea, because it just means we’re going further out on a limb as a society, from an ecological standpoint.
The argument could be made that the Republicans are doing everybody a big favour by forcing the issue, and basically forcing a global economic crash sooner rather than later. I’m a bit torn with that really.
It’s a little extreme, isn’t it? We’re sitting here in your very beautiful garden with fruit and nuts…you’ve been writing about this stuff for 10 years and been one of the world’s foremost analysts of these issues. How does Richard Heinberg’s daily life reflect those things? You’re quite clearly not one of those academics who is able to just study something and then have a life that completely doesn’t reflect that. How does all of that appear in your daily life?
My wife, Janet and I have spent more than 10 years, probably more like 20 years trying to develop as much self-sufficiency and ecological sanity in our lives as possible. We’re proud of what we’ve done so far but at the same time we’re painfully aware of what we haven’t done and what’s really hard to do.
We just have to content ourselves with what we can do. We’re happy to have friends and neighbours who are supportive and we try to encourage them also and work with them on all sorts of interesting local efforts like creating community energy and so on. Is it enough though? But at the end of the day, we have to do what we can and enjoy life. This life is a gift and we don’t know how many days of normal life we have. Being with friends and family, playing music, being out in the garden, spending time with nature, this is not something to take for granted.
My last question is now, looking back 10 years after The Party’s Over came out, and it’s been translated into lots of different languages, are you able to get a sense of its impact, of its legacy as a publication at this stage?
I wouldn’t want to try to be too bombastic about it. It’s one of a number of books about Peak Oil that have been written. I think it probably was one of the more influential ones, certainly it didn’t have the highest book sales and I think Jim Kunstler’s The Long Emergency sold two, three or four times whatThe Party’s Over did.
But I think The Party’s Over appealed to folks who were perhaps a little more open to or interested in a communitarian response to the Peak Oil crisis. I’ve met thousands of people over the past decade who are doing amazing things in their own lives and communities and I feel very happy to have had some positive influence.
Thank you. Well it certainly had an enormous impact on me anyway. And it had the best cover of any of the Peak Oil books as well!
I had nothing to do with that actually. It was all the British publisher’s doing. The original North American cover was pretty bad, actually. Then the British publisher chose a completely different cover and then as soon as I saw it I thought that’s it, we’ve got to have that. I had to talk the North American publishers into it. First they thought it was too depressing, but then the British publisher wanted money for it and I had to really insist. But of course, everyone says what a great cover it was now…
Rob Hopkins is the co-founder of Transition Town Totnes and of the Transition Network. This grew out of many years experience in education, teaching permaculture and natural building, and setting up the first 2 year full-time permaculture course in the world, at Kinsale Further Education College in Ireland, as well as co-ordinating the first eco-village development in Ireland to be granted planning permission. Rob is author of The Transition Handbook: from oil dependence to local resilience, which has been published in a number of languages, and which was voted the 5th most popular book taken on holiday by MPs during the summer of 2008, and more recently of The Transition Companion: making your community more resilient in uncertain times, published in October 2011. He publishes the blog www.transitionculture.org, recently voted ‘the 4th best green blog in the UK
By Colin Todhunter
07 November, 2013
@ Countercurrents.org
Fly me to the Moon… or Mars. It doesn’t really matter as long as the Indian political and economic elites and sections of the cheer-leading middle classes quench their insatiable patriotic thirst for delusional superpower status. Noises coming from those involved in ‘Mission Mars’ state that sending a probe to Mars (ahead of China) will only boost national morale (1).
How will sending a probe to the red planet make ‘the nation’ feel better? How will spending so much money on such a project make the vast majority of people struggling with rising costs and poor infrastructure feel good? Because the media and certain opinion leaders say it should? Because India will be sitting at the same superpower table as the US – again, because the media and the rich imply it will.
Let’s forget about all of India ‘s problems and focus on the ‘good points’, the rich are fond of telling all of the critics. Formula 1, Forbes rich-listers, nuclear weaponry and space: what more could a country desire they state, as its leaders cede food sovereignty to multinational corporations by handing over nature’s seeds to Big Agra, sell its public sector infrastructure to private concerns, kill and abuse some of its poorest people to drive hundreds of thousands of them from their lands and leave a legacy for future generations of a chopped down, sold off, wasted, poisoned environment?
Like the mind-numbing dross pumped out of Bollywood, the ‘good points’ merely serve to sleep walk the masses into believing in the great Indian dream. And, as with the US version, you have to be asleep to believe it. Part of that dream is an existing prosperous India with its burgeoning middle class, a thriving India with its recent record of high GDP growth and a powerful India straddling the world stage with its new found propensity for self delusion.
But the reality is an India of broken roads and other crumbling infrastructure made from skimped-on materials and dodgy parts courtesy of backhanders and siphoned off cash, an India that harbours its dirty little secret of mass killing of the girl child in (and out of) the womb, an India of media-friendly candlelit marches protesting crimes against the middle classes, but which has little to say about the daily atrocities that constitute a terrible normality for the majority.
Scam after scam, illegal capital flight after illegal capital flight into Swiss banks. The ‘nation-builders’ who like us all to concentrate on the ‘good points’ and who talk much about boosting national morale with some or other project, while conspiring to stab the people in the back by robbing them of a decent healthcare system, education system, welfare state and infrastructure (2). Yes, India, a country that could have been a shining example of social development, was sacrificed on the altar of greed and corruption for bulging Swiss accounts, for the private pockets of many of the country’s public ‘servants’, ‘wealth creators’ and the multinational vultures who long ago stopped circling and are now swooping (3).
The nation’s politicians and rich are often castigated for their criminality. But their actions stem in part from an ‘Indian mindset’ that is all too common. It’s a mindset nurtured on self-aggrandisement, casteism, bribery, patronage, patriarchy, envy and cheating, traits that are pervasive throughout all social strata. And so when discredited politicians end up within touching distance of being elected PM due to very smart PR work (4) and a mass support base, should we be too surprised that India is in the state it is?
Throw garbage into the street, drive directly at pedestrians with horn blurting to intimidate them out of the way, demand money from local businesses if you are a police official who is that way inclined, watch the latest Bollywood dross, run out and buy some useless product because Kareena, Priyanka or another icon of deception says ‘because you’re worth it’… but never ever let this narcissism, this beggar thy neighbour attitude, this ubiquitous mindset, give way to contemplate why the rivers and soils have been poisoned and people are being been made ill (5), agriculture is being hijacked by the likes of Monsanto, land is being grabbed on behalf of any number of corporations, the great nuclear power money fest is in full swing or why people are violently opposing state-corporate power. Much of this is the result of deals hammered out behind closed doors (6,7). Much of it results because too many are conditioned to be ignorant of the facts or to accept that all of the above is necessary.
Bow down to Krishna , Sachin Tendulkar or GDP growth figures? Take your pick, but the outcome is the same. This is a country where the majority sanctify certain animals, places, rivers and mountains for being representations of god or for being somehow touched by the hand of god. It’s also a country run by Wall Street sanctioned politicians who convince people to accept or be oblivious to the destruction of the same. The paradox of India , the extremities of India … the glib clichés abound in the literature and brochures on India . As the tourism department says: Incredible India!
And as the herd, the herd conditioned to be bewildered, to loosely paraphrase US commentator Walter Lipman, buys into the rat race imported wholesale from the West and is manipulated by corporate-backed, product-touting celebrities and media, is there any hope for India ?
The same question could also be asked of the US or Europe because similar forces are at work and play on insecurities and weaknesses of people and societies. The damning critique set out here is not reserved for India alone (8,9).
But there is some hope. Many are working strenuously to challenge the selling of the heart and soul of India , Europe or elsewhere (10,11).
Yet how easy will it be for them to be swept aside by the corrosive impacts of a rapacious capitalism and its hugely powerful corporations that colonise almost every area of social, cultural and life and encourage greed, selfishness, apathy, irretrievable materialism and acquisitive individualism, as well as the ignorance of reality ‘out there’ – what lies beyond the narrow concerns of spend and buy middle class India?
India was always ripe for Western capitalism’s taking. Consumerism’s conspicuous purchasing draws on and manipulates the pre-existing tendency to buy favour, the perceived self importance deriving from caste, the sense of entitlement due to patronage, the desire nurtured over the centuries to lord it over and seek tributes from whoever happens to be on the next rung down in the pecking order. Lavish, conspicuous displays of status to reinforce difference and hierarchy have always been important for cementing social status. Now icons of capitalism, whether renowned brand products, labels or product endorsing celebrities, have also taken their place in the pantheon of Indian deities to be listen to, worshiped and acquiesced to.
And the corporations behind it all achieve hegemony by altering mindsets via advertising, clever PR or by sponsoring (or hijacking) major events, by funding and slanting research findings and research institutions in their favour, by infiltrating officialdom and achieving lop-sided trade agreements and by doling out loans and patronage in turn for the structural adjustment of agriculture, retail, food production, the privatisation of sector utilities. They do it by many methods and means.
Before you realise it, culture, politics and the economy have become colonised by powerful private interests and the world is cast in their image. The prevailing economic system soon becomes cloaked with an aura of matter of factuality, an air of naturalness, which is never to be viewed for the controlling hegemonic culture or power play that it really is.
In the meantime, over 250,000 (and rising) farmers have committed suicide, the bulk of the population are struggling to escape from or stay out of poverty, money is being siphoned off hand over fist via scam after scam, filth-ridden towns and cities become more filth-ridden by the day and the female to male ratio indicates an alarming imbalance (12). Seeds, mountains, water, forests and the biodiversity are being sold off. The farmers and tribals are being sold out. And the more that gets sold off, the more who get sold out, the greater the amount of cash that changes hands, the easier it is for the misinformed to swallow the lie of Wall Street’s bogus notion of ‘growth’ – GDP. And India suddenly becomes capitalism’s poster boy ‘economic miracle’. A miracle blighted by dying or uprooted local communities and economies that do not have to die or be uprooted (13).
This isn’t so much a ‘wounded civilisation’ as VS Naipal once noted, but one suffering from internal haemorrhaging as it continues to be bled dry from both within and without. But all is fine as long as the cash continues to be stashed away, the kids can be sent to Harvard and it’s a case of touchdown Mars.
Colin Todhunter : Originally from the northwest of England, Colin Todhunter has spent many years in India. He has written extensively for the Deccan Herald (the Bangalore-based broadsheet), New Indian Express and Morning Star (Britain). His articles have also appeared in various other newspapers, journals and books. His East by Northwest website is at: http://colintodhunter.blogspot.com
Notes
1) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-24547892
2) http://www.gfintegrity.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=230&Itemid=111
3) http://www.countercurrents.org/todhunter260413.htm
4) https://www.facebook.com/notes/shelley-kasli/mechanics-of-narendra-modis-pr-agency-apco-worldwide-orchestrating-our-future/500231493335095
5) http://www.deccanherald.com/content/309654/punjab-transformation-food-bowl-cancer.html
6) http://www.projectcensored.org/8-kia-the-us-neoliberal-invasion-of-india/
7) http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/business-wins-secretive-eu-india-trade-talks
8) http://www.countercurrents.org/todhunter070113.htm
9) http://www.countercurrents.org/todhunter310712.htm
10) http://corporateeurope.org/about-ceo
11) http://www.navdanya.org/
12) http://50millionmissing.wordpress.com/
13) http://www.countercurrents.org/shiva011113.htm
By Alan Hart
07 November, 2013
@ Alanhart.net
I was inspired (perhaps I should say provoked) to write this piece by something U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden said in his speech to the recent J Street National Conference in Washington DC. He recalled visiting Golda Meir when she was Israel’s prime minister and he was a junior senator. Her parting words to him were, he said, these: “We Jews have a secret weapon in our conflict with the Arabs: We have no place else to go.”
Taken a face value what Golda said was obviously not true because there were then, as there still are, many countries to which Israeli Jews can go to start a new life if they wish. For the one million who have taken their leave of the Zionist (not Jewish) state for a better life elsewhere, America was and remains the first choice, but today Germany is also becoming popular.
So what, really, was Golda’s message to Biden by implication?
In very low key Mother Israel was giving voice to Zionism’s raison d’etre (reason for being). The logic of it can be summarised as follows.
The world always has been anti-Semitic (meaning anti-Jew because Arabs are Semites, too) and always will be. So Zionism takes it as a given that Holocaust II, shorthand for another great turning against Jews, is inevitable. Israel therefore exists to be a safe haven, a refuge of last resort, an insurance policy for all the Jews of the world when that day comes. That’s why Israel has an unsatisfied hunger for more Palestinian land, an unquenchable thirst for more Palestinian water and a lust for the oil that has very recently been discovered in Palestine that became Israel. (SEE http://m.aljazeera.com/story/201311114571416794 )
And that in turn is why Zionism’s in-Israel leaders, assisted by their lobby and its associates and allies in America, will stop at nothing to advance their cause; a cause which requires, among other things, consolidating Zionism’s hold on the occupied West Bank and not ruling out a final ethnic cleansing of it, and the creation of a pretext to go to war with Lebanon again to take for keeps the south of that country up to the River Litani. (In one of his recent articles Franklin Lamb made reference to an Israeli document which contains the text of a speech made in 1941 by David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding father and first prime minister. One particular sentence is circled by hand. “We have to remember that for the Jewish state’s ability to survive it must have within its borders the waters of the [rivers] Jordan and Litani.”)
In passing I have to say that one of the greatest promoters of the Jewish fear of a new upsurge of anti-Semitism is Abe Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in America. (A more appropriate name for his organization would be DIC – Defame Israel’s Critics). A decade ago in his address to the ADL’s 90th annual meeting in New York he said: “We currently face as great a threat to the safety and security of the Jewish people as the one we faced in the 1930s – if not a greater one.”
In addition to its elected traitor agents in Congress, the Zionist lobby’s associates and allies include the non-Jewish neo-cons in various departments of state and the security services, a host of think tanks and the mainstream media, and the leaders of the tens of millions of deluded, mad, Christian fundamentalists. (This fundamentalism is historically anti-Semitic but supports Israel right or wrong because it sees the Zionist state as the instrument for bringing about Armageddon. For their part Israel’s rightwing leaders and their lobby courted and welcomed Christian fundamentalism because the alliance with it gave them maximum influence in Washington D.C.)
As I note in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, the answer to the question of what Zionism would do in the event of mission failure was given to me by Golda Meir in one of my interviews with her for the BBC’s flagship Panorama programme. She said that in the event of a doomsday situation, Israel “would be prepared to take the region and the whole world down with it.”
The Jewish paradox comes down to this. Israel was created by Zionism to guarantee the wellbeing and existence of the Jews, but that wellbeing and perhaps even existence is most seriously threatened by Zionism’s policies and actions
How can that possibly be true?
What we are witnessing today is a rising, global tide of anti-Israelism. It is NOT a manifestation of anti-Semitism, meaning that it’s not being driven by prejudice against or loathing and even hatred of Jews just because they are Jews. Anti-Israelism is being provoked by Israel’s arrogance of power, its sickening self-righteousness and its contempt for international law in general and the rights of the Palestinians in particular.
The danger for Jews everywhere is that anti-Israelism could be transformed into rampant and rabid anti-Semitism. The most explicit warning that this could happen was given voice by Yehoshafat Harkabi, Israel’s longest serving Director of Military Intelligence. In his book Israel’s Fateful Hour, published in English in 1988, he wrote this (my emphasis added):
Israel is the criterion according to which all Jews will tend to be judged. Israel as a Jewish state is an example of the Jewish character, which finds free and concentrated expression within it. Anti-Semitism has deep and historical roots. Nevertheless, any flaw in Israeli conduct, which initially is cited as anti-Israelism, is likely to be transformed into empirical proof of the validity of anti-Semitism. It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism. Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.
Harkabi also noted that Israel’s biggest enemy was its own self-righteousness. If he was alive today I would suggest to him for comment that if “enemy” can be defined as a force with the ability and real intention to destroy Israel by military means, self-righteousness is the only enemy of the Zionist state.
Harkabi was not the first Jew to warn of the danger of Israel becoming a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism, and he was in very good Jewish company. Prior to the Nazi holocaust most Jews everywhere were opposed to Zionism’s colonial-like enterprise. They believed it was morally wrong (which, of course, it was) and would lead to unending conflict with the Arab and wider Muslim world. But most of all they feared that if Zionism was allowed by the major powers to have its way, it would one day provoke anti-Semitism.
As I write I find myself wondering if honest future historians will conclude that one of the greatest ironies in all of human history, perhaps even the greatest, is in the fact that Zionism wanted and needed anti-Semitism in order to justify its criminal policies and actions to Jews everywhere and misinformed and therefore gullible Gentiles in America and Europe.
At school I was given what I still believe to be the best definition of a paradox – “The truth standing on its head to attract attention.” One such truth is this. There is no such thing as a “Palestine problem”. There is only a Jewish problem in and over Palestine that became Israel.
The headline over an article by Bradley Burston in Ha’aretz on the first day of this year was “Will 2013 be the year American Jews secede from Israel?” One of his concluding paragraphs was this:
American Jews want to know what is being done in their name. In the name of Judaism. And if they think that it is self-destructive, oppressive, blockheaded and wrong, it stands to reason they would want it to stop.
The Gentile me has a problem with that expression of hope.
The evidence is that while a growing but still smallish number of American Jews are publicly critical of Israel’s policies and actions, very many, still the majority, are remaining silent and don’t want to know what Zionism is doing in their name; and while that remains the case there is no prospect of reason prevailing in enough Jewish minds to change the course of history.
How it could be changed if reason was assisted to prevail can be simply stated. If a majority of American and European Jews were prepared to openly acknowledge the wrong done to the Palestinians in Zionism’s name, and then insist that the wrong be righted on terms acceptable to the Palestinians, any Israeli government would have to change course and be serious about peace on terms the Palestinians could accept.
What I really mean is that while it is perfectly possible that Zionism’s in-Israel’s leaders could tell an American president and the whole of the non-Jewish world to go to hell, they would not be stupid enough to say the same to the Jews of the world, Jewish Americans and Europeans especially.
That stands to reason….. doesn’t it?
On public speaking platforms (as in my book) I never tire of giving voice to my thoughts about the great prize available to the Jews of the world and Israeli Jews especially if they did allow justice-driven reason to prevail. Generally speaking they are the intellectual elite of the Western world and the Palestinians are the intellectual elite of the Arab world. Together in peace and partnership, in one state with equal rights and security for all, they could change the region for the better and by so doing give new hope and inspiration to the whole world. Put another way, Jews and Palestinians in peace and partnership could become the light unto nations.
Dream on, Alan.
FOOTNOTE
An indication that Netanyahu is alarmed by the possibility of a majority of Jewish Americans demanding or even requesting that Israel be serious about making peace on terms the Palestinians could accept is in the following.
The Israeli American Council recently commissioned the distribution of leaflets to thousands of Jewish Americans asking them where their allegiance would lie in the event of a real crisis between the U.S. and Israel. The leaflet was originally endorsed by representatives of Israel’s foreign ministry. When Netanyahu learned of this endorsement he directed the ministry to disassociate itself from the questionnaire.
I think it’s reasonable to assume he was worried by the prospect of the survey indicating that in the event of a showdown between himself and President Obama, a majority of Jewish Americans would be Americans first and not Israel firsters.
Alan Hart has been engaged with events in the Middle East and their global consequences and terrifying implications – the possibility of a Clash of Civilisations, Judeo-Christian v Islamic, and, along the way, another great turning against the Jews – for nearly 40 years… http://www.alanhart.net
By Ramzy Baroud
07 November, 2013
@ Countercurrents.org
Challenging the falsehoods and simplifications that surrounded the so-called Arab Spring from the very start doesn’t necessarily mean that one is in doubt of the very notion that genuine revolutions have indeed gripped various Arab countries for nearly three years.
In fact, the revolutionary influx is still underway, and it will take many years before the achievements of these popular mobilizations be truly felt. One can understand the frustration and deep sense of disappointment resulting from the state of chaos in Libya, the political wrangling in Yemen and Tunisia, the brutal civil war in Syria, and of course, the collective heartbreak felt throughout the Arab world following the bloody events in Egypt.
But to assign the term ‘failure’ to Arab revolutions is also a mistake equal to the many miscalculations that accompanied the nascent revolutions and uprisings from the start. Many lapses of judgment were made early on, starting with the lumping together of all Arab countries into one category – discussed as singular news or academic topics. It was most convenient for a newspaper to ask such a question as “who’s next?” when Libya’s Muammar al-Gaddafi was so pitilessly murdered by NATO-supported rebels. It is equally convenient for academicians to keep contending with why the Egyptian army initially took the side of the January 25 revolution, the Syrian army sided with the ruling party, and while the Yemeni army descended into deep divisions.
In the rush to emphasize one’s intellectual authority, if not ownership over the narrative and for political reasons as well, the Arabs were dissected in every possible way, stretched in every possible direction, and reduced in ways so useful, yet so flawed, so that quick answers could be obtained.
While answers were readily available of why the Arabs revolted, time has proven much of the early discourses inane and misleading. The direction of these revolutions has headed in sharply different ways. This a testament to the uniqueness of circumstances, historical and otherwise, which surround each country – as opposed to the wholesale representation offered by the media. It is an argument I made soon after Tunisian president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled the country. My argument was a response to the euphoria of expectations made by media ‘experts’ and journalists who clearly had little understanding, or dare I say, respect of history or knowledge about the complex realities in which each Arab country is situated. Many went on to write books, while others inspired audiences around the world with fiery speeches about collective Arab Islamic awakenings even before we conjured up basic ideas of what was truly manifesting before our own eyes. These manifestations were at times very violent and involved many players, from Qatar to China, and groups so varied in roots, ideology and sources of funds.
But as the plot thickened, much of the distorted accounts of ‘twitter revolutions’ and such, grew less relevant and eventually faded away. Take the case of Libya as an example. Those with simple answers, reflecting truly modest understanding of Arab societies, could hardly understand the complex nature of Libya’s tribal society, the socioeconomics governing relations between East and West, urban areas with desert towns, and Libya’s African context and relationships.
When NATO used the Libyan uprising, mostly in the eastern parts of the country, to achieve its own political objectives, it converted a regional uprising into an all-out war that left the country in a status comparable to that of a failed state. Almost immediately after NATO declared the Libyan revolution victorious, the excitement over the Libyan component of the ‘Arab Spring’ became less visible, and eventually completely dissipated. Since then Libya has hardly followed a path of democracy and reforms. In fact, the harms that resulted from the Libyan crisis, such as the massive influx of weapons and refugees to other African countries, destabilized the entire country of Mali.
As a result, Mali too went through its own upheaval, military coup, civil war and finally a French-led war in the course of two years. Unfortunately, these issues are hardly discussed within the Libyan context since Mali is not Arab, thus such inconvenient stories do no service to the simplified ‘Arab Spring’ discourse.
The consequences of the Libyan fiasco will continue to reverberate for many years to come. But since simple arguments cannot cope with intricate narratives, media ‘experts’ and other intellectual peddlers have moved elsewhere, selling the same tired arguments about other Arab countries by insisting on the same failed, expedient logic.
While some parties continue to ascribe the same language they used in the early months of 2011 to these revolutions, the shortcomings of these revolutions eventually gave credence to those who insist that the ‘Arab Spring’ was entirely farce – incepted, controlled and manipulated by US hands, and funds of rich Arab countries. These critics either have no faith in Arab masses as a possible factor of change in their own countries, or have been so accustomed to judging the world and all of its happenings as a colossal conspiracy where the US and its friends are the only wheelers and dealers.
As vigilant as one must remain to the many drivels promoted as news in mass media, one must not fall into the trap of seeing the world through the prism of an American plot in which we are co-conspirators, hapless fools or unwilling participants.
Arab revolutions have not failed, at least not yet. It will take us years, or maybe even an entire generation to assess their failures or successes. They have ‘failed’ according to our hyped expectations and erroneous understanding of history. What popular revolutions do is that they introduce new factors that challenge the way countries are ruled. In post-colonial Middle East, Arab countries were ruled through dictators – and their local associates – and foreign powers. The harmony and clashes between the dictator and the foreigner determined the course of events in most Arab countries – in fact in most post-colonial experiences around the world.
This is where the real significance of the mass mobilizations in Arab countries becomes very important, for the ‘people’ – a factor that is still far from being fully defined – challenged the rules of the game and mixed up the cards. True, they sent the entire region into disarray, but it is the price one would expect when powerful regimes and foreign powers are challenged by long-disempowered, disorganized, and oppressed people.
Arab revolutions have not failed, but they have not succeeded either. They have simply challenged the status quo like never before. The outcome of the new conflicts will define the politics of the region, its future, and the relationships between governments and the upcoming generations of Arabs.
– Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is a media consultant, an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is: My Father was A Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press).
Once again (last visited Dec. 2012) on Wednesday 6th November, 2013, I had the privilege of having a private visit with Julian Assange, Founder of Wikileaks, who is currently seeking asylum in the embassy lest he be arrested by UK authorities, taken to Sweden for questioning on alleged sexual allegations, and then illegally extradited to USA to face a grand jury on alleged espionage charges.
I joined Hon. Gianni Pittella,First Vice-President of the European Parliament and Enzo Curzio, Vice president, of the Secretariate of the World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates. We listened to Julian who enlightened us how we personally and our whole privacy has been eroded, and EU security and their sovereinty has been jeopardized by the use of USA/UK unethical surveillance. This conversation has taken my thinking to another level as to where we are going and what we are giving up to try and obtain personal and state security.
After listening to Julian, I realized that every movement we make through use of our credit cards, our mobile phone, our internet, we are being monitored. All this information when gathered in bulk from a country can make this country unstable. Outside influences have the power to control its Economic growth. This makes me feel people have to mobilize for world peace instead of World power. All this information being gathered is not to benefit humanity in some way, it is being gathered and used to control us. I came away from this meeting to advocate that the Europe protects itself, from external surveillance that can be used in a negative way to control the people of Europe, and other countries. The European Union must move to protect its political and economic sovereignty. From this meeting I tried to look for positive action and one of these should be the settling up of a ‘No spying treaty between EU and USA.’
How sad I felt to see Julian Assange an asylum seeker inside the embassy, (surrounded by British Police at a cost of millions to the British taxpayer) his crime of being a journalist who told the truth, and Wikileaks a media outlet which carried stories of governments’ war crimes, and upheld the publics’ right to know what their governments are doing in their names. I feel Julian should not be there and his human rights are being abused as his freedom is taken away from him. I realize how difficult it is for him and so many journalists when they speak truth to power, they have to seek exile in countries, such as Edward Snowden in Russia, and some journalists in Germany, as they are no longer able to act as journalists in countries such as UK or USA, due to repressive legislation now targeting journalists and their sources, civilians, etc., This situation is intolerable and we, the citizens of the world, have a right to all our freedoms, and the press have a right to freedom of information, etc. Without free press we are indeed in a very dark and dangerous world. We free citizens need to protect Julian Assange and all whistleblowers. The UK and Swedish Governments, on humanitarian grounds, can move to unblock the present impasse so Julian can answer the questions to be put to him re the Swedish case, and both governments can, regarding the US administration, protect Julian’s human rights by blocking any retaliation by US Administration against him,and guarantee his human rights.
By Fareed Zakaria
11 November, 2013
@ Times Magazine
America’s middle east policies are failing, we are told, and the best evidence is that Saudi Arabia is furious. Dick Cheney, John McCain and Lindsey Graham have all sounded the alarm about Riyadh’s recent rejection of a seat on the U.N. Security Council. But whatever one thinks of the Obama Administration’s handling of the region, surely the last measure of American foreign policy should be how it is received by the House of Saud.
If there were a prize for Most Irresponsible Foreign Policy it would surely be awarded to Saudi Arabia. It is the nation most responsible for the rise of Islamic radicalism and militancy around the world. Over the past four decades, the kingdom’s immense oil wealth has been used to underwrite the export of an extreme, intolerant and violent version of Islam preached by its Wahhabi clerics.
Go anywhere in the world–from Germany to Indonesia–and you’ll find Islamic centers flush with Saudi money, spouting intolerance and hate. In 2007, Stuart Levey, then a top Treasury official, told ABC News, “If I could snap my fingers and cut off the funding from one country, it would be Saudi Arabia.” When confronted with the evidence, Saudi officials often claim these funds flow from private individuals and foundations and the government has no control over them. But many of the foundations were set up by the government or key members of the royal family, and none could operate in defiance of national policy; the country is an absolute monarchy. In a December 2009 cable, leaked by WikiLeaks in 2010, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed that Saudi Arabia remained a “critical financial base” for terrorism and that Riyadh “has taken only limited action” to stop the flow of funds to the Taliban and other such groups.
Saudi Arabia was one of only three countries in the world to recognize and support the Taliban-led government in Afghanistan until the 9/11 attacks. It is also a major player in Pakistan, now home to most of the world’s deadliest terrorists. The country’s former Law Minister Iqbal Haider told Deutsche Welle, the German news agency, in August 2012, “Whether they are the Taliban or Lashkar-e-Taiba, their ideology is Saudi Wahhabi without an iota of doubt.” He added that there was no doubt Saudi Arabia was supporting Wahhabi groups throughout his country.
Ever since al-Qaeda attacked Riyadh directly in 2003, the Saudis have stamped down on terrorism at home. But they have not ended support for Wahhabi clerics, centers, madrasahs and militants abroad. During the Iraq War, much of the support for Sunni militants came from Saudi sources. That pattern continues in Syria today.
Saudi Arabia’s objections to the Obama Administration’s policies toward Syria and Iran are not framed by humanitarian concerns for the people of those countries. They are rooted in a pervasive anti-Shi’ite ideology. Riyadh has long treated all other versions and sects of Islam as heresy and condoned the oppression of those groups. A 2009 report from Human Rights Watch details the ways in which the Saudi government, clerics, religious police and schools systematically discriminate against the local Shi’ite population, including arrests, beatings and, on occasion, the use of live ammunition. (And not just the Shi’ites. In March 2012, Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti issued a fatwa declaring that it was “necessary to destroy all the churches in the Arabian Peninsula.”)
The regime fears that any kind of empowerment of the Shi’ites anywhere could embolden the 15% of Saudi Arabia’s population that is Shi’ite–and happens to live in the part of the country where most of its oil reserves can be found. That’s why the Saudis sent troops into neighboring Bahrain during the Arab Spring of 2011, to crush the Shi’ite majority’s uprising.
Saudi royals have been rattled by the events in their region and beyond. They sense that the discontent that launched the Arab Spring is not absent in their own populace. They fear the rehabilitation of Iran. They also know that the U.S. might very soon find itself entirely independent of Middle Eastern oil.
Given these trends, it is possible that Saudi Arabia worries that a seat on the U.N. Security Council might constrain it from having freedom of action. Or that the position could shine a light on some of its more unorthodox activities. Or that it could force Riyadh to vote on issues it would rather ignore. It is also possible that the Saudis acted in a sudden fit of pique. After all, they had spent years lobbying for the seat. Whatever the reason, let’s concede that, yes, Saudi Arabia is angry with the U.S. But are we sure that’s a sign Washington is doing something wrong?
TO READ MORE BY FAREED, GO TO time.com/zakaria
By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
06 November, 2013
@ Countercurrents.org
On November 4th, Iranian lawyer and the 2003 Nobel Laureate announced that the United States and Europe should ban Iran from using broadcast satellites. Censor them, is what this ‘human rights’ advocate is suggesting. Shocking as this is, given Ebadi’s track record, the call for censorship comes as no surprise. She is, after all, a former judge.
During the brutal dictatorship of the Shah of Iran, Ebadi was a judge (she managed to become a “judge” with an undergrad degree – without legal practice experience, simply by passing a ‘qualification exam to become a judge!). One can only surmise what the ‘qualification exam’ consisted of, however, a cursory look at the political environment of the time may shed light on the judgeship qualifications of Ebadi.
Ebadi, today’s ‘human rights’ activist, enjoyed the status and privileges of a judge at a time when the Shah’s secret police (SAVAK) trained by the CIA and Mossad , engaged in brutal torture. According to Amnesty International, the methods included “whipping and beating, electric shocks, extraction of teeth and nails, boiling water pumped into the rectum, heavy weights hung on the testicles, tying the prisoner to a metal table heated to a white heat, inserting a broken bottle into the anus, and rape.” As one of its many “friendly” dictators, the US covered up the crimes with censorship.
The United States did more than train torturers and keep it under wraps. But the US did much more for its pet dictator. Right up until the 1979 Iranian Revolution, “the CIA worked with SAVAK, the shah’s secret police, to destroy “antishah” elements in the Iranian student community in the United States. The CIA and SAVAK set up a front group called the International Association of Patriotic Students (IAPS), which organized demonstrations in favor of the shah and beat up students who differed with their view of the ruler.” Ebadi’s judgeship remained in tact, as did human rights violations, and the censorship of these crimes. Judge Ebadi was silent – engulfed in a culture of abuse and censorship. The 1979 Iranian Revolution put an end to her career as a judge. She was forced to practice law instead of passing judgment!
After the Revolution, Ebadi sank into obscurity – and resurfaced in 2002. She appeared in the headlines as the Founder of ‘Defenders of Human Rights Center’. Their website states: “Defenders of Human Rights Center (http://www.humanrights-ir.org/english/) was first established in Iran in 2002 at the initiative of the Nobel Peace Laureate Shiring [sic]Ebadi”. Ebadi was given the Noble Peace prize in 2003. No longer a judge, Ebadi dedicated her time to defending the rights of all those opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran at the exclusion of the rights of all Iranians and Iran. She was awarded a Nobel Peace prize in 2003.
The Nobel gave her the necessary platform to undermine the government in Tehran – at a cost to the Iranian nation. In 2010, this ‘human rights’ attorney displayed a total disregard for human life and international law as reported by Foreign Policy. Referring to sanctions, Ebadi “insisted” that “Iranians will endure considerable hardship if they think the endgame is greater respect for human rights”.
This ‘human rights advocate and attorney further opined that the United States should use VOA and Radio Farda to reach Iranians inside Iran ‘”to convince them that the sanctions are targeted at the regime and not the ordinary Iranians”. (Perhaps she is of the opinion that had VOA broadcasted into Iraq, the lives of 500,000 children would have been spared by sanctions. ) However, in spite of daily broadcast into Iran, sanctions continue to take lives. No amount of radio wave has managed to save lives.
So while Ebadi, former judge, ‘human rights’ advocate, recommends the violation of a bilateral agreement – the Algiers Accords, Point I.1 of which states: “The United States pledge that it is and from now will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs.” ( Per Article VI of the Algiers Accords, the violated party, Iran, has the right to refer the matter to the Tribunal at Hague, the Netherlands, where the International Court of Justice will have jurisdiction) by encouraging US government broadcasts into Iran, she is calling for the censorship of Iranian broadcast .
In 2010, Ebadi [wishfully] predicted the end of the Islamic Republic. Her hopes were dashed with the election of Rohani and the popular support behind him. But clearly her ambition is unchecked. As such, one has to wonder what will be the next game plan for this ‘human rights’ activist who advocates death (sanctions) and censorship.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy.