Archives: Articles

Most people have been brought up to believe that the competitive, grow-or-die, absentee-shareholder-owned, “free”-trade “market” economy is the only one that works, the only alternative to a socialist, government-run economy. This myth is perpetrated in business and other schools, by the media, by accountants and lawyers and bankers and, of course, in the business world. This amoral-capitalist economic model has “succeeded” in the same hostile way our species has “succeeded” — by brutally suppressing, starving for resources, using power to steal from, and, when all else fails, killing off anything deemed a “competitor” or threat to its monopoly on power and resources. It relies on massive subsidies and near-zero interest rates thanks to well-rewarded political cronies, on political graft and corruption worldwide, on oligopoly and restraint of competition, on wage slavery and worker ignorance, on phony money and unrepayable debt, and on advertising, human insecurity, ego and greed to create an artificial demand for its shoddy, overpriced crap. And, on top of all that, it’s utterly unsustainable.

For an alternative, natural economy to work, we either have to wait for this amoral-capitalist economy to collapse (which it will, but probably not for a few decades), or we have to plant the seeds for this alternative economy in the cracks where the current one is already failing most badly — at the community level where the economy is most obviously failing to produce meaningful work, sucking resources, wealth and opportunity out, and dumping mass-produced and imported crap that ends up in the landfill, and pollutants in our air, water, soil and food that make us sick and contribute to climate change. But before we can plant these seeds we need to unlearn the nonsense we’re taught and told about economics, and learn how a healthy economy actually works.

Perhaps the best way to explain this is by showing models that contrast the features of the amoral-capitalist economy with those of a cooperative natural economy. Let’s start by looking at two enterprises, a traditional amoral-capitalist one and a cooperative natural one:

The diagram above is a slightly cynical but not unfair depiction of how most entrepreneurs taught amoral capitalist economics start and run their businesses (and I advised hundreds of them, so I’m not making this up):

1. It all starts, sadly, with the entrepreneur’s dream that s/he has a better idea, something that the “market” will love as much as s/he does. It’s likely to be something that competes with products or services already offered by established companies, but somehow “differentiated” from them. It’s also likely to be a one-person enterprise to start, and a one-boss enterprise thereafter. Businesspeople who try to do it all themselves are almost sure to overstress themselves, make fatal mistakes, hate most of what they do, and fail, often early and spectacularly.

2. Advised by “professionals” who went to the same business schools, the entrepreneur sets up the company as a for-profit corporation, borrows heavily (and expensively) for “start-up” costs, and then hunts for sources for materials and labour to make his/her products and services. It’s quite possible that investors, seeing this as a high-risk investment, will want a large return (high interest rate) and equity position (controlling interest, especially if profit and growth targets are not met) in return for that risk. Once production is started, the company needs to fund customer receivables, inventories, capital equipment, and lots of start-up expenses. Its balance sheet is scary, with no resilience if there are sudden changes in the economy or market, and with a ton of money tied up and no room for error.

3. Now our poor entrepreneur has to go head-to-head with established competitors to try to attract customers. S/he will often spend an enormous amount on marketing and advertising to do so. The debts pile up, and little has been sold yet. Our entrepreneur is not sleeping well.

4. The idea will now either pay off, or not. Chances are, with incumbents willing and able to take discounts to fend off new competitors, our entrepreneur will not make profit and growth targets. The business might be shut down and liquidated by unhappy lenders and investors, or taken over and the entrepreneur ousted. Or, more simply, it will just run out of cash, and/or make a few naive, fatal decisions.

5. But just maybe it beats the odds and succeeds. Now it has to meet grueling annual growth and profitability targets to meet the investors’ demand for a very high rate of return on their investment, to compensate for the heavy risk they took.

6. And if it grows it will start to attract the attention of large corporate competitors, which can use their money and position for dozens of usually-effective tactics to crush this upstart. And if it still succeeds, they will shrug, sigh, and make the entrepreneur an offer s/he can’t refuse. The exhausted entrepreneur will usually take the money and run. And either retire, or start all over again (probably not as successfully) with another idea.

This unhappy process explains why most traditional enterprises fail, and why the biggest companies in most industries form collusive oligopolies that control the market, the politicians, and the media, and become “too big to fail” (so if they do screw up, the government — the taxpayer — bails them out).

It has evolved this way for simple Darwinian reasons. It’s what works when the “market” is given some simple (amoral, dysfunctional) rules to operate and is then left to its own resources. It’s a Frankenstein monster, but it was inevitable.

Now let’s look at how a community-based, cooperative economy could work, if it were made up of natural enterprises that “flew under the radar” of the corporate giants, and used a completely different set of processes and rules to get established and operate:

1. Our natural entrepreneurs don’t try to do everything alone, and they don’t decide what their offering is to be until they’ve done their market research and identified something in the local community that is needed, and not being met by established companies. As our economy starts to fall apart, such opportunities might be present in just about any essential sector:

> A food co-op, that grows and distributes local, organic foods using permaculture or other sustainable methods (i.e. not dependent on monoculture, wage slave employees, massive oil-based chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and massive irrigation).

> A co-op on the Mondragon model that makes and repairs high-quality, durable, customized clothing from local, sustainable materials.

> An energy co-op that establishes, augments and manages the collective renewable energy of the community.

> Building and furniture co-ops that construct and refurbish buildings and furniture using local materials and labour.

> A housing co-op that builds and co-manages homes and community common spaces for its members and the community at large.

> A local water and water resources stewardship co-op.

> Information, media and technology co-ops that collect, store and disseminate information to the community.

> Theatre, art and recreational co-ops that help the community realize that entertaining yourself is more enjoyable, engaging and fulfilling than consuming packaged entertainment produced elsewhere.

> You get the idea.

2. Now, in a process called Peer Production, the local people interested in becoming suppliers, customers or investors of the offering that will fill the unmet need from step 1 above, self-organize and become partners in the enterprise, and co-design the offering to meet their specific needs. This is not rocket science; the reason it isn’t done in traditional economy companies is that it doesn’t scale well up to the multi-national level that traditional enterprises need to grow to to continue to exist.

3. The partners now decide which of them will work how many hours in the enterprise and what they will be paid (dependent on their time availability, personal income needs, and the needs of the enterprise — but with little differential between highest and lowest hourly rate, and with an appreciation that the enterprise is not for-profit and must manage its costs prudently).

4. They will also decide how much short-term working capital they need (likely to be much less than a traditional enterprise requires, for reasons that will become apparent in a moment), how much the existing partners are willing to invest, and how much they’ll need to obtain from the local Credit Union (which is another local community-based co-op), and what rate of return on investment they will offer (since the product is being made by its potential customers to meet an unfilled need, the risk is low, and so is the needed rate of return). Based on these calculations, they will be able to set a zero-profit price for their offering, and confirm with potential customers that this is viable before even thinking about production.

5. Now the partners can pre-order, and prepay the cost of, the offering that they have co-designed to meet their requirements. Additional customers may be brought in at this stage on the same basis. There are no receivables and no unpaid inventory to have to worry about, or to finance. And the Credit Union which is a partner in the co-op will actually buy the equipment and then lease it to the co-op, knowing that the risk of the enterprise failing is low (and hence the lease payments will carry a low risk premium) — so there is no equipment on the balance sheet either, and no need for capital financing. The enterprise begins its life almost entirely debt-free, and stays that way. And the equity is the partners’ — the workers’ — not that of some absentee outside group demanding huge returns, growth and profitability.

6. Finally, the offering is produced to the customers who have already bought and paid for it. No expenditure is needed for advertising or marketing, and there is no need for the enterprise to grow, or to earn a profit (just enough to cover its costs). The balance sheet is small and lean, giving the enterprise resilience to deal with changes in the economy and market. Because it’s local, it creates local employment, respects local customs, is better for the environment, and minimizes transportation and other distribution costs. Everybody wins.

As co-operatives of many different types have found, the hard part in doing all this is the re-learning of what collaborative enterprise is all about. It takes a lot of practice, but it’s a natural human endeavour. There are excellent facilitators who can help with enterprise formation, the basics of peer production, invitation (of people in the community to identify and explore unmet needs), consensus, and conflict resolution. Most lawyers, accountants, bankers and traditional consultants should be used as little as possible, since they tend to perpetrate the traditional economy myths and lack the information and experience to know what’s needed in cooperative, natural enterprises. In time a new school of professionals practiced in the natural economy will emerge — I’ve heard that Credit Unions in Germany, for example, now offer “turnkey” financing packages for local wind and solar energy co-ops, complete with training.

As we relearn how to make a living for ourselves, we will be able to help each other out, and establish networks and alliances to share skills, knowledge and resources. I can imagine the growth of a Gift Economy (or what I call a Generosity Economy) blossoming in the abundance of appreciation, know-how, saved time and strengthened relationships that a cooperative natural economy engenders. With time, a community might be able to wean itself off dependence on the amoral-capitalist economy entirely, so that when that economy collapses it will already have made the transition to a steady-state natural economy, and be in a position to help other, unprepared communities with the terrible struggles they will then face.

It’s entirely possible, if we have the will to do it. I see it starting to happen already in some progressive communities that have Transition Initiatives underway. But I have a sense that it will take a few more economic, energy and ecological seismic shocks before many will wake up to the need to find a better way to live and make a living. I’m not sure it won’t be too late by then, but, if we’re in time, we’ll have some models and communities to show us the way.

By Dave Pollard

According to a new Oxford University study, 55 percent of India’s population of 1.1 billion, or 645 million people, are living in poverty. Using a newly-developed index, the study found that about one-third of the world’s poor live in India.

The Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) has been developed by the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) as a more precise and comprehensive means of estimating poverty levels. It will replace the Human Poverty Index that has been used in the UNDP’s annual Human Development Report since 1997.

The MPI assesses a range of factors or “deprivations” at the household level as well as income and assets. These include: child mortality, nutrition, access to clean drinking water, sanitation, cooking fuel, electricity, and years of schooling and child enrolment. “A person is considered poor if they are deprived in at least 30 percent of the weighted indicators,” the study states.

As measured by the new index, half of the world’s poor are in South Asia (51 percent or 844 million people) and one quarter in Africa (28 per cent or 458 million). While poverty in Africa is often highlighted, the Oxford research found that there was more acute poverty in India than many African countries combined. Poverty in eight Indian states—Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal—exceeded that of the 26 poorest African countries.

The study examined poverty across 28 Indian states, concluding that “81 percent of people are multidimensionally poor in Bihar—more than any other state. Also, poverty in Bihar and Jharkand is most intense—poor people are deprived in 60 percent of the MPI’s weighted indicators. Uttar Pradesh is the home of largest number of poor people—21 percent of India’s poor people live there. West Bengal is home to the third largest number of poor people.”

The last figure is particularly significant as West Bengal has been ruled since 1977 by a Left Front coalition government led by the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPM). Far from being “socialist” or “Marxist”, the Stalinist CPM has been responsible for implementing the pro-market agenda of economic restructuring carried out in other states and nationally by openly bourgeois parties. The result has been a decline in living standards for the majority and a deepening divide between rich and poor.

The Oxford University research also exposed high levels of poverty among India’s oppressed castes and tribal peoples. The poverty level among India’s so-called Scheduled Tribes is 81.4 percent. “The intensity of poverty is also very high among Scheduled Tribes, who are deprived in 59.2 percent of weighted indicators on average,” the study stated. The MPI for Scheduled Castes was 65.8 percent and for Other Backward Castes (OBC) was 58.3 percent.

The figures expose the Congress-led government’s claim that India’s economic growth has been “inclusive”. In fact, successive Indian governments led by Congress and the Hindu supremacist Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP) are responsible for economic policies that have boosted the profits of big business and the wealth of a tiny layer at the expense of the working class and rural poor.

By focussing on a broader range of factors, the Oxford University study has highlighted the continuing lack of basic facilities for the majority of the Indian population. Governments at the national and state levels have failed to provide even the most rudimentary assistance for hundreds of millions of people. Moreover, existing public services have been further undermined by the policies of privatisation and restructuring.

Only 31 percent of India’s population had access to improved sanitation in 2008. As a result of the lack of health care and food, 61 million children in India are stunted, the largest figure for any country, according to a UNICEF report. It also stated that the health of children suffers not just due to poor hygienic conditions and lack of nutritional food but also because mothers often suffer from anaemia and malnutrition during pregnancy.

Sharply rising food prices, including an average 83 percent increase since 2008, have been devastating for the country’s poor. Their situation has been further aggravated by recent fuel price hikes announced by the Indian government. The United Nations World Food Program (UNWFP) recently painted an alarming picture, reporting that nearly 350 million people—roughly 35 percent of India’s population —was food insecure and consumed less than 80 percent of their total energy requirements.

More than 1.5 million children in India are estimated to suffer from malnourishment and 43 percent of children under five years of age are underweight, according to the latest UNWFP report. The proportion of anaemic children has increased by six percent in the last six years, with 11 states reporting 80 percent child anaemia rates.

Another study that used a household income of $US2 a day as the poverty benchmark found that India not only has more poor people than sub-Saharan Africa, but also has a higher level of poverty. In India, 75.6 percent of the population, or 828 million people, live below the poverty line as compared to 72.2 percent, or 551 million people in sub-Saharan Africa.

On the other end of the scale, the wealthy few in India have amassed great riches. While impacted by the global financial crisis, the number of US dollar billionaires in India on the Forbes list rebounded to 49 in 2010, after falling to 24 last year. The figure falls just short of the record high of 53 in 2008.

The Financial Express commented that year: “The wealth amassed by Indian billionaires—estimated at 340.9 billion dollars by the US business magazine Forbes—is nearly 31 percent of the country’s total GDP. This gives them nearly three times more weight in the economy than their American counterparts and over ten times of those in China. The GDP share of Indian billionaires’ wealth is more than four times of the global average.”

The situation is similar this year. While 49 individuals preside over what for most Indians is unimaginable wealth, the majority of people are struggling to survive from day to day. In India’s financial capital of Mumbai, more than six million desperately poor people, half of the city’s population, eke out an existence in the slums. Mumbai’s gleaming skyscrapers that symbolise India’s economic growth sit alongside makeshift hovels.

Like their counterparts around the world, India’s business elite likes to justify their position in society on the basis of their own personal initiative, acumen and drive. In reality, their wealth is the product of the exploitation of the country’s huge reserves of cheap labour and depends on the continued impoverishment of the rest of the population. This worsening social divide will inevitably produce a rebellion against the appalling conditions created by profit system and the ruling elites that defend and benefit from it.

By Arun Kumar

What is BDS?

BDS stands for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions. On July 9, 2005, one year after the historic Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which found Israel’s Wall built on occupied Palestinian territory to be illegal, an overwhelming majority of Palestinian civil society called upon international civil society organizations and people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel, similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era.

What are the goals of BDS?

According to the 2005 call by Palestinian civil society: Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions are nonviolent punitive measures to be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by:

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall;

2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and

3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

Who is calling for BDS?

A 2005 call for BDS was endorsed by over 170 Palestinian parties, organizations, trade unions and movements representing the three major constituents of the Palestinian people, Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, Palestinian citizens of Israel, and Palestinians living in the Diaspora. On July 13, 2005 the UN International Civil Society Conference adopted the Palestinian Call for BDS. Today, hundreds of organizations and people of conscience around the world are actively supporting the Palestinian BDS call by engaging in a variety of BDS actions and initiatives.

What are some examples of how BDS was used during Apartheid in South Africa?

US-based Motorola was providing radio equipment to the apartheid government in Pretoria, where the police and army were using it. A US campaign calling for boycott of and divestment from Motorola products and subsidiaries resulted in Motorola’s sale of its South Africa subsidiary to Allied Technologies Ltd in 1985.

Similar to the boycott against apartheid South Africa, the Palestinian call for boycott includes an institutional boycott of Israeli cultural and academic institutions. The website of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) provides a thorough explanation of the nuanced cultural & academic boycotts, clarifying some key misunderstandings of the boycott, and providing guidelines of how to apply it.

Who are some of the people endorsing the Palestinian-led BDS campaign?

Consumer and Corporate Boycott Success

July 2010: U.S.-based Olympia Food Co-op (two grocery stores) voted to stop selling all Israeli goods with the exception of a single brand called “Peace Oil.”

June 2010: Responding to appeals from Palestinian civil society after Israel’s attack on a humanitarian aid flotilla to Gaza, dockworkers in Oakland – California, Sweden, and Norway all refused to dock and unload Israeli ships, imposing a blockade so-to-speak on Israeli goods. Similar historic action was taken by South African dockworkers in February of 2009.

July 2009 – 2010: As part of a CODEPINK campaign against Israeli settlement-based and settlement-owned Ahava Dead Sea Cosmetics, Kristen Davis was suspended from her post as Oxfam spokesperson after it was revealed that she also represented AHAVA Beauty Products. Davis later ended her contract with Ahava. CODEPINK also confirmed with Costco that it would no longer carry Ahava products after a letter-writing and calling campaign by activists across the U.S. Finally, the Dutch government is currently investigating Ahava and its practices.

2006 – 2010: The “Derail Veolia” campaign against French corporation Veolia, for its involvement in the construction of a light rail train from Jerusalem into Israeli settlements or colonies on Palestinian land, led to a loss of over €7 billion for the company across several countries. Israeli news daily Ha’aretz reported that after the losses Veolia had decided to withdraw from the project.

November 2007 – 2010: A global campaign against Israeli billionaire, diamond mogul, and settlement-builder Lev Leviev initiated by US-based Adalah-NY has led to his renunciation by UNICEF, denunciation by Oxfam, the removal of a promotional section of his website featuring actors like Salma Hayek, Drew Barrymore, and Halle Berry at some of their requests, a UK government decision not to rent embassy space from his company,

Cultural and Academic Boycott Success

July 2010: According to festival organizers, Hollywood actors Meg Ryan and Dustin Hoffman cancelled plans to attend the Jerusalem film festival following Israel’s raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla that left nine dead.

June 2010: California-based folk artist Devendra Banhart canceled two shows he had been set to play in Tel Aviv just hours before his scheduled arrival in Israel.

June 2010: Rock band The Pixies cancelled their first ever concert date in Israel just after the Gaza flotilla incident, blaming “events beyond our control.”

May 2010: Elvis Costello pulled out of two concerts in Israel, saying that his appearance there could have been “interpreted as a political act.”

May 2010: The University and College Union in Britain, with well over 100,000 members, voted to sever all relations with the Histadrut union in Israel and commence looking into the boycott of Ariel College.

April 2010: Gil Scott-Heron announces that he will not play an upcoming show in Israel.

March 2010 – Award-winning novelist, historian, and playwright, Sarah Schulman, chose not to accept the invitation to participate in a conference at Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion Universities.

February 2010: According to Israeli producers, guitarist Santana canceled his concert in Israel due to pressure not to play there. This was after letters directed at him, including one from the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel.

2008 – 2009 included: The Government of Spain’s exclusion of an Israeli university in the illegal settlement of Ariel from a prestigious international university competition for sustainable architecture in the world, organized by both the Spanish Government and the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid; rapper Snoop Dogg’s cancellation of a concert in Israel; The Yes Men withdrawing their film from the Jerusalem Film Festival; Roger Waters of Pink Floyd refusing to play in Israel again until it removes the wall it built largely on Palestinian land; and film director, screen writer, and critic Jean-Luc Godard canceling plans to attend a Tel Aviv film festival.

Divestment Success

July 2010, Jewish Voice for Peace activists presented over 15,000 petitions and postcard signatures to one of the world’s largest retirement funds, TIAA-CREF, asking them to divest from companies documented as profiting from Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.

June 2010: Students at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, voted to divest the college foundation’s funds from companies profiting from Israel’s illegal occupation.

September 2009: The Norwegian Pension Fund announced its divestment from one of the most important Israeli defense contractors, and constructor of Israel’s wall, Elbit Systems.

August 2009: British bank Blackrock divested from the West Bank settlement projects of Lev Leviev and his company, Africa Israel Investments Limited. This was especially significant since Blackrock was the second largest shareholder of Africa Israel.

February 2009: Hampshire College, a pioneer in the 1970s by becoming the first U.S. university to divest from apartheid South Africa, decided to divest from some 200 companies that “violated the college’s standards for social responsibility,” including six companies with close connections to Israel’s occupation.

Sanctions Success

February 2010 – The European Union court in Brussels ruled that products from Israeli settlements on the Occupied Palestinian Territories are not Israeli and are therefore not eligible for the trade benefits between Israel and the European Union.

July 2009 – Britain blocked the sale of spare parts for Israel’s fleet of missile gunships because they were used in the 2009 bombing of Gaza, revoking five of Israel’s arms licenses with the UK.

January 2009 – The European Parliament managed to halt negotiations on strengthening the trade relationship between the EU and Israel in the framework of the Association Agreement and there are new, emboldened efforts to try and get the Association Agreement suspended altogether.

By IMEU

12 August, 2010

Since 1981, the quantity of oil extracted from the earth has exceeded new oil discoveries by an ever-widening margin. In 2008, the world pumped 31 billion barrels of oil, but discovered fewer than 9 billion new barrels. World reserves of conventional oil are in a free fall, decreasing every year.

It can’t be denied: Agriculture uses a vast amount of oil. Most tractors use gasoline or diesel fuel. Irrigation pumps use diesel, natural gas or coal-fired electricity. Fertilizer production also is energy-intensive. Natural gas is used to synthesize the basic ammonia building block in nitrogen fertilizers. The mining, manufacture and international transport of phosphate and potash fertilizers all depend on oil. Our answer to the question of how we can end world hunger has thus far been to focus on increases in agricultural technology. These advances, unfortunately, require even more fuel.

Fertilizer production accounts for 20 percent of energy use on U.S. farms, and the demand for this fertilizer continues to climb. In addition, the international food trade separates producer from consumer by thousands of miles, further disrupting soil nutrient cycles. For example, the United States exports some 80 million tons of grain per year — grain that contains large quantities of basic plant nutrients: nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. The ongoing export of these nutrients will slowly drain the inherent fertility from U.S. cropland if the nutrients are not replaced.

This international food trade is responsible for more than just soil nutrient depletion. Sustainable farming alone cannot solve this problem.The amount of energy used to transfer goods from farmer to consumer equals two-thirds of the total amount of energy used to grow it on the farm (see “U.S. Food System Energy Use” chart in the Image Gallery). An estimated 16 percent of food system energy is used to can, freeze and dry food — everything from canned peas to frozen orange juice from concentrate.

Food miles — the distance food travels from producer to consumer — have risen in the United States thanks to cheap oil. Fresh produce routinely travels long distances, such as from California to the East Coast. Most of this produce moves on refrigerated trucks.

In the international food trade, staples such as wheat have historically moved long distances by ship — traveling from the United States to Europe, for example. But more recently, fresh fruits and vegetables have begun to travel vast distances by air; few activities are more energy-intensive. Packaging is surprisingly energy-intensive as well, accounting for 7 percent of food system energy use. Along with marketing, it also can account for much of the cost of processed foods. On average, a U.S. farmer gets only about 20 percent of the total consumer food dollar, and for some products, that figure is much lower.

What’s the most energy-intensive segment of the food chain? The kitchen. We actually use more energy to refrigerate and prepare food at home than our farmers use to produce it in the first place.

With higher energy prices and a limited supply of fossil fuels, the modern food system that evolved while oil has been cheap clearly cannot survive as it is currently structured.

Excerpted from Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, available for download or purchase online.

By Lester R. Brown

18 August, 2010

Motherearthnews.com

It is unfortunate that the US was unable to use the window of opportunity that it had in the immediate aftermath of the removal of the Taleban Government in late 2001. It could have brought in a truly broad-based Afghan government and invested in the development of the country. Instead, it continued its military actions and brought corrupt and criminal elements into power in Kabul.

Before the West invaded Afghanistan my country had no suicide bombers, no jihad and no Talebanisation.

There is now a general recognition that the war in Afghanistan cannot be won militarily. All the Taleban have to do to win is not to lose. The Americans won’t stay and everybody knows that.

The focus has come to rest on the inevitable need to talk with all the militant groups in Afghanistan. While most important players are ready to talk peace, the US remains confused and has still to straighten out its policy. This confusion is once again taking its toll, especially on Pakistan.

As the US and Nato realise the failure of their military policy in Afghanistan, they are seeking to shift the centre of gravity of the war into the north west of Pakistan, the region known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). One of the fears raised in the West at the prospect of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan is that it will lead to a Taleban- controlled nuclear Pakistan. That fear betrays a total ignorance about the evolution of the Taleban movement as well as the impact of the War on Terror on Pakistan.

Remember, there was no Pakistani involvement in 9/11. Nor throughout the period of the Taleban regime in Kabul was there Talebanisation in Pakistan .

When the Americans were drawing up their military response to the 9/11 attacks, they drew up a list of seven conditions for Pakistan to meet to attract US support. The assumption was that General Pervez Musharraf, the former President of Pakistan, might agree to three or four. Instead he unilaterally signed up for the lot. These conditions were a total violation of the human rights of the people of Pakistan and the sovereignty of the country.

This was a leader with whom President Clinton had refused to shake hands when he came to Pakistan before 9/11, for fear of being seen to support a dictator. It was quite shameless how the Pakistani leadership capitulated and how the US gave Musharraf the embrace of legitimacy. This was reminiscent of the Cold War era when tinpot dictators were routinely supported by the US.

In 2004 Pakistan’s Government sent troops into Waziristan, where al-Qaeda was allegedly present. I was one of the only politicians from outside the tribal areas who had been to Waziristan and I opposed the move in Pakistan’s Parliament. Anyone who knows the region and its history could see it would be a disaster.

Until that point we had no militant Taleban in Pakistan. We had militant groups, but our own military establishment was able to control them. We had madrassas, but none of them produced militants intent on jihad until we became a frontline state in the War on Terror.

The country is fighting someone else’s war. We never had suicide bombings in our history until 2004. Now we have 30 to 40 deaths a day from shells or bombings and the suicide attacks continue to increase. While we have received about $15 billion in aid from the US, our own economy has lost about $50 billion.

We have borrowed a record amount of money from the International Monetary Fund, which was only given to us because of our role in the war, not because we could afford to pay it back. Our social and economic fabric is being destroyed because of the conditions that the IMF has imposed.

Millions of our people have been displaced and a massive radicalization of our youth has taken place as they see the Pakistani state becoming a puppet doing US bidding. The military operations by Pakistan in FATA have led to 40,000 casualties in indiscriminate aerial bombardment and ground fire.

The attacks by US drones, in which the Government of Pakistan is complicit, have also killed thousands of civilians, leading to a growing hatred becoming embedded among the local population. There is deep resentment of the war in the frontier regions, where high unemployment feeds the discontent.

The war in Afghanistan is justified as a stabilizing force for Pakistan, whereas in truth the country is collapsing under the pressure. We are like Cambodia in the Vietnam War. After the Wikileaks revelations yesterday reports are being floated that the ISI, Pakistan’s intelligence service, is aiding the Afghan militancy. The fact is that the ISI is not that powerful, but certainly in an environment of chaos and uncertainty Pakistan will need to protect its interests through all means necessary.

It is unfortunate that the US was unable to use the window of opportunity that it had in the immediate aftermath of the removal of the Taleban Government in late 2001. It could have brought in a truly broad-based Afghan government and invested in the development of the country. Instead, it continued its military actions and brought corrupt and criminal elements into power in Kabul.

Pakistan, supposedly an ally of the US, is bearing the brunt of American failure in Afghanistan. A recent poll showed that 80 per cent of Pakistanis consider the US a bigger threat to their country than India. Nor is this view about the US solely because of the “War on Terror”. Pakistanis also blame the US for brokering the “National Reconciliation Order”, which was intended to sustain Musharraf in power while also bringing rogue Pakistani politicians back into the political landscape.

The result is a total collapse of governance in Pakistan today. There is no danger of Talebanisation in Pakistan but there is a very real threat of chaos and radicalization, especially of the youth.

There is only one solution to this chaos. This is to implement an immediate ceasefire and commence talks with all militant groups in Afghanistan. Either America leaves or Pakistan withdraws from this war.

The US should not worry about Pakistan. Once the bombing stops, it will no longer be jihad and the suicide attacks will immediately subside. About 18 months ago the former head of the CIA’s Kabul station, Graham Fuller, wrote in the International Herald Tribune that once the US leaves the region Pakistan will be stable.

Political leaders in the US and UK should realize that people in the streets of New York and London are not threatened by the people in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan but by the growing radicalization of their own marginalised Muslim youth.

By Imran Khan

Imran Khan is the founder and chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (the Movement for Justice Party) and a world cup winning national cricket team captain

Kashmiris may have become the unintended victims of David Cameron’s verbal attack on Pakistan, which has encouraged the hardline Indian establishment to continue to brutalise Kashmiris in the Kashmir Valley.

As a salesman determined to shift as much deadly weaponry as he could, including Hawk fighter bombers, it was not surprising that Cameron chose to ignore the suffering in Kashmir. By blaming Pakistan, Cameron not only fed India’s national paranoia about Pakistan, but also shifted the focus away from Kashmir and the increasing death rate of its civilian population, which otherwise might have received some media attention.

Since May this year, when the fresh wave of protests started, nearly 50 Kashmiris have been killed, many of them teenagers. Hundreds of civilians have also been injured, which has created perpetual chaos in Kashmiri hospitals as medical supplies dwindle under prolonged curfew and an embargo on goods. Since Friday, more than two dozen people have been killed, including an eight-year-old boy Sameer Ahmed Rah, who was allegedly beaten by police. In another incident, a teenage girl, Afroza, was killed when police fired on protesters at Khrew, on the outskirts of Srinagar, the summer capital of the disputed region. At least 25 people were wounded, two of them critically, when troops resorted to indiscriminate firing and tear gas shelling in Naaman village in South Kashmir. Nearly 100 miles away, in Baramulla, Indian troops fired at another group of protesters, injuring two more youths.

During the fresh wave of protests, India has adopted an uncompromisingly militant posture towards Kashmiri civilians protesting against human rights abuses. In June, Indian home minister Palaniappan Chidambaram linked stone-throwing Kashmiri youths to members of the dreaded terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba, a charge that was termed as an insult by pro-Indian Kashmiri leader Mufti Sayeed, former Indian home minister and former chief minister of Kashmir. This charge of linking Kashmiri protesters to terror groups in Pakistan was seen by many Kashmiris as an Indian excuse for the continuing murder of Kashmiris.

The new Indian approach denies the civilian status of its Kashmiri victims. Earlier in June, India’s home secretary, Gopal Krishna Pillai, questioned press reports that described murdered Kashmiris as innocent civilians. Responding to a particular incident in which Indian paramilitary forces were said to have killed three civilians, he said: “There is a misnomer that civilians are getting killed. They are attacking police pickets. They are unruly mobs attacking CRPF pickets. They [forces] have shown considerable restraint and killed just one person”.

The latest response from the Indian chief minister to the growing unrest has been demand for more troops. This is ironic given the fact that Kashmir is one of the most militarised places on Earth. Although the real number of Indian troops in Kashmir is unknown, some reports suggest that the number of Indian forces in the region is 250,000.

The absence of any criticism of the growing repression has emboldened the Indian government to target the Kashmiri population with greater ferocity. When the doctors of the Government Medical College, Srinagar recently protested against growing human rights abuses, the government registered cases against them for rioting and disobedience. Earlier, many leading lawyers and human rights advocates including Mian Abdul Qayoom, president of Kashmir Bar Association, which is the main lawyers’ forum, was arrested under the draconian Public Safety Act, which allows incarceration for two years without charge.

This law, along with the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, that gives licence to Indian forces to kill with impunity, have been used to murder or silence thousands of Kashmiris for more than two decades. In an increasingly brutal response, the police even seized trucks of relief goods such as food and vegetables for the inhabitants of Srinagar, a city that has been under curfew for weeks at a time.

The continued focus on al-Qaida in Pakistan and the war in Afghanistan have cast a shadow over the suffering of Kashmiris, which is hardly reported in the international media. In order to contain and control unrest, the government has adopted a heavy handed approach against local journalists, stopping them from reporting the true extent of the suffering inflicted. Kashmiri journalists have been threatened, beaten up and gagged, as the paramilitary forces have refused to honour their curfew passes. In some instances, the government has refused to issue them passes at all.

As a result, many Kashmiri newspapers have had to suspend publication several times, confining them to online versions only. This has compelled a new generation of Kashmiris to articulate their frustration through social networking sites and YouTube in order to make known the torment of Kashmir. Determined to stifle any criticism, the government has now launched a new cyber war. According to the Indian news magazine Outlook India, “there are reports of Kashmiris being detained for ‘anti-national’ posts on Facebook”.

David Cameron’s statement blaming Pakistan has been seen as a vindication of a long-held Indian accusation that any unrest in Kashmir is a consequence of cross-border terrorism. As a new generation of Kashmiris take on Indian might with a few stones and their defenceless bodies, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, head of the moderate pro-Independence Kashmiri alliance, said despairingly: “First they [the Indians] said the guns came from Pakistan. Will they now say that stones come from Pakistan, too?”

By Murtaza Shibli

03 August, 2010 
Guardian.co.uk

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010

Haig is an Armenian Christian from Jerusalem, a city that is six miles and twenty minutes north of Bethlehem. Haig also happens to be my younger brother, and our family have lived in Jerusalem ever since 1915 when my grandparents fled Ottoman Turkey to Palestine during the Armenian genocide. Indeed, Bethlehem and Jerusalem, the fulcra of the Nativity and Resurrection of our Christian faith, were once bustling with local Christians.

In Jerusalem, two of the four quarters of the Old City (the Christian and Armenian ones) are a living testimony to their centuries-old presence. Yet, today, although my brother and his family have steadfastly chosen to remain in Jerusalem, scores of Christians have left in search of more dignified, politically stable and economically viable alternatives.

So what do Christians witness in this land of frequent pilgrimages but also of infrequent visions?

Some 60 short years ago, Christians constituted roughly 25 per cent of the overall Palestinian population in the Holy Land, and around 80 per cent of Bethlehem, Beit Sahour and Beit Jala. Today, those numbers have dwindled drastically – in Bethlehem, for instance, they are just over 15 per cent of the overall population – largely because of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. No matter how people choose to interpret facts or massage realities, the political situation has been – and remains to be – the primary cause for the alarming reduction in the number of indigenous Christians in this biblical land.

Christians have almost lost hope in a land that witnessed the incarnation of our hope. Dr Bernard Sabella, a sociologist who is also Executive Secretary of the Department on Service to Palestinian Refugees and Member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, has published numerous statistical studies on the haemorrhaging outflow of local Christians. In one study as far back as 2004, he estimated that local Christians now stood at far less than two per cent of the overall population, suggesting that this decline reflected a dearth in socio-economic and political visions for Palestine.

Over the past 43 years, since the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land in June 1967, rapacious Israeli settlers have colonised Palestinian land – often aided, and frequently abetted, by successive Israeli governments. The physical, demographic and economic integrity of the land – and thereby of the people living on it – has been eroded by deliberate Israeli policies that are not only contrary to international law and UN Resolutions, but that also strive to get rid of Palestinian demography (the people) whilst retaining Palestinian geography (the land).

In Bethlehem, as in many other parts of the West Bank, an ugly separation wall encircles relentlessly the Palestinian areas, dividing one Palestinian from another, one institution from another. With secondary and smaller cement walls buttressing this wall, and with Israeli Jews-only settlements on Palestinian land, along with 400 checkpoints severing towns and villages from each other, Palestinian resources are being snuffed out and have resulted in the creation of small gaols within those territories. The concomitant consequences have been unemployment, poverty, socio-economic meltdown, despair and violence.

Is it still any wonder that Palestinian Christians are leaving in droves?

In a speech on 29th April, Professor John J Mearsheimer, R Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science and co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago, described some Israelis as the New Afrikaners. Indeed, such corrosive apartheid (separateness in Afrikaans) policies are being exercised by Israel in many Palestinian territories (where Christians live in small numbers amongst Palestinian Muslims). Is it also any wonder that some prominent Christian church and lay leaders issued the Kairos Palestine Document: A Moment of Truth in December 2009 in which they spoke out in liberation theology native terms about faith, hope and love in the heart of Palestinian suffering and against those practices that have condemned their communities to this downward spiral? Can such weakened communities resist any longer?

However, in focusing upon the sinister effects of Israeli occupation, it is equally scrupulous to look at other concerns befalling Palestinian Christians in this once-golden land (as the prophet Zechariah described it). Two contributory strains, I would suggest, are Christian-Muslim relations and Western Christianity.

When I was Ecumenical Consultant for the Churches of Jerusalem during the unlucky Oslo years, I recall how church leaders or their representatives would help nip in the bud any potential strife between Christians and Muslims by calling the late Chairman Yasser Arafat’s representatives to seek their prompt mediation. Today, those conduits of conflict resolution are far more complex and much less discernible, and the tensions between Palestinian Christians and Muslims are perceptibly more frequent even if most Palestinians would deny them vehemently due to an overall anxious sense of nationalism. I believe this is due in part to a growing political Islamisation within specific cross-sections of Palestinian society in the West Bank (and certainly in Gaza, with its tiny pocket of Christians and their public institutions) today. Some Muslims have become less inclusive, spurn diversity and openly or secretly consider non-Muslims as infidels who do not belong to the land.

Such attitudes are due to an ill-considered, even blinkered, belief that the links those Christians have with the larger Universal Church in the West (Greece, Rome or London) could turn them into potential political fifth columns! I have heard Palestinians speaking out – often discreetly – about some practices of physical and structural violence whereby Christian shops are the last ones to be frequented for business and where Palestinian Christians are the last to receive financial aid from local authorities. Engage a Christian deacon, ironmonger, butcher, secretary, verger, or physician, and one detects those worries simmering under the chipped veneer of pan-Palestinian solidarity.

This is an unfortunate development that is neither Islamic nor provides proper ijtihad or jurisprudence. But it does occasionally detract from the collective effort necessary to focus on the central objective of Israeli occupation and is alas, a reality that increasingly blights the lives of everyday Christians.

But is the radicalisation of some pockets of Islam the sole reason why a small but important number of Palestinian Muslims are looking charily at Palestinian Christians? Has Palestine become an almost Lebanese clone where confessional politics are taking hold of what has for long decades been a fiercely secular and inclusive society? I for one, remember growing up in a neighbourhood of northern Jerusalem that had many Muslims who were not only ‘neighbours’ but also friends. I am sure that Haig could tell stories about his own experiences of friendships and respectful coexistence. After all, Palestinians had almost always been united by their political aims, not divided by their religious affiliations. One cannot also forget that some of the incipient Palestinian liberation leaders were Christian, as are politicians, parliamentarians and ambassadors today. It is not always helpful to turn into an ostrich in the midst of a sand dune either.

I suggest that the tensions fomented by Islamist radicalism, over and above the Israeli rampant occupation of land, are also exacerbated by fundamentalist evangelical Christian constituencies in the West (largely in the USA) who purport that the Christian faith equates itself with an unquestioning support for Israel. They claim this is because God chose the Israelites as His people and entered into a Covenant with them. It is therefore the duty of Christians, those groups claim, to defend Israel (a political entity) and Israelis (a demographic entity) over the whole biblical land of Israel (a geographic entity).

In my view, such Christians are not only limited by their faith-based periscope but are also ostracising ‘other’ Christians by adhering rigidly to the tenets of the Old Testament, ignoring the transformative message of the New Testament, being selective in their scriptural and prophetic quotations, and releasing Israelis from their obligations in relation to their covenant with God, let alone toward Palestinians. Surely, to be hemmed in by a faith perception that is literalist or exclusivist is not how our Lord and Saviour would have acted today. But such Christians also believe the only way for the Messiah to return to earth (and therefore fulfil prophesies in the Book of Revelation) is through the in-gathering of Jews (in modern-day Israel) so they could be converted to Christianity and pave the way for the Second Coming of Christ.

I cannot frankly see many Jews getting terribly excited by this Christian plan! But there exists today a finite tactical alliance whereby Jews overlook the underlying eschatological motivations of some Western Christians in return for their unstinting financial and political support of Israel. The Old Testament has become the organic nexus between [some] Christians and [some] Jews, at the expense of the New Testament and the indigenous followers of Christ region-wide.

So where do we Christians of the Holy Land stand today as pilgrims of faith on our journeys of faith?

I believe that the three existential challenges I highlighted are together leading some Palestinian Christians to re-calculate constantly their options. His Beatitude Michel Sabbah, emeritus patriarch of Jerusalem, delivered a lecture entitled The Theological, Spiritual and Pastoral Christian Presence in the Middle East at CEDRAC (the Research and Documentation Centre for Arabic Christianity) in Beirut on 5 May 2010 in which he affirmed that Palestinian Christians are cross-bearing witnesses, whose commandment is one of love, of showing how to build a healthy and inclusive society, and of being true bridges with the outside world. I suppose one could add that Jews, Christians and Muslims are united through Abraham and Sarah, hewn from the same rock (Isaiah 51:1), and so it becomes essential to find ways for co-existence in this land between the three monotheistic faiths.

But how does one affirm the Christian presence in the Holy Land? In Bethlehem, for instance, in order to dissuade young Palestinian families from leaving the Holy Land, the Franciscan Order is building new flats and offering them to young Palestinian couples in return for low-rent tenancies. This is a practical – and critical – tool to help counter emigration. But if we mean to tackle the root causes of the problems facing Christians in the Holy Land today rather than paper over the symptoms alone, the first station should be an end to Israeli occupation and its illegal practices. Palestinians must be set free from captivity, imprisonment, separation walls, settlements, ID confiscations and allowed instead to pursue their own destinies and hopes – and to make their own mistakes. Only then could they be expected to put their own house in order – presently in shambles – and become accountable as they edify at long last their independent state.

To those friends world-wide worried about the Christian life, presence and witness across the whole Middle East, I remind them of St Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) – a contemporary of Epiphanius, Jerome and Rufinus – who stated, Do not rejoice in the cross in time of peace only, but hold fast to the same faith in time of persecution also. Do not be a friend of Jesus in time of peace only but also in time of persecution. Perhaps we should all learn – I before you – to be less à la carte Christians with anaemic faiths and to show instead resoluteness, fortitude and solidarity in our outreach to our neighbours during times of adversity.

This is why I am also cautiously hopeful that the forthcoming Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the Middle East called for by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI that will take place in Rome from 10-24 October 2010 will manage to discuss carefully, but also openly and judiciously, those three existential issues. The theme of the Synod is The Catholic Church in the Middle East: Communion and Witness and is underscored by the scriptural verse ‘Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul’ (Acts 4:32). In this respect, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales in London, supported by its counterparts in Germany and the USA, will provide support and exposure to this event that will unite all the Catholic Church leadership of the Middle East under one roof in the Vatican.

So today, I invite you to spare no effort in reaching out with love, prayer but also action to those quarantined Living Stones (1 Peter 2:5) who face the daily vagaries of life in the midst of human pain and unholy conflicts. Our Christocentric faith does not call for apathy, nor should it pander to hyper-inflated political correctness or jaundiced cynicism. What it exacts from us can perhaps be summed up for me by St Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians to seek the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3). Can we all ‘do our small bit’ and pursue our mission and help ensure that those Living Stones do not inevitably become the deadened sites of the Holy Land let alone of the wider Middle East?

By Harry Hagopian

Harry Hagopian is an International lawyer & EU political consultant. He also acts as Middle East advisor to the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England & Wales and as Middle East consultant to ACEP in Paris and is a regular Ekklesia contributor. Formerly, he was Executive Secretary of the Jerusalem Inter-Church Committee & Executive Director of the Middle East Council of Churches. This article was published in Mission Outlook Volume 43 # 2 in July 2010, and is reproduced with grateful acknowledgements. Dr Hagopian’s own website is www.epektasis.net

An interview with Aamir Khan about his new film, “Peepli Live,” which explores the deadly consequences of India’s shift to a neo-liberal economic model.

A tangible consequence of India’s shift to a neo-liberal economic model has been the flood of suicides among farmers. The vast majority of the world’s second most populated country still farms for a living, but are caught between deep debt and the erratic nature of seasonal change. Lured by the promise of greater production, farmers are pressured into mortgaging their farms to purchase genetically modified seeds, pesticides, and fertilizer from American companies like Monsanto. Since GM seeds are patented by Monsanto, their repeated use each year requires constant licensing fees that keep farmers impoverished. One bad yield due to drought or other reasons, plunges farmers so deep into debt that they resort to suicide. One study estimates that 150,000 farmers have killed themselves in the past ten years.

A new feature film written and directed by Anusha Rizwi and produced by Bollywood megastar Aamir Khan, called Peepli Live, tackles head on this grim topic. The story is set in an Indian village named Peepli where one young debt-burdened farmer named Natha is talked into taking his own life after he learns that his family will be financially compensated through a government program created to alleviate the loss of farmers taking their own lives. What unfolds is a dark comedy of errors when a media circus descends on the tiny village, followed by corrupt politicians wanting to make use of the planned tragedy. Khan’s credits as an actor and producer include Lagaan, the 2001 Oscar-nominated film about Indian resistance to the British occupation. His latest film 3 Idiots released last year became the highest grossing film in Indian film history.

Text of Sonali Kolhatkar’s interview follows (with video and more information about Khan’s film at the bottom of the article):

Sonali Kolhatkar: The film Peepli Live tackles a number of issues in rural India which aren’t always portrayed in Bollywood films. How important was it for you to make such a film about an issue that’s not very well known especially outside India?

Aamir Khan: I feel that Peepli Live is not really a film about farmer suicides [but] that farmer suicides are a backdrop because the film doesn’t really go into the issues that farmers are facing or why this epidemic really has been spreading for so many years now. It’s a film that’s more about the growing divide between urban and rural India and how as a society we are concentrating all of our energies, our resources, our wealth towards cities and are ignoring our villages and the rural parts of India which is where the bulk of our population lives. As a result our villages are not life-sustaining in a healthy manner. And that in turn results in a lot of migration from villages to cities. So in villages we don’t have schools often, medical facilities, even basic stuff like water and electricity. I think this is what the issue in the film really is.

On a certain level it’s also a film about survival. While it’s a satire about civil society today and takes a humorous view of the administration, the political scenario, the media, or civil society in general, it’s also on a certain level a story about survival. Each one of us: politician, journalist, civil servant, or a district magistrate, or even Budhia (a character in Peepli Live), who’s a farmer, a villager – each one of us in our own environment, in our own situation, is doing what he or she thinks needs to be done in order to survive.

Kolhatkar: How is Peepli Live different from mainstream Bollywood fare?

Khan: It’s not a mainstream Bollywood film. It’s just a story that I loved and a script that I read which Anusha Rizwi has written and directed and I just loved what she wrote. I found it very funny and moving and also heartbreaking. And also sensitizing in a lot of ways because I have lived all my life in a city. Often I’m not aware of how life in rural India is. So I just loved the script and I wanted to be part of it. I could see straight up that this is not a film that is going to be easy to market or even to convince the market to accept as a film. But it’s something that excited me, moved me, and engaged me.

So I just went ahead and produced it. I was aware of the challenges I have in front of me. And it’s also a film that I believe has the potential to engage a world audience. It’s a film that I think would connect with audiences from different cultures. And that’s what we’re trying to do – we’re trying not only to reach out to our traditional audiences for Indian film but to audiences who may have never watched an Indian film before. Or may have just watched Slumdog Millionaire (laughs). Actually Indian film, or Bollywood, as it’s popularly known, doesn’t make any one kind of film. Yes, the bulk of them are musicals, and the bulk of them have larger-than-life story-telling and have a lot of hope and romance in them. But a number of them now for the last few years have been films which are really off-beat and don’t fall into that category.

Kolhatkar: So Bollywood is evolving in your opinion?

Khan: Well I think everything is changing constantly. So I think cinema in India is also changing. I think audiences are changing. I think younger film makers are coming in who have different voices and have different things to say. And over the last ten years if you look at the films that have really succeeded and have gone down well with audiences, a number of them have been films which don’t fall into that description of what is conventionally known as mainstream Bollywood.

Kolhatkar: Farmer suicides are a huge issue in India and even though it’s a backdrop for your film, it’s a very grim subject. But Peepli Live addresses this is an almost comedic or satirical manner. Why was this approach effective?

Khan: This is a question more for Anusha (Rizwi) who’s written the film. I don’t know why she chose a satirical view of what is happening. But I think it’s more engaging that way. Anusha was a journalist before she made this film and she, I guess, through her experiences in the field, has come up with a lot of what is in the film and a lot of what is in the script. So I think her choice of it being a satire is because it connects more easily with people. But while you’re laughing you’re also feeling bad. You’re thinking, “should I be laughing at this,” you know? “I don’t think I should be laughing at this, but it’s funny.” And, it’s also very thought-provoking on a lot of levels. So personally I really like what she wrote and I think when I saw the film after its first cut – because I was not there when they were shooting it and I was only involved after the first cut stage – I was really happy to see what she has done.

It’s not an easy film to execute. And she hasn’t been to film school and she hasn’t really assisted any film makers to learn from them. It’s so amazing to see someone like her execute so well on screen what she has written. It’s a very layered script with a lot of characters. There’s a lot of chaos in the film at many times and while there often is a lot of chaos in a film shoot it’s usually behind the camera. And to create chaos in front of the camera and make it look natural is not easy. So when I saw the film I felt that what you’re watching is actually happening and she’s has hidden cameras capturing what is happening. So I thought she’s done a wonderful job – I’m really happy with her work.

Kolhatkar: The film most skewers Indian politicians and Indian media. How realistic are the caricatures presented in Peepli Live of the corrupt politicians and overzealous media?

Khan: In my opinion it’s a fairly accurate portrayal of what happens. Having said that I’d like to point out as well that it’s not the only point of view. A satire takes one point of view – it’s not a 360 degree view of politics or the people in media, or the people in administration (civil servants). There are a lot of civil servants, politicians, and those in the media who are trying to do a lot of good work and are very positive in their approach.

Kolhatkar: One of them is the young journalist, Rakesh, a character in Peepli Live, who is very hopeful. I’m wondering if he is a symbol of India’s young journalists.

Khan: He is the only character in the film that really has a conscience as it turns out. As I was saying earlier that while what is shown in the film is fairly accurate and happens everyday in India – it’s a fairly good window into rural life in India – but at the same time, I’d like to add that a satire takes one point of view. Of course there are journalists who are doing great work, and there are some politicians who are doing good work and are really sincere. But that point of view is not shown in this film. This film takes a satirical point of view. While what is shown is accurate, it is one aspect and not the whole.

Kolhatkar: There are no big-name stars in Peepli Live and I understand many of them are theater actors. How were they recruited? Were non-actors also recruited to play the roles of villagers?

Khan: I’m really happy with the casting that Anusha and her husband Mehmood, the casting director and co-director, have done. They really chose to go real with the casting which I thoroughly supported. A lot of the actors are actually villagers and tribals (indigenous people) who are from central India. And a lot of them are part of a theater group called Naya Theater. This is a group that was started by Habib Tanvir, a really amazing theater personality who has worked in Indian theater all his life. Unfortunately he passed away six months ago. But he was running this theater group in which he worked only with villagers and Adivasis (tribal or indigenous people) from Central India. And they did all kinds of things like adapting Shakespeare into their local languages and dialects. So a lot of them are very well trained actors. They may have never acted in a film before but they come from a strong theater background. I think the directors of the film, Anusha and Mehmood, also wanted there to be no known faces so that it looks real. So most of the cast is from a rural background.

Kolhatkar: One of the characters in the film is an elderly farmer who silently toils throughout the story. Is he a metaphor for the typical Indian farmer who is ignored and silenced in the mainstream media?

Khan: Yes you’re right. He really stands for a whole lot of people who in a very sincere and uncomplaining manner try to deal with what is dealt out to them in life and don’t really have a voice in what’s happening around them and are almost invisible to us. That’s how he’s treated in most of the film. So he represents that entire section of people.

Kolhatkar: Let’s talk about the film’s music. One particular song in the film called ‘Mahangai Dayain’ is played by the villagers of Peepli and recently was the center of some controversy after real-life local Indian politicians requested to use the song in their campaigning?

Khan: Well what is shown in the film is happening in real life I guess (laughs). The words to the song are: “my husband earns a lot of money but inflation eats it all away.” And it’s actually wasn’t in the film to begin with. But when Anusha was shooting in the village in Bidwai, she heard the local musicians singing this song. They had written this song themselves and it’s part of their music. When she heard this song she really liked it. So this is their voice and she asked them if she could use it in the film. And she got Raghu-bhai (one of the lead actors in the film) who is a very good singer to learn the song and sing it. They actually learned the song that night in the village under the tree and it’s recorded live on location, not in a studio, with spoons and thalis (steel dinner plates) and home-made musical instruments. And that’s a song that has really resonated strongly with a lot of India[ns] because it’s a coincidence that at the time that we were about to release the music of the film there were these huge price increases in India. The opposition parties called for a national “bandh” which is sort of a general strike for a day all across the country in protest of these price increases. And that day all the news channels actually carried the song as an anthem of what was happening around us. And so that made the song very popular. What’s amazing is that this is a song created by the villagers as part of their lives. This is what affects them – it’s their voice which you can hear.

Kolhatkar: So you hope that the film goes a long way toward bringing the stories of silenced farmers to not only urban India but to a worldwide audience?

Khan: Yes, I am hoping that the film sensitizes a whole lot of us like it did to me when I first read the script. As a society we have to be aware of inequalities and try and fight against them. I think that this is a film that I’m hoping will have an impact. It’s not often that films have an immediate impact but I’m hoping that this film has an impact and starts people thinking in the right direction.

Kolhatkar: There is only one hint in the film about the complicity of corporate America when one of the politicians’ characters in the film mentions the American company “Sonmanto” in an obvious reference to the agri-giant Monsanto corporation. Given that farmer suicides are directly linked to neo-liberal economic pressures from the West, particularly the US, how important is it that the film is viewed by an American audience?

Khan: I think it’s important that all of us should be aware of this, not only Americans. It’s important for all of us to be aware how our actions are affecting other people. When Peepli Live was screened at Sundance where we had a predominantly American audience, we got some pretty interesting responses, one of them being that not only did they find the film to be a great window into rural India but they felt that it resonated with them. One [member of the audience] gave the example of Hurricane Katrina hitting New Orleans and how the [Bush] administration reacted and the observation made was that even in that case the people affected were from less privileged sections of society. Which is why nothing was done for very long and even the funds that were collected for them, a lot of that didn’t reach [the people affected]. So these are things that happen all across the world, even in “first-world” countries. And the other aspect that you were talking about is how each of our actions has an impact .We have to be aware of how each of our actions affects other people and on a very basic level – I know this is over-simplifying things – we should try not to adversely affect people with our actions.

Kolhatkar: The media as portrayed in your film Peepli Live is amusing and even shocking. I’m wondering how you think Indian media is going to receive your film and the commentary that the film makes on them?

Khan: I believe that all of us are human beings first. I’m an actor, you’re a journalist, and someone else might be a politician. At the core of it we’re all human beings first and I think that that’s how I think people would receive the film. I think the film is accurate so no one should have a complaint from that point of view. I think that we as a creative group that has made the film are very clear that we’re taking one point of view and that it’s not a holistic point of view. So not every media person is like that. But this is one of the realities today of life in Indian society. And also importantly I think that Anusha Rizwi as a writer and director is not being judgmental on anyone. She’s not taking any sides and I think that’s an important aspect of the film. It’s important for people to receive this in a positive way for it to have an impact. And I think that’s one of the things that this film does achieve in my opinion.

For example you have Natha’s son [in the film] saying “Dad when are you going to die because uncle says that when you die I’m going to become a contractor.” And Natha says “what do you mean? Your dad’s dying and you want to be a contractor?” The son says, “No no, I want to be a cop!” So this is not how every child would react and this is not how we would expect a child to react whose father is about to die. You’d expect him to say “Dad I don’t want you to die.” But here we have a kid who’s in a bit of a hurry about his dad dying. So it is a black comedy, it is a dark view of things. And it’s not the only view and I’m sure the media’s mature enough to realize that.

Kolhatkar: I’d like to talk a little bit about your own career and why you gravitate toward films with a socio-political message. You’ve made a number of films either as an actor or producer or both, that are not simply standard Bollywood fare like Lagaan, Rang De Basanti, Mangal Panday, etc (many of which have been about the historical resistance to the British occupation). Why are such films important to you?

Khan: Well I move towards material that excites me, stuff that I believe in. And creative people whose voices I believe in. So, it’s important for me to be happy in what I’m doing. When I come across a script that touches me, moves me, engages me, makes me laugh or cry, that’s what I want to be part of. I think for me film-making is a number of things: you’re entertaining people, you’re also engaging their minds. And importantly, it’s one or two years of my life. And so, the process is as important as the end result. So I have to be happy and excited about what I’m doing.

Kolhatkar: Your last film 3 Idiots became the highest grossing Bollywood film of all time in India, breaking many records, and winning a huge number of awards. Although it’s extremely entertaining it also has a social message at its heart about the intense pressures that Indian parents put on their children to be highly educated professionals in technical fields. It’s not often that such a topic is tackled in Indian film is it?

Khan: Yeah, I think that Raju [Hirani] is a fantastic film maker but in this case he also picked up [on] a topic that I think a lot of people, not only in India but all across the world, [see in] our lives. And I think the core message of Three Idiots is “don’t chase success, chase excellence. And do what makes you happy, because if it makes you happy you’ll probably be good at it. And success will follow up somewhere behind. But don’t make your decisions based on what you think will make you successful because that might just make you really unhappy as well.” And, I think that core message really hit home in a big way with a lot of audiences. And again it’s a very funny film. It’s a film that is very entertaining but also is a film that rings true with a lot of people.

I’ve been very fortunate to work with a lot of talented people and films like Taaray Zameen Par which is about childcare, primary education, and learning disabilities and Three Idiots, which is about higher education — these films have been so satisfying to be a part of because not only have they been huge successes but more than that these are films that have actually changed lives. I have met so many people and so many have written to me about how the way they look at their kids has changed. And parents have changed the way they look at education, and kids have begun feeling differently about themselves. And that’s a very rare achievement for a film to have such a strong and immediate impact on society. And it’s so satisfying to see that. It’s really amazing.

Kolhatkar: Given how influential Bollywood actors are in India (just as Hollywood actors are here in the US), do you think it’s important for celebrities such as yourself to influence people in a positive manner or should movie stars never talk about social issues? I’m sure I can guess your answer but not all celebrities use their celebrite in a responsible manner.

Khan: I think my answer is fairly obvious. I think celebrities should, to the best of their abilities, use the kind of influence they have with people in a positive way and that’s always great and that’s what ought to be done and ought to happen. But having said that, I think each to his own. Celebrities are also human beings and I think we should understand if a certain person wants to stay away from stuff. Fair enough.

I really feel that each one of us, no matter which section of society we belong to, has to engage socially and politically in our own way. And each one can do it to a different extent. But each one of us CAN do it. And I think that’s what’s important. All of us should be aware of that and should engage in a positive way. That’s what I believe.

Kolhatkar: Bollywood flims have not always gotten too much recognition outside of South Asia, and the Gulf Arab States. But they do break through into the West occasionally, like your film Lagaan which was recognized by the Academy Awards — only the third ever Indian film to be nominated for Best Foreign Film. Do you think it’s important for the West to recognize the largest film industry in the world?

Khan: Well I think it would be nice if people around the world watched our films and enjoyed them but I don’t think we should load the West with this responsibility of having to watch our films and enjoy them. I don’t think that’s fair. And I don’t think that film-makers in India really have looked toward making films which are meant to engage a world audience. Because we have such a large and healthy audience of our own and we are very happy and busy engaging them and making films for them.

But I think every once in a way we do come across films that can break through. For example when I read the script of Peepli Live I immediately thought that here is a film that I really want to make first of all. Secondly it is a film that may have limited appeal in mainstream Indian cinema. But I’m going to try and push that. But I also believe it has the potential to engage world audiences. And so, with that in mind we’re trying to reach out to audiences across the world with this film. It’s not a big entertainer. It’s certainly not “Inception” or “Spiderman.” But it’s a film that is a human story which will connect with people.

So I think every now and then when there is material that organically has the potential to appeal to a world audience, it would be great if they would watch it!

Kolhatkar: You come from a family steeped in the tradition of Hindi film. Your father Tahir Hussein (who recently passed away) was a prolific film maker in India. What sort of mark do you hope to leave on Indian cinema, and indeed on international film making?

Khan: I’m not sure about that. I don’t know whether I think in these larger terms. I just want to be able to do work that I’m happy doing, that’s all. And I’m really happy with the kind of love and respect I’ve gotten over the last twenty years that I’ve been working [in film]. And I’m hoping that I’m able to do work which is good, which is challenging, which actually helps me to grow as a person and as an artist, and creative person.

Kolhatkar: Finally what lies in your future? I understand that you have a film coming up directed by your wife, Kiran Rao. Can you tell us more about that and any other projects of social or political significance or that are designed to appeal to an international audience?

Khan: Well Peepli Live is going to be released on August 13th. And then the next film after that is Dhobi Ghaat which I’ve produced and I’m also acting in it. Dhobi Ghaat is written and directed by Kiran [Rao], my wife, and it’s set in Mumbai. It’s about these four characters whose lives kind of touch each other. And the fifth character in the film is the city of Mumbai. It’s a kind of “slice of life” film. Half of it is in English and half is in Hindi. So, we’ve been honest to the characters. People who would naturally be speaking in English are speaking in English and same for Hindi. And the third film that I have in the pipeline is a film called Delhi Belly, which is a comedy. This is actually a story about three kids living in Delhi and how they get into trouble with the mafia and the underworld and they don’t know why. It’s a bit like Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels in its genre. It’s not that story but it’s that kind of film I guess. Again it’s a very unusual film for Indian cinema because it’s entirely in English. I think it’s one of the few times that an English [language] film will be coming out of India. All the films that have no hopes of working are the ones that I end up producing [laughs].

Peepli Live opens in theaters across the US on August 13, 2010. More information at www.peeplilivethefilm.com. Sonali Kolhatkar is the host and executive producer of Uprising, a morning drive-time show that broadcasts on KPFK, Pacifica Radio in Los Angeles. A weekly syndicated version of Uprising airs on over a dozen stations nationwide. Find out more at www.uprisingradio.org.

By Sonali Kolhatkar

“The truth is that all men [and women] having power ought to be mistrusted”.

James Madison, American president, 1809-1817.

In a nation prides itself of being a “tolerant” and a “fair go” for all Australians , one expects the candidates campaigning for Prime Minister position will be concerned with the Australia’s complicity in illegal imperialist wars, equality and the environment. Sadly, both candidates are playing the race card, because racism is deeply-entrenched in white Australia.

Both, Julia Gillard, the Labor Party installed Prime Minister, and Tony Abbott, the leader of the Opposition Liberal Party migrated from Britain to Australia in search of “better live”. Gillard was from Wales and Abbott from England. You expect them to take a stand against racism and injustice. It was not to be. Both, Gillard and Abbott are the product of one of the most racist societies in the world. They moved to a society founded on systemic racism and violence. Gillard is campaigning on the “right kind of migrants” and Abbott is campaigning on John Howard’s racist card, “we will stop the boats”. Both phrases are the result of deeply-entrenched racism that has become part of the Australian culture.

When Ed Husic, an Australian from a Muslim background, nominated to run for Labor in the West Sydney seat of Chiefly, the Liberal Party largest cabbage bag, David Barker, attacked all Muslims and Islam. “We don’t want Muslims in our parliament”, said the cabbage bag. Although he was disendorsed by the Liberal Party, Barker was not condemned for his outrageous racist behaviour and anti-Semitism. It should be said that the attack on Muslims during elections is not an anomaly, but rather the culmination of an increasingly anti-Muslim trend in Australia.

Abbott’s and Gillard’s elections campaign’s rhetoric on population growth “comfortable” Australia is designed to appease racist Australian bigots and win votes. As former Labor Party leader, Mark Latham rightly observed: “It is not and immigration debate, it’s no debate”. Gillard’s position on “population” growth is “clever politics but it’s a fraud. It’s a fraud of the worst order”. It is fraud because there is no policy in place for a long-term development of a sustainable Australia. Both, Gillard and Abbott have been blaming migrants for overcrowding, failing infrastructure and lack of services. As Peter McDonald, a professor of Demography at the Australian National University rightly observed: “Migrants are being used as a scapegoat for the failure of government planning”. It is populism designed to appease racist voters, using a small number of desperate refugees fleeing U.S.-led Western wars as a tool to promote xenophobia.

Scapegoating few desperate refugees has become a ticket to success. It is the politic of scaremongering used by the One Nation racist party and now integrated in the politics of both, the Labor and the Liberal parties. The percentage of refugees arriving by boats to Australia is between 2 to 4 per cent of all “unauthorised” arrivals. The majority (95 per cent) of them are genuine refugees.

It is important to remember that, there are more than 60,000 illegal immigrants in Australia, mostly from Britain, New Zealand, U.S., Europe, South Africa India and China. According to Bob Brown, leader of the Australian Greens: “There are another 17,000 who came in the last three years, queue jumpers legally, because they had either business connections, they’ve been in charge of companies with more than 50 people, or they’ve got $250,000 in their back pocket and they can get here at the front of the queue. But if you’re poor and you don’t come from an English-speaking background or a European background, you have much more difficulty getting to the country”. They are living freely in Australia, receiving services and paying less in taxes. They are not incarcerated, like refugees, in isolated detention centres and prisons in remote Australia.

The majority of the so-called “asylum seekers” are Chinese arriving at Australian airports with one-way tickets. According to Patricia Cruise, a former immigration officer with the Department of Immigration, it is the flood of dubious applications from Chinese who claim “asylums” on false pretence after they fly to Australia. “They are well organised in terms of migration agents, tour operators, fraudulent documents which are readily available in china and also in Sydney”, she added. They turned Australia’s fine education system into an immigration racket, and forced low-income Australians into shoddy rental housing controlled by mafia-like landlords. It is a well-organised racket and most politicians know it, but it doesn’t pay dividends.

Furthermore, there is really no difference between Labor and Liberal. Both parties are white male-dominated right-wing parties, and their policies have converged long time ago. Neither party is offering anything that will serve the interests of the nation and the people of Australia. Their only interest is in wining power and preserving the political status quo. The elections campaign is a show about instilling fear and promoting divisions.

Furthermore, the Australian Greens Party is like all Greens parties around the world. Far from being an alternative progressive movement, the Greens Party is a collection of opportunists and outright white extremists. While there some honest people in the Greens, political power and decisions rest with a few people at the top. They have an “attack response group” to threaten and frighten off their critics. The Australian Greens have been working in coalition with Labor on major policies. They are “in bed with Labor on major issues. The so-called “secret backroom preferences deal” with Labor in this elections is just one example of the Greens dishonesty and betrayal.

It is utterly false to argue that Australia has changed to a “progressive” and “forward-looking” society. Australia hasn’t changed. The country still accustomed to treating Aborigines like dogs and Australians from non-Anglo-Saxon minorities as second-class citizens. It is a racist and backward society. Racism formed the foundation of Anglo-Australia and was forged into the Australian national character, and remains so today alive and thriving throughout Australian culture. A male-dominated society is not going to change because the Prime Minister is a woman.

The rise of Gillard is the result of a quota system in the Labor Party that is dominated by white males. She was installed as PM – to seduce the public – by few “faceless men”, helped by her disloyalty and dishonesty to her colleagues. She was illegitimately installed as Prime Minister. The elections are not a substitute for legitimacy.

There is nothing serious about Gillard’s “Moving-forward” campaign catch cry. Australia doesn’t move forward, it moves backwards. The road to move forward has been deliberately blocked. Like all politicians, Gillard uses deception to manipulate voters. As Suvendrini Perera, a Senior Research Fellow at Curtin University in Western Australia rightly observed: “Beneath the facade of a thoroughly modern, optimistic and relentlessly ‘forward-moving’ Prime Minister is a campaign that returns us to the ‘race election’ threatened by John Howard in the 1990s”. Abbott, on the other hand is not moving anywhere; he will continue with the Liberal’s old ideology.

The one major issue missing in the elections campaign is Australia’s complicity in the Afghanistan bloodbath. According to official count, a total of twenty Australian soldiers have been killed and more than 160 have been wounded in the U.S.-led war on Afghanistan since 2001. Plying by the U.S. rule, the war on Afghanistan is a taboo for both, Labor and Liberal. Gillard and Abbott are competing with each other to serve U.S. imperialist agenda. Gillard said before the elections campaign: “Our objective is clear: to combat the threat of international terrorism, to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a training ground for terrorists launching attacks against us and our allies”. Gillard added: “That is why coalition forces are in Afghanistan under a United Nations mandate and with the Afghan government’s full support”. It is a lie.

The invasion of Afghanistan is an illegal act of aggression in violation of UN Charter and international law. The Afghan government is an illegitimate U.S.-installed puppet government. Australia’s complicity in Afghanistan is not about “rebuilding” Afghanistan, “democracy”, or “assisting” the Afghan people; it is about enhancing U.S. imperialist agenda. In addition, the majority of the Afghan people want an end to the military Occupation of their nation. There is no justification of self-defence or “fighting terrorism” in Afghanistan, as many politicians and academics claim. Under international law, the U.S.-NATO war on Afghanistan is a war crime.

On Iran, as requested by the U.S. – without a debate or the slightest hesitation – Australia approved new sanctions against Iran, similar to those adopted by the U.S. and Canada. Labor legislator, the pro-Israel Zionist Labor politician, Michael Danby, said: “History teaches us that going soft on hard-line dictators is a recipe for catastrophe. The Labor government under Prime Minister Julia Gillard will not shirk its historic responsibility to stand with Israel at its hour of maximum danger”. Gillard, of course, has an unquestionable “loyalty” to Israel.

On a visit to Israel, Gillard was praised by Israeli leaders for her defence of Israel during Israel’s murderous attacks on Gaza where 1,400 innocent Palestinian women and children were massacred. “You stood almost alone on the world stage in support of Israel’s right to defend itself,” said Israeli minister Isaac Herzog in welcoming Gillard to Israel. Her visit (with her partner, Tim Mathieson) has been organised by the pro-Israel Zionist lobby group, the Australia-Israel Cultural Exchange. While in Israel, Gillard met with leaders of the Israeli fascist regime. Like her predecessors, Gillard is following the Zionist rules of ‘We pay and You do what We say’. Even Gillard’s partner is employed as a “sales consultant” – despite having no property experience – by a Zionist and Labor Party benefactor, Albert Dadon of Ubertas Group.

It is noteworthy mentioning that Australian political cycle is closely resembling America’s. There are only minor differences between the two major parties in America (Democrats and Republicans) and Australia (Labor and Liberal). The electoral systems of both countries are nearly identical; they provide “an illusion of democracy”. As Ted Mack, the former independent mayor of North Sydney, accurately put it; In Australia, “neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives voting system reflects the will of the people”. ( Sydney Morning Herald , , 20 August 2010). The people will be conned by the elections.

It is no surprise that Gillard has adapted “Yes we will”, Barack Obama’s election catch cry “Yes we can” which was a concoction of Sí se puede (Spanish for “Yes, it can be done”), the motto used by the oppressed United Farm Workers in 1974 in Phoenix, Arizona. Further, it wasn’t a coincidence that Australians re-elected John Howard and Americans re-elected George Bush in 2004. Howard showered people with the illusion of becoming rich in “comfortable” Australia. Labor is using the same tactics, bribing voters with the illusions of wealth and happiness. Australians, of course, are obsessed with money and material possessions.

In his seminal De la démocratie en Amérique (Of Democracy in America), the French thinker Alexis de Tocqueville observed that: “As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?” De Tocquevill’s observation of Americans is very true of Australians today. According to the fourth Australian Work and Life Index, ‘more than one-fifth of Australians spend 48 hours or more at work each week, and 60 per cent do not take holidays’. Like American, despite their material wealth Australians are becoming increasingly unhealthy and unhappy. Like America, Australia becoming an increasing unequal and divided society.

As some 14 million Australians are preparing to take part in the world’s most sham elections, they are unaware that their votes do not really count, because ultimately have very little or no choice . So, it doesn’t matter who will be Australia ‘s Prime Minister tomorrow, all politicians ought to be mistrusted.

By Ghali Hassan

21 August, 2010

Countercurrents.org

Ghali Hassan is an independent writer living in Australia.

 To A One-Term President

What should a poor warmongering Neoconservative do? This political grouping includes WASPS such as former CIA director James Woolsey and former UN ambassador John Bolton, but at its core is politically active and extremely wealthy Jewish former Democrats who broke with their party in the 1980s to become war hawks in Republican administrations, and most of whom are rooted in Rightwing Zionism as exemplified in the thought of prominent fascist theorist Vladimir Jabotinsky. (They are almost mirror images of the general American Jewish community, 79 percent of which voted for Barack Obama, which is skittish about foreign wars and liberal on social issues).

The Neoconservative faction is in the political wilderness in the United States. Eager to play the role in Iran that the enormous floods have played in Pakistan, of paralyzing and destroying much of a thriving country, eager to reduce the shining city of Isfahan to rubble and displace its population into massive tent cities, they find their path blocked at every turn.

Always much happier when the militant and aggressive Likud Party is in power in Israel, they are nevertheless impatient with what they see as the timidity of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, compared to the reckless warmongering of the previous Kadima Party and its Labor ally (who managed to set back the Lebanese economy a decade in 2006 and to reduce the large penal camp of Gaza to further misery and rubble).

Despite being willing to stop in at an occasional cocktail party, President Obama could not care less what the Neoconservatives say, want or do. Few have been appointed from their ranks to high and influential positions in the Obama administration, in contrast to W.’s, where they held the 8 key positions that allowed them to help push the US into a decade of rampaging wars. The American public, having been tricked by their fallacious arguments and cynical propaganda into the Iraq War, does not want to hear from them. They no longer get much television time. Their main project of today, an aggressive war on Iran, is a non-starter with the current White House, its generals, intelligence officials, and most importantly with a public already unemployed, beggared and indebted to the tune of $13 trillion, in part because of the Neocons earlier mad adventures– a public that has also lost over 4000 dead and tens of thousands wounded and permanently disabled warriors over a pack of Neocon lies.

But being a Neocon means never having to say you are sorry, or that you were wrong, and it means never giving up on the dressing up of illegal and aggressive wars as Necessary and Right and Bright Shining Cities on a Hill that will Make the World Safe for “Democracy” and more importantly for Apartheid Israel.

Thus, in 1998 at the height of their impotence, the Neocons got up a hawkish letter with the support of the Republicans in Congress, insisting that President Clinton go to war against Iraq. It was absurd and monstrous. Iraq had been reduced to a poor weak fourth-rate power, its economy devastated, its children dying in droves, by US and UN sanctions pushed by the Neocons and their allies. Only five years later, under a different administration, they got their wish.

The Neocons’ life experience, then, is that aggressive warfare is never really off the table. Even a liberal internationalist like Obama can be pressured, and if he will not yield, be weakened and wounded and the way paved for a leader more pliable to their plans. A war that they pine for the way a teenager pines for a first love, a mass grave they dream of the way a retiree dreams of a Hawaiian resort, an orgy of destruction visited on ancient wonders that they dream of the way a world-class architect dreams of constructing a new city– all these things are really at most just 5 years away if the right political moves are made.

They have more assets than is visible on the surface. They have perhaps half of America’s 400 billionaires on their side. They have the enormous military-industrial complex on their side. They have the Yahoo complex of besieged lower middle class White America on their side. They have the Israel lobbies on their side. They have important segments of the Oil and Gas lobbies on their side. They have the whole American tradition of permanent war on their side. They should not be underestimated.

It is not so hard to get up a war. You position the war as inevitable. As Right. As Necessary. You reimagine the poor weak ramshackle enemy as a science fictional superpower, months away from possession of a Neutron Bomb that could Destroy the Universe. It has to be done. We are in danger.

Although not exactly himself a Neocon (he says he is for a two-state solution and says he is on the fence about an Iran war), Cpl. Jeffrey Goldberg of the Israeli army, where he was a prison camp guard during the first Intifada or Palestinian uprising, and who masquerades as a journalist over at the Atlantic, has fired a shot in the building campaign for destroying Iran. This war propagandist deliberately spread the bald-faced lie that Saddam had close ties to al-Qaeda, and goes on insisting that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction capabilities in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. He is either dishonest or so blindered by ideology that it comes to the same thing. Goldberg says he is “ambivalent” about an “American” attack on Iran in “2010.” But these are weasel words. What would be different in 2011? In fact, this way of speaking puts a time limit on “ambivalence,” after which conviction presumably kicks in. His ambivalence, he says, extends to whether Israel should attack Iran unilaterally, though he is convinced by his ‘interviewing’ that it likely will. It reminds me of all the caveats and ambivalences in Ken Pollack’s book ‘Gathering Storm,’ which was used by warmongers nevertheless to help get up the Iraq War.

Goldberg knows that Obama is not actually going to war against Iran. Despite what he says, Bibi Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is for all his bluster far too personally indecisive to take such a major step (and certainly not without an American green light; Bibi thinks Clinton had him undermined and moved out of office for obstructing the Oslo accords, and does not want to risk the same fate for causing trouble for Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan). How Goldberg could miss this truism in Israeli politics is beyond me.

Goldberg is trying to make an Iran war seem highly likely if not inevitable, if not now then in the near future (say, within 5 years?).

But contrary to Goldberg’s conclusions, Gareth Porter finds that high Israeli intelligence and military figures entertain the severest doubts about a war on Iran. Could Goldberg really not find these voices that Porter dug up so effortlessly?

The Iran war hawks also almost certainly underestimate Iran’s conventional weapons capability of foiling any Israeli air strike.

There is no room for ‘ambivalence’ here, especially of the Pollack sort that actually leads straight to war. The stupidity of an air raid on Iran is easy for the clear-eyed to see. There is no evidence Iran has a nuclear weapons program as opposed to a civilian nuclear energy program. The centrifuge technology being used can be dispersed and an air strike is likely to be only a minor setback in the program. And, Iran is a major country of 70 million with extensive petroleum and gas resources. It has means of replying to any attack that can be subtle and effective. Mahan Abedin showed here recently how there can be no ‘limited war’ against Iran.

Obama’s plans for a decisive and timely withdrawal from Iraq would be completely ruined by an attack on Iran, which would reactivate the Shiite militias at a time when the US military is weak and open to attack. Obama would not have that achievement to run on in 2012. The Iranians can behind the scenes be major spoilers for the Afghanistan War, which already is not going well for Obama.

A Netanyahu attack on Iran would reduce Barack Obama to a one-term president, which may be what Goldberg and his fellow conspirators are really aiming for. That success would after all allow them to keep to the 5-year timetable for another Asian land war.

By Juan Cole

16 August, 2010

Juancole.com