Just International

Every Tattoo Tells A Story And Expresses The True Ken O’Keefe

“Our greatest responsibility is to hand over a better world to all children, and the 800,000 children in Gaza, are my children. I would rather die in pursuit of justice than back down. How can anyone accept the unacceptable!”

Kenneth Nichols O’Keefe, is a strikingly handsome 41 year old naturalized Irish, Palestinian, Hawaiian and world citizen, who began expressing his spirit on his skin with tattoos while a U.S. Marine who served in the 1991 Gulf War.

During 13 days on the road with Ken, his mother and the Salem-News.com crew who documented his non-stop speaking engagements through the NW US and into Victoria, Canada, Ken informed me that his first tattoo was the “meat tag” on the left side of his chest.

“When I found out the Marines were not exactly about honor and integrity I had the USMC crossed out and replaced with “civilian”. I didn’t even know the tattoo artist but he gave me the tattoo for free because it was novel.”

At the same time, Ken also began speaking up verbally about America’s use of depleted uranium as a “crime against humanity” and how the US military uses soldiers as “human guinea pigs” with experimental drugs that were directly linked to the Gulf War syndrome.

Ken has been a boat captain, dive instructor and social entrepreneur whose efforts have rescued over fifty-five endangered Green Sea Turtles in Hawaii.

Ken founded Deep Ecology, a 14 year old dive operation in Hawaii, that also focuses on education, environmental protection and customer service.

Ken has saved untold amounts of marine life and successfully lobbied for the creation of the North Shore’s first Marine Sanctuary, and today his mother, Pat Johnson runs the operation and on the left margin of the Deep Ecology oahuscubadive.com/ site it proclaims, “RESPECT YOUR MOTHER” meaning both biological and Mother Nature.

Ken renounced his US citizenship on March 1, 2001 and rose to fame for leading the human shield action to Iraq and was deemed a ‘terrorist’ by Israel for his resistance against their attack on the MV Mavi Marmara in which he defended the ship by disarming two Israeli Commandos, who were treated by medical doctors and released.

“I’ve made mistakes as every human does, but not regarding morals and integrity. By myself, I can do little, but together we can do everything. The Mavi Marmara experience proved that a small group of people who work together and tell the truth will create a better world.

“Our greatest responsibility is to hand over a better world to all children, and the 800,000 children in Gaza, are my children. I would rather die in pursuit of justice than back down. How can anyone accept the unacceptable!

“Governments should fear the people, not the other way around. The world is what we make of it and the fact that their is so much injustice in our world is a testament to our failure to unite and exercise our ultimate power.

“Direct Action, such as that which we conducted on the Mavi Marmara is the most powerful way for people of conscience to defy tyranny and affect justice; we have only just begun to reach our potential. Protecting that ship as we did was really an act of protecting the 800,000 plus children of Gaza who are the major beneficiary of breaking the blockade and ending their collective punishment.

“Israel used stun guns, percussion grenades, rounds of live ammunition, 9mm pistols, submachine guns and they had snipers in the helicopters.

“They attacked during morning prayers at 3:40 AM [on America’s Memorial Day] and within five minutes of their attack, I saw a photographer who was a father of two shot in the head while he was taking photos of the helicopter.

“The first commando that I saw that descended from the helicopter had a 9mm pistol. I disarmed him and removed the live rounds and ran with the gun to stash it away for evidence.

“When I returned on top of the ship, another commando fell in front of me who had a sub machine gun and I grabbed his arms and me and another bother disarmed him.

“I ran around that ship for over five minutes trying to figure out who to hand over the 9mm pistol to, either I am incredibly lucky, or else those snipers had orders not to shoot white people.

“I tattooed my body as a form of expression, as a form of commitment to the cause of truth justice and peace, these tattoos also predictably forced me to make my own path rather then getting any jobs with IBM and the corporate world in general. These tattoos definitely force people to look at their prejudices.

“The tear under my eye expresses the sorrow I feel for all the insanity I see humanity involved in.

“The chain around my neck is a necklace of commitment and another is Sanskrit for ‘compassion for all life.’”

Ken’s right arm is adorned with an Hawaiian tiki entwined with Celtic knots, and “USA EXPATRIOT: 3-1-01 R.I.P.”

On his left hand is a symbol for TJP, which stands for Truth, Justice, Peace and on his arm a take off of the Michael Parkes gargoyle who is chasing bubbles blown by a young maiden.

He also sports this Mark Twain quote:

“Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul.”

On Ken’s left wrist is a bracelet and on his left thumb a ring and a heart.

On his right wrist is a “barcode” (taken from a packet of ground beef) and upon his forearm is inscribed “SOVEREIGN: BORN FREE – DIE FREE” and Ken explained it to me, “Kings and Queens are considered sovereign, but fuck that! We are all sovereign!

Ken speaking in Newport, Oregon Salem-News.com photo by Bonnie King

On Ken’s abdomen is the word “EXTINCT” and the Peter Singer quote, “All the arguments to prove man’s superiority cannot shatter this one hard fact: in suffering the non human animals are our equals.”

Ken told me that his “bio-hazard symbol represents that we humans are the most hazardous species on this planet.

“I have a dragon on my back with hidden meaning.”

“How should we be able to forget those ancient myths that are at the beginning of all peoples, the myths about dragons that at the last moment turn into princesses; perhaps all the dragons of our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us once beautiful and brave. Perhaps everything terrible is in its deepest being something helpless that wants help from us.” -Rainer Maria Rilke

Ken also said that “The truth is God” and it is understood by most human beings that we are all created in the image of God.

Most of us believe that God’s image is manifest in our souls and our bodies are the result of millions of years of evolution.

Many of us manifest God’s spirit when we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless and some of us comprehend that no greater love is there than one who will lay down his life for another.

By Eileen Fleming

12 October, 2010

Countercurrents.org

Published first @http://salem-news.com/

 

 

Embrace The Cooperative Movement

In the midst of mounting economic insecurity, fueled by widespread unemployment, foreclosures and budget cuts, many people are seeking alternative models to business as usual. From community gardens to bartering networks, grassroots efforts are sprouting up across the country. One of the main pillars of this growing trend is an international institution with over 160 years of experience in local, sustainable economic development: a cooperative.

Since the mid-1800’s, cooperatives have promoted a unique, people-centered model that sets them apart from conventional businesses. Unlike traditional corporations, which are owned and controlled by outside shareholders, cooperatives are businesses that are owned and democratically controlled by their members – the people who use their services or buy their goods. In other words, cooperatives are member-driven institutions that put people before profit to meet community needs.

Co-ops exist in a variety of forms in countless industries across the country and around the world. United on the basis of member-ownership and democratic control – generally following the decision-making principle of “one-member, one-vote” – co-ops have a range of ownership structures, from consumer-owned food co-ops to worker-owned manufacturing firms. In whatever form they take, however, surveys repeatedly demonstrate that consumers rate co-ops as more trustworthy than investor-owned corporations.

In the US alone, the model has been embraced by more than 130 million members, served by over 29,000 cooperatives operating in nearly all sectors of the economy.

Cooperatives play a vital role in local economic development, helping people improve their lives through empowering jobs and access to goods and services that would otherwise be more expensive, lower in quality, or simply unavailable. These demonstrated benefits have sparked growing interest in the cooperative movement worldwide. Indeed, the United Nations recently declared 2012 the International Year of Cooperatives.

In light of the economic crisis, many people have embraced worker cooperatives in particular as an effective pathway out of poverty. Owned and controlled by the people who work in the business, worker co-ops have an impressive track record of providing stable jobs with asset-building potential, higher wages, a deeper connection to the local community, and an array of personal and professional development opportunities.

Worker cooperatives often operate on the basis of a “triple bottom line”, measuring success not simply by the money they earn, but by the well-being of their workers; their sustainability as a business; and their overall contribution to the community and the environment. Cooperatives have served as a foundation for growth in the green economy, where worker-owned businesses operate primarily in labor-intensive sectors such as recycling, solar installation, landscaping, green cleaning, and deconstruction.

Internationally, the bulk of worker cooperatives are concentrated in countries like Spain, Italy and Canada. Yet in recent years the movement in the United States has become increasingly organized. In May 2004, members of the worker co-op community founded the US Federation of Worker Cooperatives, a national membership-based organization “of and for worker cooperatives, other democratic workplaces, and the organizations that support the growth and continued development of worker cooperatives.”

For the past two years, membership in the Federation has grown 25 percent per year, with the majority of growth coming from cooperatives developed in response to social, economic and community needs sharpened in the wake of the financial meltdown.

Here in Austin, Third Coast Workers for Cooperation, a cooperative development center dedicated to building worker-owned green businesses with low-income communities, is working with a group of low-income women to establish Yo Mamas Catering Co-op, a worker-owned catering business.

“We wanted jobs that would provide a good living for ourselves and our families”, says Sylvia Barrios of Yo Mamas. “We’ve spent a lot of time working for other people…now we want more control over our lives and we think Austin is ready for more worker-run businesses.”

Indeed, Austin already has its share of notable worker-run businesses: Ecology Action, a recycling center in downtown; Tribe Creative Agency, an advertising agency focused on the “Common Good”; and the recently opened Black Star Co-op, a worker self-managed, consumer-owned brew pub.

As one of the more noteworthy cities for socially and environmentally responsible local businesses, Austin is ripe for more growth in the cooperative sector. Socially and environmentally responsible practices are not just a trend within cooperatives – it’s just how they work. That’s the cooperative difference.

By Carlos Perez de Alejo

26 October, 2010

Austin American-Statesman

Carlos Perez de Alejo is co-director of Third Coast Workers for Cooperation in Austin, TX. http://thirdcoastworkers.coop/ He can be reached at carlos@thirdcoastworkers.coop

 

Currency War: To Be or Not To Be

It is now currency theatre. Exchange rates are policy weapon. A currency war is raging. The war is still to rage. Opinions differ. 

But the reality is there, a charged reality, a reality with high unemployment, countries with huge debt problem, countries artificially devaluing their currencies. All these are symptoms of crisis the capitalist system is going through.

Economic super powers baffled with financial crisis are facing each other. Exchange rates are being used to puzzle out domestic problems. This in turn may lead to a trade war around the world, may derail the fragile global recovery, the cherished dream of the mainstream.

George Soros, the billionaire currency investor reputed to have made $1bn by “breaking the Bank of England” during the Black Wednesday fiscal crisis in 1992, has warned: A global “currency war” pitting China versus the rest of the world could lead to the collapse of the world economy. Guido Mantega, the Brazilian finance minister coining the phrase – Currency War – said: We’re in the midst of a currency war. Zoellick, the World Bank head, however, doesn’t foresee that the world is moving into currency war. Although he admits: There is tension. “Tensions can lead to trouble …” Strauss-Kahn, the International Monetary Fund head echoed: A currency war risks undermining the global recovery. “The momentum [of economic co-operation] is decreasing.” The recently concluded IMF meeting, now a cooperation conclave for competitions, witnessed exercises without concrete action on exchange rates. The final communiqué seemed a setback for the US. A significant sign it carried.

Japan, Brazil, Peru and other countries are trying to beggar thy neighbor. Brazil has doubled a tax on foreign purchases of local bonds, South Korea has warned of new trading limits, and Greece and Turkey are trying to expand exports. Countries are seeking to devalue currencies to boost exports and jobs. China with its $2,450bn in reserves in June 2010, 30 percent of the world total, 50 percent of its own GDP and largest in the world, has reaffirmed plans for currency appreciation at its own pace. Soros wrote in the Financial Times: “China has emerged as a leader of the world.” “They control not only their own currency but actually the entire global currency system,” he said.

A nervous Europe pitifully learns from Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel economics laureate: Euro may not survive. Its future is looking “bleak”. Memories of strong euro during its childhood days make speculators nostalgic. The US and Britain have flooded their economies with liquidity and have kept interest rates extremely low. Thus they have effectively devalued their currencies. Germany with huge trade surpluses, and Ireland, Portugal and Greece with deficits are putting intense pressure on euro. Europe fractured now with cracks is having row over exchange rates.

Banks are again in “business as usual”. Investors have claimed that China was deliberately keeping the yuan, the Chinese currency, low to keep exports cheap. This is hurting US competitors. Manufacturers in the US contend that the yuan is undervalued by as much as 40 percent and this has cost millions of US manufacturing jobs by making Chinese goods cheaper in the US market and American products more expensive in China.

With high unemployment, a miserable GDP, and declining economic power the US finds no other way than running its printing presses to the limits and pointing the finger of accusation: China is keeping its currency low. Geithner tells: China’s actions set off “a dangerous dynamic.” Along with the US economy czar, the IMF seemingly has taken a tougher line with China, which has refused to let the yuan appreciate more rapidly fearing that it could lead to social turmoil. US House legislation says China is a currency manipulator. But still China produces profit for a section of US capital.

The reality is pushing pundits to change positions. Matías Vernengo, Assistant Professor, at the Economics Department and the Latin American Studies Program of the University of Utah, wrote in TripleCrisis (Oct. 5, 2010): The current unemployment crisis has led Paul Krugman to suggest that the US would be justified in raising tariffs on Chinese goods. In the recent crisis, Krugman seems to believe that the impossibility of using fiscal policy, for political reasons, renders the US similar to a developing country.

China, it seems, has all the desire to avoid Japan’s Lost Decade. China wants to buy Greek bonds. But European policymakers are worried that this would push up the euro against the yuan. There are contradictions between China and the Eurozone countries. The strained Sino-Japanese relation is also there.

Contradictions among capital are surfacing with long-term implications. The trend in currencies shows competing economic interests. With manipulation and speculation, and with a secular deficient domestic demand the matured capitalist world is striving to survive by resorting to export-led growth. The conflict over exchange rates means that major capitalist countries are now trying to conquer their crisis by conquering bigger portions of markets. The coming months will be challenging.

The global financial system is still in a period of significant uncertainty and remains the Achilles’ heel of the economic recovery, said IMF. “Nearly $4 trillion of bank debt will need to be rolled over in the next 24 months,” said a Telegraph news story referring IMF. The IMF’s Global Financial Stability Report said: Governments will have to inject fresh equity into banks, particularly in Spain, Germany and the US, as well as prop up their funding structures by extending emergency support. “Progress toward global financial stability has experienced a setback since April … [due to] the recent turmoil in sovereign debt markets.”

With this backdrop the currency conflict has increased the world system’s vulnerability. Capitals’ present striving for increasing exports is only for the sake of its own survival. It is trying to increase overseas market but is not willing to assist domestic consumers. Its “struggle” for competitiveness is its “struggle” for higher profit. But it cannot escape contradictions. The currency conflict shows deep rooted contradictions counting days for surfacing. It shows signs of significant shifts going on in geopolitics.


By Farooque Chowdhury

12 October, 2010

Countercurrents.org

 

China’s Pipelineistan “War”

Future historians may well agree that the twenty-first century Silk Road first opened for business on December 14, 2009. That was the day a crucial stretch of pipeline officially went into operation linking the fabulously energy-rich state of Turkmenistan (via Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan) to Xinjiang Province in China’s far west. Hyperbole did not deter the spectacularly named Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov, Turkmenistan’s president, from bragging, “This project has not only commercial or economic value. It is also political. China, through its wise and farsighted policy, has become one of the key guarantors of global security.”

The bottom line is that, by 2013, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Hong Kong will be cruising to ever more dizzying economic heights courtesy of natural gas supplied by the 1,833-kilometer-long Central Asia Pipeline, then projected to be operating at full capacity. And to think that, in a few more years, China’s big cities will undoubtedly also be getting a taste of Iraq’s fabulous, barely tapped oil reserves, conservatively estimated at 115 billion barrels, but possibly closer to 143 billion barrels, which would put it ahead of Iran. When the Bush administration’s armchair generals launched their Global War on Terror, this was not exactly what they had in mind.

China’s economy is thirsty, and so it’s drinking deeper and planning deeper yet. It craves Iraq’s oil and Turkmenistan’s natural gas, as well as oil from Kazakhstan. Yet instead of spending more than a trillion dollars on an illegal war in Iraq or setting up military bases all over the Greater Middle East and Central Asia, China used its state oil companies to get some of the energy it needed simply by bidding for it in a perfectly legal Iraqi oil auction.

Meanwhile, in the New Great Game in Eurasia, China had the good sense not to send a soldier anywhere or get bogged down in an infinite quagmire in Afghanistan. Instead, the Chinese simply made a direct commercial deal with Turkmenistan and, profiting from that country’s disagreements with Moscow, built itself a pipeline which will provide much of the natural gas it needs.

No wonder the Obama administration’s Eurasian energy czar Richard Morningstar was forced to admit at a congressional hearing that the U.S. simply cannot compete with China when it comes to Central Asia’s energy wealth. If only he had delivered the same message to the Pentagon.

That Iranian Equation

In Beijing, they take the matter of diversifying oil supplies very, very seriously. When oil reached $150 a barrel in 2008 — before the U.S.-unleashed global financial meltdown hit — Chinese state media had taken to calling foreign Big Oil “international petroleum crocodiles,” with the implication that the West’s hidden agenda was ultimately to stop China’s relentless development dead in its tracks.

Twenty-eight percent of what’s left of the world’s proven oil reserves are in the Arab world. China could easily gobble it all up. Few may know that China itself is actually the world’s fifth largest oil producer, at 3.7 million barrels per day (bpd), just below Iran and slightly above Mexico. In 1980, China consumed only 3% of the world’s oil. Now, its take is around 10%, making it the planet’s second largest consumer. It has already surpassed Japan in that category, even if it’s still way behind the U.S., which eats up 27% of global oil each year. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), China will account for over 40% of the increase in global oil demand until 2030. And that’s assuming China will grow at “only” a 6% annual rate which, based on present growth, seems unlikely.

Saudi Arabia controls 13% of world oil production. At the moment, it is the only swing producer — one, that is, that can move the amount of oil being pumped up or down at will — capable of substantially increasing output. It’s no accident, then, that, pumping 500,000 bpd, it has become one of Beijing’s major oil suppliers. The top three, according to China’s Ministry of Commerce, are Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Angola. By 2013-2014, if all goes well, the Chinese expect to add Iraq to that list in a big way, but first that troubled country’s oil production needs to start cranking up. In the meantime, it’s the Iranian part of the Eurasian energy equation that’s really nerve-racking for China’s leaders.

Chinese companies have invested a staggering $120 billion in Iran’s energy sector over the past five years. Already Iran is China’s number two oil supplier, accounting for up to 14% of its imports; and the Chinese energy giant Sinopec has committed an additional $6.5 billion to building oil refineries there. Due to harsh U.N.-imposed and American sanctions and years of economic mismanagement, however, the country lacks the high-tech know-how to provide for itself, and its industrial structure is in a shambles. The head of the National Iranian Oil Company, Ahmad Ghalebani, has publicly admitted that machinery and parts used in Iran’s oil production still have to be imported from China.

Sanctions can be a killer, slowing investment, increasing the cost of trade by over 20%, and severely constricting Tehran’s ability to borrow in global markets. Nonetheless, trade between China and Iran grew by 35% in 2009 to $27 billion. So while the West has been slamming Iran with sanctions, embargos, and blockades, Iran has been slowly evolving as a crucial trade corridor for China — as well as Russia and energy-poor India. Unlike the West, they are all investing like crazy there because it’s easy to get concessions from the government; it’s easy and relatively cheap to build infrastructure; and being on the inside when it comes to Iranian energy reserves is a necessity for any country that wants to be a crucial player in Pipelineistan, that contested chessboard of crucial energy pipelines over which much of the New Great Game in Eurasia takes place. Undoubtedly, the leaders of all three countries are offering thanks to whatever gods they care to worship that Washington continues to make it so easy (and lucrative) for them.

Few in the U.S. may know that last year Saudi Arabia — now (re)arming to the teeth, courtesy of Washington, and little short of paranoid about the Iranian nuclear program — offered to supply the Chinese with the same amount of oil the country currently imports from Iran at a much cheaper price. But Beijing, for whom Iran is a key long-term strategic ally, scotched the deal.

As if Iran’s structural problems weren’t enough, the country has done little to diversify its economy beyond oil and natural gas exports in the past 30 years; inflation’s running at more than 20%; unemployment at more than 20%; and young, well educated people are fleeing abroad, a major brain drain for that embattled land. And don’t think that’s the end of its litany of problems. It would like to be a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) — the multi-layered economic/military cooperation union that is a sort of Asian response to NATO — but is only an official SCO observer because the group does not admit any country under U.N. sanctions. Tehran, in other words, would like some great power protection against the possibility of an attack from the U.S. or Israel. As much as Iran may be on the verge of becoming a far more influential player in the Central Asian energy game thanks to Russian and Chinese investment, it’s extremely unlikely that either of those countries would actually risk war against the U.S. to “save” the Iranian regime.

The Great Escape

From Beijing’s point of view, the title of the movie version of the intractable U.S. v. Iran conflict and a simmering U.S. v. China strategic competition in Pipelineistan could be: “Escape from Hormuz and Malacca.”

The Strait of Hormuz is the definition of a potential strategic bottleneck. It is, after all, the only entryway to the Persian Gulf and through it now flow roughly 20% of China’s oil imports. At its narrowest, it is only 36 kilometers wide, with Iran to the north and Oman to the south. China’s leaders fret about the constant presence of U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups on station and patrolling nearby.

With Singapore to the North and Indonesia to the south, the Strait of Malacca is another potential bottleneck if ever there was one — and through it flow as much as 80% of China’s oil imports. At its narrowest, it is only 54 kilometers wide and like the Strait of Hormuz, its security is also of the made-in-USA variety. In a future face-off with Washington, both straits could quickly be closed or controlled by the U.S. Navy.

Hence, China’s increasing emphasis on developing a land-based Central Asian energy strategy could be summed up as: bye-bye, Hormuz! Bye-bye, Malacca! And a hearty welcome to a pipeline-driven new Silk Road from the Caspian Sea to China’s Far West in Xinjiang.

Kazakhstan has 3% of the world’s proven oil reserves, but its largest oil fields are not far from the Chinese border. China sees that country as a key alternative oil supplier via future pipelines that would link the Kazakh oil fields to Chinese oil refineries in its far west. In fact, China’s first transnational Pipelineistan adventure is already in place: the 2005 China-Kazakhstan oil project, financed by Chinese energy giant CNPC.

Much more is to come, and Chinese leaders expect energy-rich Russia to play a significant part in China’s escape-hatch planning as well. Strategically, this represents a crucial step in regional energy integration, tightening the Russia/China partnership inside the SCO as well as at the U.N. Security Council.

When it comes to oil, the name of the game is the immense Eastern Siberia-Pacific Ocean (ESPO) pipeline. Last August, a 4,000-kilometer-long Russian section from Taishet in eastern Siberia to Nakhodka, still inside Russian territory, was begun. Russian Premier Vladimir Putin hailed ESPO as “a really comprehensive project that has strengthened our energy cooperation.” And in late September, the Russians and the Chinese inaugurated a 999-kilometer-long pipeline from Skovorodino in Russia’s Amur region to the petrochemical hub Daqing in northeast China.

Russia is currently delivering up to 130 million tons of Russian oil a year to Europe. Soon, no less than 50 million tons may be heading to China and the Pacific region as well.

There are, however, hidden tensions between the Russians and the Chinese when it comes to energy matters. The Russian leadership is understandably wary of China’s startling strides in Central Asia, the former Soviet Union’s former “near abroad.” After all, as the Chinese have been doing in Africa in their search for energy, in Central Asia, too, the Chinese are building railways and introducing high-tech trains, among other modern wonders, in exchange for oil and gas concessions.

Despite the simmering tensions between China, Russia, and the U.S., it’s too early to be sure just who is likely to emerge as the victor in the new Great Game in Central Asia, but one thing is clear enough. The Central Asian “stans” are becoming ever more powerful poker players in their own right as Russia tries not to lose its hegemony there, Washington places all its chips on pipelines meant to bypass Russia (including the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline that pumps oil from Azerbaijan to Turkey via Georgia) and China antes up big time for its Central Asian future. Whoever loses, this is a game that the “stans” cannot but profit from.

Recently, our man Gurbanguly, the Turkmen leader, chose China as his go-to country for an extra $4.18 billion loan for the development of South Yolotan, his country’s largest gas field. (The Chinese had already shelled out $3 billion to help develop it.) Energy bureaucrats in Brussels were devastated. With estimated reserves of up to 14 trillion cubic meters of natural gas, the field has the potential to flood the energy-starved European Union with gas for more than 20 years. Goodbye to all that?

In 2009, Turkmenistan’s proven gas reserves were estimated at a staggering 8.1 trillion cubic meters, fourth largest in the world after Russia, Iran, and Qatar. Not surprisingly, from the point of view of Ashgabat, the country’s capital, it invariably seems to be raining gas. Nonetheless, experts doubt that the landlocked, idiosyncratic Central Asian republic actually has enough blue gold to supply Russia (which absorbed 70% of Turkmenistan’s supply before the pipeline to China opened), China, Western Europe and Iran, all at the same time.

Currently, Turkmenistan sells its gas to: China via the world’s largest gas pipeline, 7,000 kilometers long and designed for a capacity of 40 billion cubic meters per year, Russia (10 billion cubic meters per year, down from 30 billion per year until 2008), and Iran (14 billion cubic meters per year). Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad always gets a red-carpet welcome from Gurbanguly, and the Russian energy giant Gazprom, thanks to an improved pricing policy, is treated as a preferred customer.

At present, however, the Chinese are atop the heap, and more generally, whatever happens, there can be little question that Central Asia will be China’s major foreign supplier of natural gas. On the other hand, the fact that Turkmenistan has, in practice, committed its entire future gas exports to China, Russia, and Iran means the virtual death of various trans-Caspian Sea pipeline plans long favored by Washington and the European Union.

IPI vs. TAPI All Over Again

On the oil front, even if all the “stans” sold China every barrel of oil they currently pump, less than half of China’s daily import needs would be met. Ultimately, only the Middle East can quench China’s thirst for oil. According to the International Energy Agency, China’s overall oil needs will rise to 11.3 million barrels per day by 2015, even with domestic production peaking at 4.0 million bpd. Compare that to what some of China’s alternative suppliers are now producing: Angola, 1.4 million bpd; Kazakhstan, 1.4 million as well; and Sudan, 400,000.

On the other hand, Saudi Arabia produces 10.9 million bpd, Iran around 4.0 million, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) 3.0 million, Kuwait 2.7 million — and then there’s Iraq, presently at 2.5 million and likely to reach at least 4.0 million by 2015. Still, Beijing has yet to be fully convinced that this is a safe supply, especially given all those U.S. “forward operating sites” in the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and Oman, plus those roaming naval battle groups in the Persian Gulf.

On the gas front, China definitely counts on a South Asian game changer. Beijing has already spent $200 million on the first phase in the construction of a deepwater port at Gwadar in Pakistan’s Balochistan Province. It wanted, and got from Islamabad, “sovereign guarantees to the port’s facilities.” Gwadar is only 400 kilometers from Hormuz. With Gwadar, the Chinese Navy would have a homeport that would easily allow it to monitor traffic in the strait and someday perhaps even thwart the U.S. Navy’s expansionist designs in the Indian Ocean.

But Gwadar has another infinitely juicier future role. It could prove the pivot in a competition between two long-discussed pipelines: TAPI and IPI. TAPI stands for the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline, which can never be built as long as U.S. and NATO occupation forces are fighting the resistance umbrella conveniently labeled “Taliban” in Afghanistan. IPI, however, is the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, also known as the “peace pipeline” (which, of course, would make TAPI the “war pipeline”). To Washington’s immeasurable distress, last June, Iran and Pakistan finally closed the deal to build the “IP” part of IPI, with Pakistan assuring Iran that either India or China could later be brought into the project.

Whether it’s IP, IPI, or IPC, Gwadar will be a key node. If, under pressure from Washington, which treats Tehran like the plague, India is forced to pull out of the project, China already has made it clear that it wants in. The Chinese would then build a Pipelineistan link from Gwadar along the Karakorum highway in Pakistan to China via the Khunjerab Pass — another overland corridor that would prove immune to U.S. interference. It would have the added benefit of radically cutting down the 20,000-kilometer-long tanker route around the southern rim of Asia.

Arguably, for the Indians it would be a strategically sound move to align with IPI, trumping a deep suspicion that the Chinese will move to outflank them in the search for foreign energy with a “string of pearls” strategy: the setting up of a series of “home ports” along its key oil supply routes from Pakistan to Myanmar. In that case, Gwadar would no longer simply be a “Chinese” port.

As for Washington, it still believes that if TAPI is built, it will help keep India from fully breaking the U.S.-enforced embargo on Iran. Energy-starved Pakistan obviously prefers its “all-weather” ally China, which might commit itself to building all sorts of energy infrastructure within that flood-devastated country. In a nutshell, if the unprecedented energy cooperation between Iran, Pakistan, and China goes forward, it will signal a major defeat for Washington in the New Great Game in Eurasia, with enormous geopolitical and geo-economic repercussions.

For the moment, Beijing’s strategic priority has been to carefully develop a remarkably diverse set of energy-suppliers — a flow of energy that covers Russia, the South China Sea, Central Asia, the East China Sea, the Middle East, Africa, and South America. (China’s forays into Africa and South America will be dealt with in a future installment of our TomDispatch tour of the globe’s energy hotspots.) If China has so far proven masterly in the way it has played its cards in its Pipelineistan “war”, the U.S. hand — bypass Russia, elbow out China, isolate Iran — may soon be called for what it is: a bluff.

By Pepe Escobar

12 October, 2010

TomDispatch.com

Copyright 2010 Pepe Escobar

Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for Asia Times. His latest book is Obama Does Globalistan. He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.

Get rid of pink colored sunglasses!

Understanding Malaysian politics can be a struggle for European observers.

How is it possible, that a country on the edge of becoming a first world nation, still deals with racial issues? The racial issue states an anachronism for many Europeans, a paradox of progress. Why is it so difficult for the west to understand the nation building process of Malaysia and its political setting?

There is a German quote, saying that ignorant people see the world through ‘pink colored sunglasses’, meaning they just see what they want to see and have no sense of empathy. This is what actually happens if one is referring to Malaysia and its political setting. Calling it racist, without taking any effort to highlight the historical and cultural backgrounds and the feelings of people involved.

Let us replace the sunglasses with spectacles and start with some simple analyzing of basic terms. Let’s take for instance a term often used in Malaysian politics,  the word ‘race’. Malaysians and Europeans associate the word with something different .

European chauvinism and racism

To understand the European problem with the term ‘race’ it is necessary to know the background of its usage and its transition of meaning in the past.

The actual word ‘race’ derives from the Spanish term ‘rraça’ which simply meant ‘from good or bad origin’ in the 15th century and referred to horses or aristocratic families. In the following decades this word was adopted by other languages and it was soon to be used to classify human collectives. At first the term was used to refer to a ‘Christian race’ in contrast to the Jews, Pagans and later Muslims. After the recapture of the Iberian peninsula by the Spaniards in 1492 the Andalusian Jews and Muslims were forced to adopt the Christian faith. In fact, most converts still practiced their previous faith secretly and were accused of doing so. Thus, beside the purity of faith, the purity of blood became an issue and soon the word ‘race’ referred to origin, which, in the case of Andalusia, was either Christian, Jewish or  Muslim.

The emergence of colonialism in the 15th and 16th century and the values of the Age of Enlightenment led to the development of the so-called ‘race theory’. The thinkers of the Enlightenment were convinced that there is a structured order in nature which led to the concept of ‘scala naturae’, an imagination of a natural hierarchy in which homo sapient is the most superior species and monkeys being the most superior animals. The black African was considered as the link between fauna and the species homo sapient. In this context many scholars of the Age of Enlightenment categorized the human species on behalf of their skin color, type of hair or character into races and concluded that one race is superior or inferior to another, thus making race a biological category.

In the 19th century Darwin’s theory of evolution accelerated this thinking in biological categories, leading to the concept of race-struggle. The heyday of race-struggle hysteria  peaked in National Socialist Germany between 1933-1945, causing an ideology of aggressive racism and an attempt to conquer Eastern Europe, to wipe out its Jewish population and to enslave the original Slavic population. The aim was the founding of the so called ‘thousand year old reich’ with German-Aryan supremacy in Europe. In the Reich itself laws to protect ‘German blood and German honor’ were implemented and inter-marriages and sexual encounters between different races were prohibited and persecuted brutally.

Paradigm shift after World War 2.

The experience of the holocaust and the encounters with the cruelty of colonial regimes caused a major paradigm shift in Europe and in a dogma of unquestionable premises.  The 60s student revolts in France, Germany, Japan and other western countries as well as the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King in the USA are a result of a new set of values which is emphasizing the individual and a humanistic worldview, finally causing a sensibility on issues concerning social problems, including racism and on how to deal with social outcasts like homosexuals, disabled people etc.

Scientific attempts were made to disprove the race theory. Geneticists found out that gene-codes among individuals of a group who share a similar appearance have broader varieties compared to individuals with a different appearance. Thus, the term ‘race’ as a biological categorization of humans is scientifically wrong. Therefore the term ‘ethnic group’ is more accurate when referring to a group of people with a similar appearance and similar cultural background.

Since the 1960s societies in Europe are in transition and have lost their homogeneous setting due to an influx of immigrants from other parts of the world. In many European countries campaigns are launched to tackle stereotype thinking and to reduce prejudices to maintain social peace and promote integration. Somehow it’s leading to a form of exaggerated political correctness. For example the term ‘negro’ is absolutely unacceptable in contemporary German media. Instead the term ‘maximum pigmented’ is used in official forms and ‘German with African root’ is the term used in the media. Even the word foreigner is considered as judging when referring to non-Germans. The official language refers to these individuals as ‘person with migration background’. This phenomenon is not unique to Germany; it is a phenomenon in entire Europe. This is where Europeans got their ‘pink colored sunglasses’ from. It has to be seen in the context of the emergence of a humanistic, individualistic worldview which became an ideological dogma.

‘Race’ in Malaysia

Let’s come back to Malaysia. Prior to the British colonial regime, racism or thinking in racial categories as a biological term was alien to Southeast Asia. In the Malay language a word for ‘race’ as a biological category is missing. The term ‘bangsa’ is used to refer to ethnic groups, nations or people, but is not equivalent to ‘race’.

It were the Europeans, especially the British, who imported the idea of human ‘races’. Just skim over Frank Swettenham’s script ‘the Real Malay’ and notice his judgment on the culture of the original Malay during the heyday of British colonialism and link it to their ‘divide and rule’ policy. The ideological foundation in the shaping of race-based economic functions and roles like Malay farmers (the noble savage), Chinese tin miners or businessmen and Indian estate workers has to be seen in the context of the European concept of inferior and superior races.

Even though a consciousness of otherness and a identification with economic roles among the societies on the Malayan Peninsula emerged, there was never an understanding of being inferior or superior compared to another ethnic group, either Malay, Chinese or Indian. Malay nationalism developed not in a chauvinist manner. It emerged because there was a feeling that Malay culture is facing extinction after the proposal of the Malayan Union. In fact, the proposal of the Malayan Union was the first encounter of Malays with Europeans wearing the ‘pink colored sunglasses’.

Conclusion

The Western difficulty in dealing with the Malaysian ‘race-issue’ is caused by a major misunderstanding which goes beyond the semantics of the actual term. There is some kind of Western chauvinism in the context of norms and values. The Western encounter with its historical failures implemented a chauvinist dogma which is shaping the worldview of many Western observers.

The Malaysian race issue is questioning the dogmatic premise of the (formal and legal) equality of races (or, as we know now, ethnic groups). This premise is seen as universal and therefore unquestionable. In Malaysia the legal equality of races is relativised by the premise of economic power. Chinese (from a Malay perspective immigrant) economic supremacy which emerged from the colonial divide and rule policy placed them in a powerful position and threatened the political power of the local Malay rulers (‘ketuanan melayu’). This fact is ignored by western observers due to their dogmatic premise of equality, or in other words, their ‘pink sunglasses’.

In favor of a broader understanding, not just in the Malaysian race-issue,the book of Plea For Empathy should be sent to Western critics and observers who always emphasize the premises of their ideological dogma which emerged in a different culture and history. One should leave his ‘pink colored sunglasses’ at home and honestly try to understand other cultures

by Nurman Nowak

Nurman Nowak was an intern with JUST from August until September 2010. Currently, he is pursuing his degree in Asia Studies in University of Bonn, Germany

Bible Does Not Legitimize The Occupation Of Palestine: The Vatican

The synods for the Middle East which lasted two weeks in the Vatican, have issued an important document which supports the Palestinian right to live free in Palestine. The document signed by more than 180 bishops from the catholic churches and other churches invalidated the Jewish argument that they are exclusively chosen by God. The argument of the so called chosen people has been invested by the Jewish Zionist invaders to legalize the occupation of Palestine and the uprooting of most of its native inhabitants.

Pope Benedict XVI addressed the synod by stressing that decent life is a right for all citizens to call for the consolidation of tolerance, and coexistence.

The document has cast out the zionist argument which uses the bible to authenticate its occupation. It makes it crystal clear that the bible cannot be used to inflict pain, occupation, or injustice on Palestinians.

The synod was held to debate the situation of the Arab Christians which has been diminishing particularly since the Zionist invasion in 1948 which destroyed thousands of years of established Palestinian Christian society, most of which was located in the major Palestinian cities such as Haifa, Akka, Jaffa, Nazareth, and Jerusalem.

The synod has accused Israel of hindering the movement of Palestinian Christians by the Zionist wall and by the hundreds of check points which humiliate Palestinians on a daily basis.

The synod called for the immediate establishment of the Palestinian state as a condition to end the cycle of violence, and for the return of Palestinian refugees expelled from their homes by Zionist troops in 1948.

The document of the synod urged the peoples of the region to work hard to find political compromises which enable the region to live in freedom, democracy, and mutual respect among faiths. This in turn will create in the end a culture of peace and tolerance that will benefit all. If this is implemented, it will bring about an end to the wars, and hopefully enable future generations to live together without fear, without occupation, and without horror.

The prime reason for the synod is concern at the massive decrease of Arab Christians from Palestine in the last 100 years. The widespread immigration of Arab Christians to countries such as Canada, North America, and Australia, has been due to these continuous wars and conflicts. This situation worsened considerably after the establishment of the Zionist state which launched 7 wars against the region. This laid the groundwork for a culture of violence, religious fanaticism and militarization. Al Jazeera TV mentions that in the past century Arab Christians formed about 20 percent of the population in the Arab orient. This figure has now dropped to around 5 percent. In Jerusalem for instance Palestinian Christians were 30,000 in the 1948 but now do not exceed 10,000.

Throughout history Arab Christians have played important roles in the political and intellectual life of the Arab orient. In modern history they contributed in the Arab renaissance movement of the 19th century which modernized the Arabic language and culture and contributed greatly in the secular pan Arab movement.

Palestinian Christians were in front of the forces which opposed the Zionist project which sought to destroy Palestine in favor of Polish and Russian Jews. One of them was Najeeb Nassar who devoted his pen and life to defend Palestine from falling in the hand of the Zionist invaders. He also toured Palestine from north to south warning Palestinians of the future dangers of the Zionist project. The synod also addressed the painful situation of the Iraqi Christians who became the victims of the violence which characterized Iraq after the American occupation of Iraq. There have been several episodes where narrow minded Islamists have confused Zionist Christians, who support the occupation of Iraq and Palestine, with the Iraqi native Christians who have themselves paid the price of the American occupation.

Palestinians eager to see an end to the occupation view the synod document as a step towards their salvation. The Palestinian president said that the uprooting of Palestinian Christians has a negative impact on the national identity of Palestine. He said too that the Pope himself saw during his visit to Palestine the Zionist wall which separates Bethlehem from Jerusalem which is the biggest insult against 2000 Christians and to the continuance of Palestinian Christendom.

Israel attacked the synod document on the basis that the synod was a platform for Palestinians to put forward their argument as if the occupied and the oppressed have no right to talk about the horror they are subjected to. The Israeli position goes in harmony with the Jewish fundamental government which issued a law forbidding Palestinians in the 1948 land to commemorate the Nakhba day when Zionists destroyed their country.

Israel must not have the illusion of Stalin who underestimated the power of the Vatican by asking once”how many divisions can the Vatican mobilize against Hitler”. The Vatican has no military troops but it has the moral strength which has its impact all over the world. And if Israel chooses not to listen to the voice of the Vatican which calls for a just peace. This then means that Israel has learnt nothing from the past which taught humanity that racist ideologies have no future.

By Salim Nazzal

26 October, 2010

Countercurrents.org

Dr Salim Nazzal is a Palestinian-Norwegian historian in the Middle East, who has written extensively on social and political issues in the region.

Asian People’s Solidarity For Palestine Announces The Asia To Gaza Solidarity Caravan

500 civil resisters from 17 Asian countries will join the caravan from India and march through 18 Asian cities of Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey to break the siege of Gaza through the sea route in December 2010

The  Asia to Gaza Solidarity Caravan  is being organised by the  Asian People’s Solidarity for Palestine , an alliance of peoples’ organisations, social movements, trade unions, and civil society institutions of Asia. This struggle is broad-based, varied and multi-dimensional. It is humanitarian and for peace, freedom and  human dignity . It is against occupation, imperialism, apartheid, Zionism  and all forms of discrimination including religious discrimination .  Simultaneous press conferences are being held in 5 countries today – India, Turkey, Iran, Indonesia and Lebanon – to announce the launch of the Asia to Gaza Caravan.  Similar press conferences will be held next week in Syria, Palestine, Malysia, Nepal and Bangladesh.

The Asian People’s Solidarity for Palestine extends solidarity to the courageous people of Palestine in their struggle, resistance, and intifada against the Zionist Israeli occupation and affirms its commitment to Palestinian Self-Determination; Ending the Occupation; Equal Rights for All within historic Palestine; the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees; and the Establishment of a Sovereign, Independent and Democratic state of Palestine with Jerusalem as the capital.

The Asian People’s Solidarity for Palestine commits to build the solidarity of Asian people for the freedom of Palestine, provide materials, resources, and volunteers to support the struggle of the people of Palestine and oppose our own governments’ decisions and actions that give economic, financial, military and diplomatic support to Israel and allow it to behave with impunity.

India Lifeline to Gaza , which is a constituent of the Asian People’s Solidarity for Palestine will have a conference and a large flag off programme in New Delhi on 2nd December 2010. The Caravan will carry relief material for the people of Gaza. The Asia to Gaza Caravan will cross into Pakistan via the Wagah border where members of the Pakistan Solidarity for Gaza will join the Caravan onwards to Iran. In every country and city that the caravan travels through, public meetings will be organised as more activists and participants join the caravan.  We also support  the United Palestinian call of July 2005 for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) to compel Israel to comply with international law; the Palestinian Campaign for Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI); and all other initiatives to end the occupation of Palestine.

TENTATIVE CARAVAN SCHEDULE
01 DecParticipants from East and South East Asia reach New Delhi, India15-17 DecTabriz , Iran to Eskandarun, Turkey
2-3 DecFlag off from New Delhi
and travel to Wagah border, India-Pakistan Border
18-19 DecEskandarun , Turkey to Damascus, Syria
04 DecReach Lahore, Pakistan20-21 DecDamascus , Syria to Amman Jordan
5-7 DecLahore  to Karachi/Quetta, Pakistan22-23 DecAmman , Jordan to Beirut Lebanon
08 DecKarachi/Quetta, Pakistan to Zahedan, Iran24-26 DecBeirut  back to Turkey
9-14 DecZahedan, Iran to Tabriz, Iran26 DecWe Sail for Gaza (Palestine)

Peaceful Resistance

The civil resisters have resolved to resist the Israeli sea siege in a peaceful manner and following the example of civil resisters such as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela as well as the long tradition of peaceful resistance from all ethical and religious traditions. The civil resisters are willing to be convicted for their peaceful resistance.

India  Lifeline to Gaza

This process has been initiated by Indian people’s movements, social movements, trade unions, civil society organisations and multi-faith and ecumenical organisations. In the two months prior to departure of the Asia to Gaza caravan there will be multi-city programmes in solidarity of the people of Gaza and Palestine. Film festivals of Palestinian films and films of resistance, music concerts, photo exhibits, and theatre productions are being organised by the supporters of the people of Gaza and Palestine.

Palestinian Film Festival: Celebrating Cultures of Resistance

A week-long film festival screening Palestinian films and documentaries is being planned across several cities of India in the last week of October (tentatively 23-30 October). Several other initiatives such as solidarity concerts, theatrical performances, photo exhibits, panel discussions and seminars will also be planned in the days leading up to the flag-off of the Caravan.

End the Siege of Gaza • Freedom to Palestine • Boycott Israel

Endorsed by:

Organisations

All India Students Association

Aman Bharat

Asha Parivar

Awami Bharat

Ayodhya Ki Awaaz

Bahujan Sewak Sangh

Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha

Bharat Bachao Andolan

Bharat Jan Vigyan Jatha

Campaign for Peace & Democracy (Manipur)

Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha (Mazdoor Karyakarta Committee)

CPI(ML)

CPI-ML (New Democracy)

Forum against Oppression of Women

Free Gaza – India

Global Gandhi Forum

Hard News

Indian Isladhi Movement

India Palestine People’s Solidarity Forum

Indian Fed of Trade Unions

Insaaniyat

Intercultural Resources

Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind

Jamat-e-Islami-Hind

Le Monde Diplomatique

Loknaad

Mahatma Phule-Dr Ambedkar Vichar Manch

Mazdoor Ekta Manch

Muslim Intellectual Forum

Muslim Political Council of India

National Association of Peoples Movements

National Forum of Forest People and Forest Workers

New Socialist Initiative

New Trade Union Initiative

Palestine  Solidarity Movement

People’s Union for Civil Liberties

Phule-Ambedkar Vichar Manch

Programme against Custodial Torture and Impunity

Progressive Students Union

Republican Panther

Saheli Women’s Resource Centre

Sarva Seva Sangh

Solidarity Youth Movement

South Asia Peace Alliance

South Asian Network of Gender Activists and Trainers

Students Islamic Organisation of India

Trade Union Centre of India

Teesra Swadheenta Andolan

Vidyarthi Bharti

Yuva Koshish

All India Majlis-i-Mushawarrat

Individuals:

Achin Vanaik

Agdish Nagarkar

Ambarish Rai

Amol Madame

Amit Sengupta

Anand Grover

Anand Patwardhan

Anand Swaroop Verma

Anil Chaudhary

Arif Kapadia

Ashish Kothari

Asif Khan

Aslam Ghazi

Bajrang Sonawane

Brig. Sudhir Sawant

Chetna Birje

Dr Sunilam

Ghazala Azad

Gopal Rai

Ihtishaam Ansari

Jai Sen

Javed Naqvi

Kabir Arora

Kalyani Menon-Sen, New Delhi

Khalid Riaz

Medha Patkar

Mehmood Madni

Mukta Srivastava

Mukul Sinha

Mulniwasi Mala

Munawwar Azad

Munawwar Khan

Pandit Jugal Kishore Shastri

Qurratulain Sundus

Reshma  Jagtap

Ritu Menon

Rohini Hensman

Salman Usmani

Sandeep Pandey

Sanjay Shinde

Savyasaachi

Sayeed Khan

Sayeeda Hameed

Shabnam Hashmi

Shahid Siddiqui

Sheikh Muhammad Hussain

Shyam Sonar

Sudhir Dhawale

Sumi Saikia

Syed Iftikhar Ahed

Thomas Matthew

Tusha Mittal

Varsha V V

Vasanthi Raman

Vilas Gaikwad

Winnie Thomas

Yawar Ali Qazi

—  

 

India Lifeline to Gaza c/o ICR 33-D, 3rd Floor Vijay Mandal Enclave 
DDA SFS FLATS 
New Delhi, 110016 Email:  asiatogaza.india@gmail.com We b site: http://www.asiatogaza.net/ Phone: 09711178868; 09911599955; 09820897517

 

 

 

American public opinion and the special relationship with Israel

There is no question that the United States has a relationship with Israel that has no parallel in modern history. Washington gives Israel consistent, almost unconditional diplomatic backing and more foreign aid than any other country. In other words, Israel gets this aid even when it does things that the United States opposes, like building settlements. Furthermore, Israel is rarely criticized by American officials and certainly not by anyone who aspires to high office. Recall what happened last year to Charles Freeman, who was forced to withdraw as head of the National Intelligence Council because he had criticized certain Israeli policies and questioned the merits of the special relationship.

Steve Walt and I argue that there is no good strategic or moral rationale for this special relationship, and that it is largely due to the enormous influence of the Israel lobby. Critics of our claim maintain that the extremely tight bond between the two countries is the result of the fact that most Americans feel a special attachment to Israel. The American people, so the argument goes, are so deeply committed to supporting Israel generously and unreservedly that politicians of all persuasions have no choice but to support the special relationship.

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs has just released a major study of how the American public thinks about foreign policy. It is based on a survey of 2500 Americans, who were asked a wide variety of questions, some of which have bearing on Israel. Their answers make clear that most Americans are not deeply committed to Israel in any meaningful way. There is no love affair between the American people and Israel.

This is not to say that they are hostile to Israel, because they are not. But there is no evidence to support the claim that Americans feel a bond with Israel that is so strong that it leaves their leaders with little choice but to forge a special relationship with Israel. If anything the evidence indicates that if the American people had their way, the United States would treat Israel like a normal country, much the way it treats other democracies like Britain, Germany, India, and Japan.

Consider some of the study’s main findings:

“Contrary to the long-standing, official U.S. position, fewer than half of Americans show a readiness to defend Israel even against an unprovoked attack by a neighbor. Asked whether they would favor using U.S. troops in the event that Israel were attacked by a neighbor, only 47 percent say they would favor doing so, while 50 percent say they would oppose it …This question was also asked with a slightly different wording in surveys from 1990 to 2004 (if Arab forces invaded Israel). In none of these surveys was there majority support for an implicitly unilateral use of U.S. troops.”

Americans “also appear to be very wary of being dragged into a conflict prompted by an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. In this survey, conducted in June 2010, a clear majority of Americans (56%) say that if Israel were to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, Iran were to retaliate against Israel, and the two were to go to war, the United States should not bring its military forces into the war on the side of Israel and against Iran”

“While Americans have strongly negative feelings toward the Palestinian Authority … a strong majority of Americans (66%) prefer to ‘not take either side’ in the conflict.”

“There is some tangible worry regarding the direction of relations with Israel. Although 44 per-cent say that relations with Israel are “staying about the same,” a very high 38 percent think relations are ‘worsening,’ and only 12 percent think they are ‘improving’.”

“Americans are not in favor of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, a major sticking point in the conflict, with 62 percent saying Israel ‘should not build’ these settlements.”

Finally, only 33 percent of those surveyed feel that Israel is “very important” to the United States, while 41 percent said it was “somewhat important.” It is also worth noting that on the list of countries that were said to be “very important” to the United States, Israel ranked fifth behind China, Great Britain, Canada, and Japan. Of course, all of those countries have a normal relationship with the United States, not a special relationship like the one Israel has with Washington.

The data in the Chicago Council’s study is consistent with the data that Steve and I presented in our book and in countless public talks. The story remains the same.

The bottom line is that the lobby is largely responsible for America’s special relationship with Israel, which is harmful to both countries. Alan Dershowitz was spot on when he said, “My generation of Jews … became part of what is perhaps the most effective lobbying and fund-raising effort in the history of democracy.”

September 19, 2010

Mondoweiss

by John Mearsheimer

 

America’s Tea Party Phenomenon

Tea Party.org calls itself “a grassroots movement (for making Americans aware of) any issue that challenges the security, sovereignty, or domestic tranquility of our beloved nation, the United States of America. From our founding, the Tea Party is the voice of the true owners of the United States, WE THE PEOPLE.”

More below about these PEOPLE, and their deep-pocketed ability to manipulate minds effectively with considerable right wing media support.

Another web site headlines “Tea Party Patriots, Official Home of the American Tea Party Movement, A community committed to standing together, shoulder to shoulder, to protect our country and the Constitution upon which we were founded!”

Its mission statement aims at “excessive government spending and taxation,” stressing “three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets,” largely veiled terms to mean whatever its backers endorse, including incorrectly connecting tea to America’s revolution.

Blaming taxation without representation and Britain’s 1773 Tea Act as the cause is a red herring. It granted the East India Company monopoly rights on colony tea imports at a lower than smuggled in price, but retained an unpopular tax. Determined to prevent cargo deliveries, Samuel Adams and others boarded three docked ships, dumping 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor. In fact, it was symbolism only, nothing else, unrelated to revolutionary furor over control of the nation’s money.

In 1691, three years before the Bank of England’s creation, Massachusetts created its own paper money. Other colonies followed, called scrip, backed by the full faith and credit of each state, enabling inflation-free growth for 25 years without taxes – what could happen today if freed from banker-controlled money.

It worked then by using money to achieve growth, not issuing too much, and recycling it back to the states in the form of principal and interest on government-issued loans.

However, colony-based British merchants and financiers objected to Parliament. Enough so that in 1751, King George II banned new paper money issuance to force colonists to borrow it from UK bankers. In addition, the Bank of England got Parliament to pass a Currency Act, making it illegal for colonies henceforth to issue their own. As a result, prosperity became poverty because the money supply halved, leaving too little to pay for goods and services.

According to Benjamin Franklin:

“the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament” got colonists angry enough to spark war. “The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters (if) England (hadn’t taken their money), which created unemployment and dissatisfaction.”

Tea Party adherents need a name change, instead of tea, a theme around controlling our own money, as mandated by the Constitution’s Article 1, Section 8, saying only “Congress shall have Power to coin Money, (and) regulate the Value thereof,” not bankers and complicit Fed officials they manipulate and control.

Origins

Promoted as grassroots activism, the party gained national recognition in media-hyped mid-2009 congressional town hall protests against Obamacare, banker and other bailouts, fiscal excess, and bogus claims about Obama’s socialist agenda.

Then last February, its Nashville, TN national convention increased its prominence, highlighting an agenda to shift America further to the right on the pretext of popular opposition to big government and fiscal irresponsibility. As a result, hardline extremists mostly attracted middle income Americans facing lost jobs, homes, and economic uncertainty at a time they should have shifted left, not right. Instead of blaming big government, a groundswell for addressing popular needs should be demanded.

It didn’t. Demagogues took advantage and aroused millions, aided by daily Fox News support and its lunatic fringe hosts. Among them, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and others rage against big government, hyping an extremist agenda, spreading fear, and growing ranks of adherents, largely mindless that their best interests are compromised, not helped.

Deep Pocket Tea Party Backers

Sourcewatch.org tracked its funders, quoting an August 30, 2010 Jane Mayer New Yorker article citing David and Charles Koch, billionaire owners of Koch Industries, a privately owned energy conglomerate with interests in manufacturing, ranching, finance, and numerous other ventures. In 2008, Forbes called it America’s second largest private company after Cargill with annual revenues approaching $100 billion. According to Mayer:

“The anti-government fervor infusing the 2010 elections represents a political triumph for the Kochs. By giving money to ‘educate,’ fund, and organize Tea Party protesters, they have helped turn their private agenda into a mass movement.”

Conservative economist/historian Bruce Bartlett said earlier libertarians were “all chiefs and no Indians.” As a result, they attracted few adherents. Tea Party furor changed things, letting “everyone suddenly see that for the first time there are Indians out there – people who can provide real ideological power,” and with right-wing media-hyped support, it resonates and grows. The Kochs took advantage, “shap(ing) and control(ling) and channel(ling) the populist uprising into their own policies.”

According to Sourcewatch, Party strength also comes “from millions of dollars from conservative foundations,” funded by “wealthy US families and their business interests.” Most prominent are Americans for Prosperity (AP) and FreedomWorks (FW – chaired by former Republican House majority leader Dick Armey), promoting the same hard right agenda as Koch, other backers, and Tea Party leaders.

In April 2009, ThinkProgress.org said AP and FW were the principal Tea Party organizers, describing them as “well-funded lobbyist-run think tanks,” providing the logistics and major efforts nationally. Media Matters said David Koch co-founded Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE), FreedomWorks’ predecessor.

For its part, Koch Industries denies FW and Tea Party ties, saying only that it “value(s) free speech and believe(s) it is good to have more Americans engaged in key policy issues.” Koch admitted it funds AFP.

The Fox Effect

Media power means everything, the best efforts falling flat without it. Fox provides plenty, sustained from the outset by its extremist faithful, featuring “frequently aired segments imploring its audience to get involved with tea-party protests across the country,” according to Media Matters’ Karl Frisch.

Worse still, Fox hosts Glenn Beck, Neil Cavuto, Greta Van Susteren, Sean Hannity, and perhaps others participated live at various protests. Fox literally serves as the movement’s official mouthpiece, including at “FNC Tax Day Tea Parties,” promoting tax cuts for the rich, masquerading as universal benefits. Moreover, involved groups claim spontaneous activism for success, but according to The Atlantic’s Chris Good:

Its “organizational landscape (includes) three national-level conservative groups (running things), all with slightly different agendas.” They stress a “bottom-up affair and that its grassroots cred is real….Conservative bloggers, talk show hosts, and other media figures have attached themselves to the movement in peripheral capacities.”

Major publications also through coverage. For example, The New York Times called it “a diffuse American grass-roots group that taps into antigovernment sentiments,” saying it “burst onto the streets a year ago,” belying its top-down control.

Covering its corporate-controlled February national convention, the Washington Post said “millions of Americans (are) just like” attendees, suggesting spontaneity about a well planned and organized movement.

On October 10, Washington Post writers Jon Cohen and Dan Balz headlined, “Beyond the tea party: What Americans really think of government,” saying:

The 2010 election’s “overarching theme (is over) how big the government should be and how far it should reach into people’s lives….a nationwide report card (barely gives Washington) passing grades….Today, more than four in 10 people give the government a D or F.”

“I think the less the government governs us, the better we do,” suggested mass numbers feel like the “stay-at-home mother” quoted. She believes America is going “socialist,” when, in fact, it’s swung sharpley to the right, Obama going Bush one better, yet disguising it as populism, or a variant thereof. However, credit perceptions, economic hard times, public angst, its gullibility, big money support, and media hype for growing Tea Party success.

In a photo essay titled, “Signs of the Tea-Party Protests,” Time magazine highlighted it, showing mass, sign-waving, Tea Party Express gatherings, saying:

“Some of the demonstrators came on their own, but many were affiliated with or inspired by the Tea Party Express, a cross-country tour that stopped in more than 30 cities, organizing rallies in protest of ‘out-of-control spending, bailouts and the growth in the size and power of government.’ “

Unexplained was a deep-pocketed, well planned PR blitz, complete with mass media coverage, especially by Fox News. Also, other events, including Americans for Prosperity’s Hot Air Balloon Tour, its Patients First Bus Tour, and the American Energy Alliance’s American Energy Express, as well as nationwide momentum-building rallies ahead of the November election. Party backers hope key victories will solidify a powerful political force, run top-down by and for elitists, not deluded grassroots supporters, fooled again like so many previous times.

As a result, once again, expect November 2 voters to throw out the bums for new ones. The cycle keeps repeating, “the bewildered herd” mindless that they only have themselves to blame, getting the best democracy big money can buy.

By Stephen Lendman

21 October, 2010

Countercurrents.org

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

 

Will G20 Take Collective Stand On Capital Controls?

Leaders of the G20 will meet in Seoul on Nov. 11 and 12 to discuss a myriad of issues concerning global financial stability and economic recovery. In many ways, the G20 Seoul Summit is significant because 

for the first time it is hosted by a non-G8 nation and one in Asia too. 


The two-day Seoul summit covers an expansive agenda, ranging from global safety nets to new rules on bank capital and liquidity requirements to reforming the International Monetary Fund (IMF). 

It remains to be seen how much of this agenda could be accomplished given the sharp differences among G20 member countries on key issues. 

The summit is likely to be overshadowed by the ongoing “currency war.” Despite an initial understanding reached at G20 finance ministers’ meeting at Gyeongju, disagreements on currencies have widened among members with the announcement of a $600 billion injection plan by the 

U.S. Federal Reserve on Nov. 3. 

It appears that the U.S. has either underestimated or ignored the potential impact of $600 billion plan of buying government long-term bonds on the exchange rates globally. 

Several G20 nations including China, Brazil and South Korea have expressed serious concerns that this move may flood their financial markets with new money leading to asset price bubbles and higher 

inflation. 

With interest rates near-zero in several developed economies such as U.S. and Japan, investors have started pumping money into emerging markets in search of higher yields. 

The potential costs associated with putting new liquidity into the global economy should not be underestimated and therefore emerging markets should adopt a cautious approach toward such capital inflows. 

In the absence of any international agreement or coordination, emerging markets will have to resort to capital controls to regulate potentially destabilizing capital inflows which could pose a threat to 

their economies and financial systems. 

Post-crisis, there is a renewed interest in capital controls as a policy response to curb “hot money” inflows. It is increasingly being accepted in policy circles that due to the limited effectiveness of 

other measures (such as higher international reserves) capital controls could insulate the domestic economy from volatile capital flows. 

In June, South Korea announced a series of currency controls to limit the risks arising out of sharp reversals in capital flows. Indonesia quickly followed suit when its central bank deployed measures to 

control short-term capital inflows. 

In October, Brazil raised the tax on foreign purchases of fixed income securities to 6 percent. Thailand imposed a 15 percent withholding tax on foreign purchases of Thai bonds in the same month. 

South Korea is also contemplating the reintroduction of tax on foreign purchases of Korean bonds. In the coming months, more and more countries may opt for capital controls to protect their economies from 

volatile flows. 

Contrary to popular perception, capital controls have been extensively used by both the developed and developing countries in the past. 

Capital controls were regarded as a solution to the global chaos in the 1930s. They were extensively used in the inter-war years and immediately after World War II. 

Although most mainstream economic theories suggest that capital controls are distortionary, rent-seeking and ineffective, several successful economies (from South Korea to Brazil) have used them in 

the past. 

China and India, two recent “success stories” of economic globalization, still use capital controls today. A restricted capital account has protected both economies from financial crises. 

An overarching objective of capital controls is to bring both domestic and global finance under regulation and some degree of social control. 

Even the IMF these days endorses the use of capital controls, albeit temporarily, and subject to exceptional circumstances. 

In the present uncertain times, imposition of capital controls becomes imperative since the regulatory mechanisms to deal with capital flows are national whereas the capital flows operate on a global scale. 

Yet, capital controls alone cannot fix all the ills plaguing the present-day global financial system. Rather they should be used in conjunction with other regulatory measures to maintain financial and 

macroeconomic stability. 

Surprisingly, the issue of capital controls has never been under discussion at G20 despite many member countries (from South Korea to India to Brazil) currently using a variety of such controls. 

Given its long history of successfully using capital controls in conjunction with other policy measures, South Korea should take a lead in putting this substantive issue on the agenda of G20. Other member 

nations such as China, India and Brazil could support this policy initiative. 

By Kavaljit Singh

10 November, 2010

Countercurrents.org


Kavaljit Singh is the author of “Fixing Global Finance.” This book is available for free download at www.madhyam.org.in
This article was originally published in The Korea Times (Seoul) on November 10, 2010.