Archives: Articles

Beirut: It appears that no acceptable compromise regarding the divergent Lebanese political stances relative to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) will be achieved.  Support for this hypothesis can be found in the past 24 hours activities of the would-be mediators.  The Saudi King Abdullah, ‘lifted our hand’ (i.e. abandoned mediation) cold. The Turk and Qatari envoys split, the Americans fumbled, Jumblatt flipped his choice from anti-US Omar Karami to pro-US Prime Minister (again!) and then flipped back once again and now, who knows?  Hezbollah’s main Christian ally, Michel Aoun defamed and cursed (ex-Prime Minister Saad Hariri and the American Ambassador respectively), Syria stressed, Iran warned, Egypt remained incoherent, the Arab League waffled and adjourned “pending developments”, Hezbollah prepared, and ex-PM Saad Hariri insisted that he’s going to fight to keep his job after all. His decision late yesterday puts Saad on a collision course with the Hezbollah led March 8 “minority” which, in fact, may now be the “majority”.

The odds are that Saad will not be back as Prime Minister but that Omar Karami will. The Hariri empire and its American and Saudi allies will very likely take revenge on the new Hezbollah controlled government and gut Lebanon’s economy. The Saudi Wahabists are said to be not disposed to bail out a Shia dominated country run by those they claim refuse to accept the legitimate Sunnah of the prophet Mohammad. As one Saudi journalist suggested this morning, “ Let Hezbollah and Iran put their money where their mouths are. They are going to learn a thing or two about the real World.”

It is possible that before long, Le Liban Ancien may be gone with the wind. Indicted, convicted, condemned, dispatched and gifted to others by profoundly flawed American-Israel regional policies. Not even my astute motorbike mechanic, Hussein, is bold enough to say, whether after the coming events that he is predicting, Lebanon can rise like the sacred firebird Phoenix or will simply implode one last time into ashes to be scattered. This week, citizens are staying inside their houses more than usual, the Lebanese army is deployed at key intersections and overpasses, and some friends are cleaning their weapons and pondering whether civil war era ammunition will still fire when needed. “ Informal economy ” gun prices, like the cost of benzene, bottled gas, and fuel oil rose twice this week.

A few hours ago, someone from the Chinese Embassy called (the gentleman must have got my card from me during their fabulous reception and feast celebrating China’s National day a few months ago) asking if I thought Lebanon would be safe for Chinese tourists, as a group from Beijing is planning to come to Lebanon before long. Once more, I had to confess to total cluelessness. Meanwhile the Embassy of Qatar has just announced that all its citizens should leave Lebanon.

Serious doubts are being raised about the post-investigative/pre-trial phases of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL),  specifically regarding the increasing numbers of leaks, the failure of the  so-called Syrian-Saudi initiative, unfulfilled Prosecution pledges to take action against wild media stories and perceived legal problems with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’s  Statute and Rules of Procedure.

Some STL staff and observers are reportedly concerned that the competition and enmity between the Canadian Danial Bellemare  and the Belgium pre-Trial Judge Danial Fransen may also harm the STL’s progress.  The reputably mega-ego Bellemare is said to be still smarting from what he considered the unwarranted and rude judicial slap down he received  earlier this year from judge Fransen concerning the Jamil Sayeed case. Sayeed was one of four Lebanese pro-Syrian Generals  who spent nearly four years imprisoned for alleged involvement in the Hariri assassination based on what some believes was grandstanding tactics, including false witnesses, by Bellemare’s predecessor, German lawyer, Detlev Mehlis who recommended the generals be jailed based on Zuhair Siddiq’s false testimony . General Sayeed and his colleagues are understandably mad as hell and are demanding justice following  release from prison after the STL acknowledged there was insufficient evidence to have held them in the first place. Bellemare objected to Sayeed being allowed due process Judicial Discovery in order that he might learn the evidence against him that led to his imprisonment and Bellemare was unexpectedly overruled by  Judge Fransen.  Sayeed’s case continues, as a side event of the STL.

Separate from the reported smoldering Bellemare-Fransen animus which hopefully will not cause the proceedings to become fatally mired, there are serious doubts among some legal international law students about problems with trying the suspects Bellemare has identified in his indictments. One named indictee is said to be a Middle East country head of state and also head of government, who like no fewer than 8 Arab countries  “popular leaders of the people” got his job from his dad based on primogeniture rather than his personal record of public service.

Can the STL stage Hamlet without the Prince being present?

Increasingly, international legal critics of the STL are also highlighting flaws in the Special Tribunals Statute and Rules of Procedure. One Court  Statue provision is particularly seen to be  fundamentally inconsistent with international law, and which binds Lebanon,  is Article 22 of the Tribunal’s Statute.

Article 22 allows for trials in absentia. One problem is that trying suspects in absentia is virtually unheard of  among international ad hoc and ‘hybrid’ UN courts. In absentia trials have been consistently forbidden in international tribunals ever since the 1945 Charter of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. Absentia trials were then, and ever since the end of WW II,  have been condemned for the simple reason that in absentia trials allow for deep and broad politicization of the judicial process.

A careful reading of the STL Statute leads to the conclusion that not only does Article 22 authorize in absentia trials, but it requires them.  As such, Article 22 violates Lebanon’s rights and obligations under international legal standards and practice. In absentia trials will almost certainly lead to the  political  corruption of fair trial standards and  thus gives rise to legitimate grounds  for Lebanon  and other countries to withhold cooperation from the work of the Tribunal.  In absentia  trials also will delegitimize the work product of the Lebanon Tribunal leaving any resulting verdicts deeply flawed and likely rejected by international public and legal opinion.

How so?

The right to Habeas Corpus, being the fundamental right of a person to be present at trial is enshrined in Article 14(3)(d) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which is binding upon Lebanon. It states that any person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be present at trial. This right is a minimum due process guarantee and it is required at all stages of the STL proceedings.   The UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) ruled in   Mbenge v. Zaire that everyone is entitled to be tried in his presence and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance. This provision in Article 14 cannot reasonably  be said to always  prohibit proceedings in absentia and sometimes international humanitarian law would allow them.

One case would be when the accused person,  after being given actual notice of the charges, sufficiently in advance of trial, knowingly declines  the habeas corpus right. The critical question, then, is precisely when departure from the norm in the fulfillment of this objective is justified and does the STL Statue violate international law?  It is submitted that the Court’s reasoning in Mbenge v. Zaire is sound and once it is appreciated where the burden of proving the accused’s knowledge lies — that is, on the prosecution — it becomes plain that any argument based on the accused have received informal knowledge or constructive knowledge is bound to fail. Thus, as indicated by the Court in Mbenge v. Zaire , the accused must at a minimum be served with a summons if the STL Office of the Prosecution is to discharge its burden.

The case law of both the Human Rights Council and of the European Court affirms that, absent a right of retrial, actual notice of the proceedings on the part of the accused is a necessary condition in order for those proceedings to be compliant with Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR or Article 6 ECHR.  Therefore, under the relevant rules of international law binding upon Lebanon, absent an unfettered right of retrial, which the STL Statute does not provide, it is impermissible to commence a trial in the absence of the accused unless it can be demonstrated that, at the very least, the defendant had actual and direct knowledge of the proceedings. Meaning he/she must be personally served a summons.

In additions, Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR, read in light of the subsequent practice concerning trials in absentia in many jurisdictions, indicates that (subject to retrial at the accused’s option) a court may not commence or proceed with a trial unless the prosecutor is able to establish that the accused possessed actual knowledge of the proceedings and intended to waive his right to be present.

Article 22 STL Statute, entitled ‘trials in absentia ‘, provides as follows:

The Special Tribunal shall conduct trial proceedings in the absence of the accused, if he or she:

Has expressly and in writing waived his or her right to be present;

Has not been handed over to the Tribunal by the State authorities concerned;

Has absconded or otherwise cannot be found and all reasonable steps have been taken to secure his or her appearance before the Tribunal and to inform him or her of the charges confirmed by the Pre-Trial Judge.

Another of the problems with Article 22 is the real likelihood  that ‘the State authorities concerned’ may have ‘failed’ to hand over the accused for various legitimate reasons. For example, how can it be known which State authorities are “ concerned” given that the whereabouts of the accused person would likely be unknown. Moreover, as a simple matter of public international law, Countries are under no obligation whatsoever to extradite suspects for trial in another Country. To do so is arguably unlawful   in the absence of an extradition treaty providing a basis in law for such an extradition.  International law does not permits canceling an individual’s right to appear at his own trial on the basis that some third state  (possibly hostile to the accused or relevant Country) has not done a positive act that it is under no obligation to do. Also,  the fact that a Country may have refused to extradite an accused person is immaterial when it comes to the critical question of whether the accused himself knew of the proceedings against him and voluntarily elected not to attend.

It is possible that the international community will tire of the STL, given all the tribunals perceived defects, long before any verdicts are achieved or appeals exhausted. It remains to be seen what becomes of the original objectives contemplated by UN Security Council Resolution­­­­ 1757  as serious questions are increasingly raised about the wisdom of the UN stamping its imprimatur to a widely suspected US-Israel project in the first place.

By Franklin Lamb

22 January, 2011

Al Manar

Franklin Lamb is doing research in Lebanon and is reachable c/o fplamb@gmail.com

There is a spectre haunting the Indian security establishment. A spectre called the national and global campaign for Dr Binayak Sen’s release.

Speaking at a function organized by the Confederation of Indian Industry in Calcutta recently M.K.Narayan, Governor of Bengal, claimed that supporting Maoists had become a ‘fad’ among students, youth and a section of the intelligentsia.

“ Civil society is spreading the message of the Maoists by campaigning for Dr Binayak Sen’s release” said a rueful Narayan, who prior to his new avatar, was the Indian government’s National Security Adviser (NSA).

The thought that a man who presided over national security for so long cannot distinguish between peaceful, democratic protests and ‘Maoism’ should be enough to send shivers down the spine of every Indian citizen. Here is the perverted mindset, so dominant among those who run our country, that confuses compassion with conspiracy and innocence with insurrectionary motives.

Even if Narayan’s imaginary spreading of ‘disaffection’ against the Indian State through the Free Binayak Sen Campaign is true, it is ultimately a ghost manufactured entirely by dark characters like him who run the country’s police and ‘intelligence’ services.

In May 2007 when the venal BJP regime of Raman Singh in Chhattisgarh, encouraged by security hawks like Narayan, decided to prosecute Dr Sen they had obviously thought they would ‘teach a lesson’ to not just this good doctor but all human rights activists everywhere.

Dr Sen was being punished for daring to criticize the brutal Chhattisgarh government backed militia operation called ‘Salwa Judum’ against Maoist insurgents that ended up killing dozens of innocent adivasis. He was an easy prey, a doctor with no major political party or money or muscle power of any kind behind him.

Charged with ‘sedition’, ‘criminal conspiracy’ and ‘waging war against the Indian State’ Dr Sen was arrested, put away in prison for two years without bail. And finally when he did get bail from the Supreme Court in 2009 the freedom was short lived and on Christmas Eve in 2010, he was sentenced to a drastic life imprisonment by a Sessions Court in Raipur.

By blatantly cooking up charges, fabricating evidence and handing out an outrageous ‘life sentence’ verdict to someone with an impeccable record of public service though the Indian security establishment has essentially shot the Indian State in the foot (if not elsewhere too). Worries about the implications of the Binayak Sen case for the future of the Indian State’s ability to command any respect within the country are now rife among security experts.

“This case is, indeed, an index of the incompetence of the State and its agencies. Once again we are brought back to a consciousness of the tremendous infirmity of the Indian State; its inability to secure its objectives by due process; its consequent desire for and resort to short-cuts and quick fixes. In this sense, what we have here is the judicial equivalent of a fake encounter — a paper-thin plotline; dodgy witnesses; incoherent, internally contradictory testimonies from tainted, partisan, sources; and the visible neglect or suppression of convincing evidence that undermines the State’s case” wrote an angry Ajay Sahni, Executive Director of the Institute for Conflict Management in a recent article in the Hindustan Times. Sahni should know, as one of the country’s most sought after security advisors on terrorism in South Asia.

Binayak’s mother, in an interview recently, recounted how as a young boy he would be troubled by why poor children his own age in the neighbourhood went to sleep without eating food. The Indian State is now afraid that every child in this country might start asking the same question and get the right answer too. It is the State, its politicians, police, bureaucrats and business partners who are stealing food from the mouths of its own hungry citizens.

That is a ‘seditious’ thought of course and might lead to ‘seditious’ consequences and hence Dr Binayak Sen has to locked up in a high security prison on charges of ‘sedition’! Well sorry fellas, it is simply too late now- the genie is out of the bottle and all the King’s men (and paramilitary forces) cannot put it back.

Three years ago, when he was first arrested, Dr Sen was a low profile health and human rights worker known only to a small circle of friends and activists. Though an annoying critic to the government in Chhattisgarh, where he worked for over three decades, in the overall scheme of things nationally he was at worst a minor thorn in the side of the establishment.

Today, thanks to the outrage provoked by his brazen and senseless persecution, Dr Binayak Sen has become a household name. Being played on almost daily basis in the big metros, in the capitals of Western nations, on the front pages of global media and even in remote little towns across the country today is the legend of Binayak Sen, the brave doctor battling the crumbling idea of India as the ‘world’s largest democracy’. The Binayak Sen case has made India today the laughing stock of the world with comparisons being made internationally to authoritarian dictatorships like China and Burma, something unthinkable just a few years ago.

It was fellows like Narayan and his buddy E.S.L.Narasimhan – another ‘intelligence’ bigwig who was governor of Chhattisgarh till recently- who gave the Raman Singh regime the idea that they were on the right track by making an ‘example’ of Dr Sen, despite zero evidence of any kind.

Narayan and other hawks in the Indian security agencies seriously believed that Dr Sen was part of some shadowy operation by the Maoists to set up a ‘urban network’ to supplement their activities in the forest and rural areas. There was no such thing of course, with the good doctor’s only motivation being the pursuit of truth and justice as dictated by his conscience.

If at one time his conscience required him to fight the widespread prevalence of falciparum malaria he did so. Another time when it called upon him to oppose Salwa Judum he did that too, unmindful of personal consequences. It has always been impossible to slot him as ‘Marxist’ or ‘Maoist’ or for that matter even entirely as a ‘Gandhian’ and therein lies his widespread appeal. He was and remains simply a man of conscience and courage.

Having never encountered, perhaps, even a single honest character like this in their entire professional careers, for people like Narayan or Narasimhan the only explanation possible for Dr Sen’s ‘bizarre’ behavior was his being part of an elaborate subversive plot somewhere. Why should someone who could have made a lucrative career as an urban doctor potter around among adivasis trying to solve their myriad problems- must be a bloody Maoist! It is this kind of lousy logic and the stupid actions flowing from it that are coming back to haunt the security agencies.

In an age where true power rests not just in economic or military might but in the projection of public credibility and when a good image means in security terms much more than all the police at one’s command, the persecution of this good doctor has seriously damaged Indian State’s legitimacy. True, for a majority of the Indian population, living in sub-human conditions of poverty and disease- the term ‘government’ itself has always evoked nothing but bitter cynicism while the very idea of India being a ‘democracy’ is dismissed with laughter.

In Dr Sen’s case though, the subversion of democratic institutions and processes by the government, has provoked outrage amidst those sections of the Indian population who were not so disillusioned till recently. Many of them have long believed that the Indian Republic- for all its many shortcomings- is still a functioning democracy and that governments can be trusted with ensuring the rule of law. That belief has been severely shaken now.

From doctors and university professors to students and professionals of different kinds all over India and abroad have protested vehemently against the murder of democratic norms in broad daylight by the Chhattisgarh government together with the lower judiciary.

The outrage among these sections is arising also not just out of a sense of bonding with Dr Sen because of his similar middle-class origins but out of a deep anger at the state of this nation. The very idea that someone with such a stellar record of public service among the poor should be punished wrongly while scamsters, mobsters and murderers occupy high positions in authority all around is revolting. And the people are now- revolting.

The question on everybody’s lips is why are the masterminds of the 1984 anti-Sikh pogrom, the 2002 Gujarat massacre of Muslims, the politicians stealing national wealth through the CWG, 2 G and other scams not in jail for ‘sedition’? Why are Sajjan Kumar, Jagdish Tytler, Bal Thackeray, Narendra Modi, Sharad Pawar, Suresh Kalmadi, A.Raja not in jail while Dr Binayak Sen sits in a cold prison?

In that sense the growing campaign for Dr Binayak Sen’s release is today not just about freeing this good doctor from his unjust incarceration. It is now on its way to becoming a movement for the freedom of all ordinary citizens who are trapped in the prison house that India has become.

A prison that is currently run by people who have no respect for the Indian Constitution, rule of law, judicial procedures or democratic norms. An oligarchy that protects its own from punishment but mercilessly hounds those who show compassion or solidarity with its victims. A kleptocracy worse than the colonial regime that was kicked out of this country over six decades ago.

Dr Sen today has become a symbol of quiet resistance and inspiration to many now willing to challenge the authoritarian ways of the Indian State as well as its misplaced policies of putting the greed of a few above the needs of the majority. He has become a spearhead for a campaign that seeks to reclaim the just and democratic India that was promised by our founding fathers (and mothers) but which has been hijacked by an entire class and characters no child would trust his lollipop with leave alone an entire country.

That is why the emerging slogan of the campaign today is not just ‘Free Binayak Sen’ but together with that ‘Free Us All!’ In his freedom lies our freedom and if he is in prison so are we!

By the way, if M.K.Narayan is really upset about this disturbing trend he should – ignoring gubernatorial protocol- go hang himself. Preferably with the long, sturdy rope the Indian State seems to have gifted him.

By Satya Sagar

23 January, 2011

Countercurrents.org

Satya Sagar is a journalist, writer and public health worker based in New Delhi. He can be reached at sagarnama@gmail.com

The moving wheel of history sometimes turns up a situation where, if ordinary human beings act with conviction, they are transformed into heroes. For Governor Taseer when the call of history came, he stood by a poor Christian woman who was wrongly sentenced to death. He spoke against the blasphemy law with resolve. He died for the cause of justice and has embraced the eternity. He is perhaps the only true hero of Pakistan. He lives on!

Predictably, the great verbal jugglery by many politicians to own and yet disown him for the fear of mullahs has been at its best since his murder. A routine courtesy to attend the funeral of a human being, let alone moral courage was, unfortunately, a rare sight in Pakistan. There are others who have the audacity to blame the victim, the Governor, for being “loud”; as if democratic discussions on an unjust law, and for a just cause have to be whispered in the back alleys only.

As a contrast, the fanatics have a religious certitude. Their educated lawyers announced the support for Mumtaz Qadri – The assassin. He was showered with rose petals, public filled the streets in his support and many mullahs envied that the Governor’s blood should have been on their hands.

“Illiberal democracy”, to borrow a term from Fareed Zakaria, disenfranchises the masses and governing is considered an entitlement for the elites. On the contrary, liberal democracy is meant to protect the basic sense of dignity and freedoms from the coercive power of the state and from domineering and bullying by the power players in a society. It is a system, not perfect, but closely matching the human nature for it offers the due latitude without allowing anyone to trample over the others. Pakistan has tumultuous history of vacillating democracy alternating with military coups that virtually added to the growing sense of unease.

The ruling-elites in Pakistan belong to about 150 years old feudal and a small industrial class. They thrive in an oligarchic nexus with the military. The ruling cabal has been preventing the tradition of open dialogue to ripen and ideas of freedom to flourish. It leaves little room for the marginalized poor and the minorities. Repression breeds more repression.

Religious extremism in Pakistan and its lethal tentacles have sprawled from the pulpit to the street. It has predictably crept into the military, bureaucracy and politics. That said the civil society is on the retreat and religious fanaticism is on the move.

Not to mention that many moderates and liberal intellectuals in Pakistan are actually religious romantics. They choose to read and interpret religion very selectively. The true liberal voices are muted. There has been hardly any voice in Pakistan to interpret the religion as a personal faith and make allowance for the State to operate in a secular domain: A doctrine for the separation of religion and state.

Secession of the East wing of Pakistan, now Bangladesh, was due to a number of material reasons. This history alludes to the fact that Islamic ideology alone that was supposed to be the unifying factor for the areas geographically apart, has already failed as the binding glue in Pakistan. In general, it is also an indictment of religion and ideology to singularly provide sufficient binding glue for distinct ethnicities, cultures, languages and economic interests to stay together as a nation. Ideology can have great social leverage but making a nation is not that simple. Populace in a geographic territory really needs a broad and unified vision where groups willingly realize that their interests will be better served and secured by being a part of the whole, called a nation. When every group in a geographic territory stands guard for brethren and opponents alike, we call it a nation. Did this sense ever take roots in Pakistan?

At this crossroad, Pakistan has a huge struggle ahead to cast off the obstreperous historic delusion called Islamic unity. It is for sake of embracing a different level of national maturity.

What does it mean?

Every nation is made up of many moving parts bound by a dynamic relationship. For social harmony, they orchestrate almost in Jazz like formation. This relationship is never a permanent binding. It has to be tuned, watered and watched vigilantly for it is prone to insidious decay. Even the strongest of national bonds fall apart in the face of stresses.

There are three dimensions of stresses in Pakistan that increased with every passing day: Economic stress on the material axis, religious extremism and democratic failure on the cultural axis and demographic stress on the social axis.

Numerous studies point to the fact that a mythical-religious mindset is the default response of the individual and the society when material stresses generate tensions. Rise of religious fanaticism in Pakistan is the symptom of a disintegrating society. It is not the root-cause of social disintegration as some would like to suggest. However, it is also true that religious fanaticism becomes a menace in its own right once the fanatics swell in number over time. It is like the proverbial monster that thrives on its own flesh.

Specifically, Islamic ideology has not changed much in the past 1400 years. However, religious fervor has wallowed at different places from time to time. We like to understand it in simple terms but it is different from our usual experience of turning the water-tap on and off at will. Religious fervor once boiled over does not cool down easy.

95% of enrollment of kids in religious seminaries in Pakistan is from poor families where almost 60% of population is below the poverty line. Education is a basic right for the children. Virtually, it is the future backbone of any society. It has long been neglected in Pakistan. If nothing else, rich and poor divide should become apparent by collapse of the basic education system in Pakistan and the types of schools the children attend, if they are lucky enough not to have already been consumed in an inhuman child labor.

Injustice done to the children of the last generation is the bitter fruit of today – A generation lost in search of identity in a pluralistic world. It has little idea of the modern world beyond. This generation in Pakistan has ripened the mindset of hyper-religiosity as the only identity in the age of globalization. It is a paradox in the world that is exploring ways for diffusion of identity into a collective human identity.

There is no easy way to gloss over economic injustice perpetrated by the ruling elites against its own people over time. The rise of religious extremism in Pakistan should hardly surprise anyone. It is a historical imperative.

While there are lots of areas that deserve attention, the time calls for the intellectuals from every walk of life to rise to the occasion. While economic and social realities are a generational matter, it is still possible to forward a liberal democratic vision as an alternative to the religious vision and call for social justice above the political fray. In this conundrum Reinhold Niebuhr sums it up the best:

“Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.”

The call of history has arrived. At this juncture of history, it is a call for liberal democracy and economic democracy. That would best avenge Governor Taseer’s blood whose murderers are fearlessly roaming the streets. That would help stem the rising tide of fanaticism. That would set free the poor Christian women Aasia Bibi and that would visibly work for the countless oppressed and the downtrodden.

By Tahir M. Qazi, MD

23 January, 2011

Countercurrents.org

Dr. Tahir M. Qazi is a US based neurophysiologist and neuromuscular diseases specialist. His areas of interest are society, religions, social justice and global revolutions. Dr. Qazi can be reached at: tahir.qazi@yahoo.com

A conversation with Derrick Jensen As you begin reading this interview, take a look at the nearest clock. Now, dig this: Since yesterday at the same exact time, 200,000 acres of rainforest have been destroyed, over 100 plant and animal species have gone extinct , 13 million tons of toxic chemicals were released across the globe, and 29,158 children under the age of five died from preventable causes.Worst of all, there’s nothing unique about the past 24 hours. It’s business as usual, a daily reality—and no amount of CFL bulbs, recycled toilet paper, or Sierra Club donations will change it even a tiny bit.As you do your best to convince yourself of the vast chasm between the two wings of America ‘s single corporate party, I suggest you listen carefully to hear if even one of the politicians mentions any of the following:•  Every square mile of ocean hosts 46,000 pieces of floating plastic •  Eighty-one tons of mercury is emitted into the atmosphere each year as a result of electric power generation •  Every second, 10,000 gallons of gasoline are burned in the US •  Each year, Americans use 2.2 billion pounds of pesticides •  Ninety percent of the large fish in the ocean and 80 percent of the world’s forests are gone •  Every two seconds, a human being starves to deathThis is just a minute sampling, folks, and sorry, but your hybrid ain’t helping. That reusable shopping bag you bring to the market has zero impact. Your home composting kit is not gonna start a revolution.In fact, even if every single person in the US made every single change suggested in the movie An Inconvenient Truth , carbon emissions would fall by only 21%—in contrast to the 75% emissions decrease that scientific consensus believes must happen… now .None of this, of course, is news to Derrick Jensen . He is the author of essential works such as A Language Older Than Words and Endgame . His worldview has nothing to do with party politics, incremental reform, leftist in-fighting, corporate compromise, or anything that seeks to tweak but ultimately maintain the ongoing global crime we call civilization .”My loyalty,” he told me, “is with the nonhuman and human victims (or targets) of this culture, and my work is toward stopping this culture’s assaults on nonhumans, on the land, on the planet itself, on women, on indigenous peoples, on the poor.”If you’ve grown weary (and wary) of the entrenched Left and all the words left unspoken, you owe it yourself to read the rest of our conversation below. Afterwards, you just might start realizing that you also owe to the planet to get busy.Our exchange took place during the week of January 17 and went a little something like this…Mickey Z.: We’re starting this conversation as another MLK Day is observed. Not much of a chance that we’ll hear this Dr. King quote—”The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be”—mentioned much by the corporate media, huh?Derrick Jensen: Just today I read an article stating that, no surprise, industrial-induced global warming will be far worse than estimated, and if carbon emissions continue as expected, could render much of the planet uninhabitable within 100 years. Even now, 150-200 species are driven extinct every day. This culture extirpates indigenous peoples. The oceans are being murdered. And today I saw a study of rates of fire retardant in every fetus. And on and on. And yet those of us who are working to stop this planetary murder are sometimes characterized as extremists.I think the real extremists are the people who value capitalism over life, the people who value civilization over life. I cannot think of any more extreme position than valuing this insane culture over life.MZ: Not surprisingly, another major African-American figure from the 1960s—Malcolm X—had some positive words for extremism in the name of toppling that insane culture. Using Hamlet as a springboard, Malcolm wrote: “(Hamlet) was in doubt about something—whether it was nobler in the mind of man to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune—moderation—or to take up arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them. And I go for that. If you take up arms, you’ll end it, but if you sit around and wait for the one who’s in power to make up his mind that he should end it, you’ll be waiting a long time. And in my opinion, the young generation of whites, blacks, browns, whatever else there is, you’re living at a time of extremism, a time of revolution, a time when there’s got to be a change. People in power have misused it and now there has to be a change and a better world has to be built and the only way it’s going to be built with—is with extreme methods. And I, for one, will join in with anyone—I don’t care what color you are—as long as you want to change this miserable condition that exists on this earth.”DJ: I think the key has to do with wanting to change this miserable condition.I try to be fairly inclusive of the people I would work with, but I’ve realized over the past many years that I’m not working toward the same goals as many of the environmentalists who are explicitly working to save capitalism or to save civilization, rather than the real world. In talks and interviews I often ask what all of the so-called solutions to global warming or the murder of the oceans, or biodiversity crash, etc, all have in common. And what they all have in common is that they all take industrial capitalism as a given, and the natural world as that which must conform to industrial capitalism. That is literally insane, in terms of being out of touch with physical reality. I mean, look at Lester Brown’s Plan B 4.0 to Save Civilization. What does he want to save? Could he be any more explicit? He wants to save civilization. But civilization is killing the planet. It’s like writing a book about how to save a serial killer who is murdering so many people he’s running out of victims. We see this attitude all the time. When people, for example, ask how we can stop global warming, they’re not asking how we can stop global warming; they’re asking how we can stop global warming without changing the physical conditions (burning oil and gas, deforestation, industrial agriculture, and so on) that lead to global warming. And the answer to that question is that you can’t. Likewise, when they ask how we can save salmon, they aren’t really asking how we can save salmon, they’re asking how we can save salmon without removing dams, stopping industrial logging, stopping industrial agriculture, stopping industrial fishing, stopping the murder of the oceans, stopping global warming, and so on.A question I keep asking is: with whom (or what) do you identify? Where is your loyalty? Whom, or what do you want to save? And if what you really want to save is this “miserable condition”—capitalism, civilization, what have you—at the expense of the planet, then we’re not really working toward the same goal, are we? My loyalty is with the nonhuman and human victims (or targets) of this culture, and my work is toward stopping this culture’s assaults on nonhumans, on the land, on the planet itself, on women, on indigenous peoples, on the poor.MZ: It’s a testament to the power of propaganda how even well-meaning folks will choose the options—both public and private—that work against their own interests. Gay rights activists are currently applauding the alleged repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” In the name of promoting diversity and inclusion, they are celebrating the ability to volunteer for an institution that exists to violently crush all diversity and inclusion. The conditioning is so interwoven throughout every aspect of our culture that even respected Leftist thinkers simply cannot comprehend your comment, “civilization is killing the planet” and resort to retorts about “misanthropy.” So, the question must asked, Derrick: Can these people be reached with the message that we can’t have industrial capitalism as a given without all the murderous side effects?DJ: There’s a great line by Upton Sinclair about how it’s hard to make a man [ sic ] understand something when his [ sic ] job depends on him not understanding it. I think that’s true even more for entitlement. It’s hard to make someone understand something when their entitlement, their privilege, their comforts and elegancies, their perceived ability to control and manage, depends on it.So much nature writing, social change theory, and environmental philosophy are at best irrelevant, and more often harmful in that they do not question human supremacism (or for that matter white supremacism, or male supremacism). They often do not question imperialism, including ecological imperialism. So often I feel like so many of them still want the goodies that come from imperialism (including ecological imperialism and sexual imperialism) far more than they want for these forms of imperialism to stop. And since the violence of imperialism is structural—inherent to the process—you can’t realistically expect imperialism to stop being violent just because you call it “green” or just because you wish with all your might.Here’s another way to say this: as I say in Endgame , any way of life that requires the importation of resources will a) never be sustainable and b) always be based on violence, because a) requiring importation of resources means you are using more of that resource than the landbase can provide, which is by definition not sustainable (and as your city grows you’ll need an ever larger area to harm); and b) trade will never be sufficiently reliable, because if you require some resource (e.g., oil) and the people who live with or control that resource won’t trade you for it, you will take it, because you need it. It’s inherent. One of the many implications of this is that if you don’t question imperialism itself, the solutions you present will be absurd, and either irrelevant or harmful.Here’s a story. A couple of weeks ago a tree fell down in a storm and knocked down an electric wire in this neighborhood. My neighbor told me about it, and when I saw the downed tree I looked and looked and looked for the stump, to see where the tree came from. I couldn’t find it. I’ve looked again every time I’ve gone by that place. Well, today I was walking and I saw where it came from. The top of a big tree had broken off. It was really obvious when I looked up instead of down. Point being (instant aphorism): You can search as thoroughly as is possible, but you’ll never find what you’re looking for if you’re looking in the wrong place.This applies to everything from personal happiness to solutions to global warming.But the problem is worse than mere entitlement. RD Laing came up with the three rules of a dysfunctional family: Rule A is don’t. Rule A.1 is Rule A does not exist Rule A.2 is Never discuss the existence or nonexistence of Rules A, A.1, A.2This is as true of dysfunctional cultures as dysfunctional families. So we cannot talk, for example, about the fact that this culture is only one way of living among many, that this way of living is based on conquest and the acquisition of power, that this way of life systematically destroys landbases, other cultures, and on and on. Systematically, functionally.But it’s worse than this. In the 1960s a researcher attached electrodes to people’s eyeballs to track where they looked, and then showed them pictures. What the researcher found is that if the photo contained something that threatened the person’s worldview, the person’s eyes would not even track to it once: they would evidently see it out of the corners of their eyes, and know where not to look. So far too often you can make the point as reasonably as you can, and the person will have no idea what you are talking about.MZ: Considering the glacial rate by which most humans – myself very much included – recognize and address destructive or self-destructive patterns in their personal life, it’s difficult to imagine a lot more humans allowing their eyeballs to focus in on global crises and their obscured causes. High Noon is approaching and it seems most of us don’t even know how to tell time. Speaking of High Noon , I recently watched the classic 1952 film and found myself focused on the moment when Amy (Grace Kelly), the pacifist wife of Marshal Kane (Gary Cooper), shoots and kills a man to save her husband’s life. Earlier in the film, Amy had declared: “My father and my brother were killed by guns. They were on the right side but that didn’t help them any when the shooting started. My brother was nineteen. I watched him die. That’s when I became a Quaker. I don’t care who’s right or who’s wrong. There’s got to be some better way for people to live.” However, she not only ends up shooting a man, she also fights off the main villain, which allows Marshal Kane to finish him. Now, before some readers run and tell Gandhi on me, what I’m proposing as the lesson is that when faced with the clarity a crisis can sometimes inspire, we can recognize that those clock hands are inching towards noon and surprise ourselves (as Grace Kelly’s character did) with our ability to take things to a new level. If not, what chance do we (the animals, the trees, the eco-system, etc.) have?DJ: Very little chance. Even if people don’t care about nonhumans, recent estimates are that billions, literally billions, of humans will die in what is beginning to be called a climate holocaust. This is if the temperature rises 4 degree Celsius .And the most recent estimates are revealing that global warming is far worse than previously believed (have you ever noticed how the previous estimates were always low?), and could go up 16 degrees C within 90 years, rendering much of the planet uninhabitable (“Science stunner: On our current emissions path, CO2 levels in 2100 will hit levels last seen when the Earth was 29°F (16°C) hotter—Paleoclimate data suggests CO2 ‘may have at least twice the effect on global temperatures than currently projected by computer models'”). This means that there are young people now who will die in this climate holocaust. And there are too many people who prefer this wretched, destructive way of life over life on the planet, and literally over their own children. We need to stop this culture before it kills the planet.MZ: Although I feel there’s way too much hand-holding in the realm of activism and far too many progressives sitting idle as they wait for a leader to give them direction, I must ask you this: What types of immediate direct action might you suggest to those reading this interview, in the name of stopping this culture before it kills the planet?DJ: I think the important thing is that they start doing some form of activism. I can’t tell people what to do, because I don’t know what is important to them and I don’t know what their gifts are. But the important thing is that they start. Now. Today.So how do you start? The problems are so huge! Well, the way I started as an activist was the result of the smartest thing I ever did. When I was in my mid-20s I realized I wasn’t paying enough for gasoline (in terms of including any of the ecological costs, etc), so for every dollar I spent on gas I would donate a dollar to an environmental organization (never a national or international organization, but rather local grassroots organizations), but since I didn’t have any money I would instead pay myself $5/hour to do activist work, whether it is writing letters to the editor or participating in demonstrations. My first demos were anti-fur demos and anti-circus demos. And don’t let your perceived ignorance stop you: I had no idea what exactly was wrong with circuses, but I knew they were exploitative of nonhuman animals and so I showed up, and other people handed me signs. If anyone asked me, What’s wrong with circuses? I just pointed them to the person standing next to me. I went from there to other forms of activism, including filing timber sale appeals, and so on. The point is that I started. At the time it cost $10 to fill my tank with gas, and if I filled it once a week, that meant two hours per week. And I started having so much fun with the activism that I stopped keeping track of how many hours I was doing activism, and just did it. But the important thing is that I got off my butt and started doing something.It’s also important that when people do activism, that it not simply be personal stuff: environmentalism especially has gone down the dead end of lifestylism, where people think that changing their own life is sufficient. Just today I read an article that said, about water, “First of all, turn off the water when you don’t need it. It’s that simple. I don’t want to sound too preachy, but, according to UNICEF and the World Health Organization, lack of access to clean drinking water kills about 4,500 children per day. The water won’t magically travel from our taps to someone in need, but creating a mind-set of conservation will certainly help. There is absolutely no purpose served by letting water you are not using run down the drain.” This is just absurd. Yes, lack of access to clean water kills 4500 children per day, but it’s not because of my own water usage. 90 percent of the water used by humans is used by agriculture and industry. So all these environmental pleas for simple living are tremendous misdirection: these children (and what about the salmon children, and the sturgeon children, and so on) aren’t dying because I brushed my teeth: they’re dying because agriculture and industry are stealing the water. Just yesterday I read that Turkey is sacrificing all nature reserves to put in dams. This is not so people can have showers. It’s for agriculture and industry.I live pretty simply, but that’s because I’m a cheapskate. I turn off the water while I brush my teeth, too. Big fucking deal. That is not a political act. There are no personal solutions to social problems. None.So when I say that people should do some activism, I mean do something good for your landbase. Stop destructive activities. Do rehabilitation. Or if your primary emergency is violence against women, then do work against domestic violence, or against pornography, or against the trafficking in women. Get started.Like Joe Hill said, “Don’t mourn, organize.”MZ: I like to tell people that we live in the best time ever to be an activist. We’re on the brink of economic, social, and environmental collapse. What a time to be alive. We can take part in the most important work humans have ever undertaken. How lucky are we? In this era of “hope and change,” I say action is always better than hope. Or, as Rita Mae Brown said, “Never hope more than you work.”DJ: Yes, I get so tired of people saying they hope salmon survive, or hope this or hope that. But what is hope? Hope is a longing for a future condition over which we have no agency. That’s how we use the word in every day language. I don’t say, “Gosh, I hope I put my shoes on before I go outside.” I just do it. On the other hand, the next time I get on a plane I hope it doesn’t crash. After I get on the plane I have no agency. Think of this: if a parent says to an eight-year-old child, “Please clean your room,” and the child says, “I hope it gets done,” we all know that’s ridiculous. I asked an eight-year-old what would happen if she said that to her parents, and she said, “Someone has to clean the room!”That kid is smarter than a lot of environmentalists. It’s ridiculous to say we hope global warming doesn’t kill the planet when we can stop the oil economy that is causing global warming. I’m not interested in hope. I’m interested in agency, and I’m interested in people no longer waiting for some miracle to solve their problems. We need to do what is necessary.MZ: When you first began writing and speaking about civilization and the eventual collapse, did you ever truly imagine that you’d be around to see things as bad as they are right now?DJ: No. And even though I wrote in The Culture of Make Believe about the ways in which economic collapse can lead to more and more over brownshirt-ism and fascism, I’m still kind of stunned at the way it is happening here. But more to the point, even though I’ve written something on the order of fifteen books about this culture’s insanity, I still cannot believe this isn’t all a bad dream, with this frenzied maintenance of this culture as the world is murdered. I keep wanting to wake up, but each time I awaken this culture is still killing the planet, and not many people care.MZ: I’m sure you can’t even calculate how many times you’ve been interviewed but I’m wondering if there’s a question you always wished you’d been asked but so far, no one has done so. If so, by way of wrapping up, please feel free to ask and answer that question.DJ: Four questions:Q: You’ve said many times that you don’t believe that humans are particularly more sentient than other animals. Where do you draw the line?A: I don’t draw the line at all. I don’t see any reason to believe anything other than that the universe is full of a wild symphony of wildly different voices, wildly different intelligences. Humans have human intelligence, which is no greater nor less than octopi intelligence, which is no greater nor less than redwood intelligence, which is no greater nor less than flu virus intelligence, which is no greater nor less than granite intelligence, which is no greater nor less than river intelligence, and so on.Q: How did the world get to be such a beautiful and wonderful and fecund place in the first place?A: By everyone making the world a more beautiful and wonderful and fecund place by living and dying. By plants and animals and fungi and viruses and bacteria and rocks and rivers and so on making the world a better place. Salmon makes forests better places because of their existence. The Mississippi River makes that region a better place because of its existence. Bison make the Great Plains a better place because of their existence.Civilized humans do not make the world a better place because of their existence. They are collectively and individually making the world a less beautiful and wonderful and fecund place. How can you make the world a better place? What can you do to make the landbase where you live more healthy, more beautiful, more fecund? And why aren’t you doing it?Q: What will it take for the planet to survive?A: The eradication of industrial civilization. Industrial civilization is functionally, systematically incompatible with life.The good news is that industrial civilization is in the process of collapsing.The bad news is that it is taking down too much of the planet with it.Q: So if industrial civilization is collapsing, why shouldn’t we just hunker down and make our lifeboats and protect our own, and basically take care of our own precious little asses?A: I would contrast the narcissism and cowardice of this attitude with that expressed by Henning von Tresckow, one of the members of the German resistance to Hitler in World War II. When the Allies invaded France in 1944, anybody paying any attention at all knew that the Nazis were going to lose: it was just a matter of time. So some members of the resistance suggested that they stop working to take down the Nazis, and instead just protect themselves until the war was over, basically hunker down and make their lifeboats and protect their own. Henning von Tresckow responded that every day the Nazis were killing 16,000 innocent civilians, so basically every day sooner they could bring down the Nazis would save 16,000 innocent civilians.There is more courage and wisdom and integrity in that statement than in all the statements of all the craven lifeboatists put together.Between 150 and 200 species went extinct today. They were my brothers and sisters. It is not sufficient to merely hunker down and wait for the horrors to stop. Salmon won’t survive that long. Sturgeon won’t survive that long. Delta smelt won’t survive that long.Here’s another way to say all this. I would contrast the narcissism and cowardice of the lifeboatists with the attitude expressed by my dear friend, and the person who really got me started in environmentalism, John Osborn. He has devoted his life to saving as much of the wild as he can, through organized political resistance. When asked why he does this work, he always says, “We cannot predict the future. But as things become increasingly chaotic, I want to make sure that some doors remain open.” What he means by that is that if grizzly bears are around in 30 years they may be around in fifty. If they are gone in 30 they are gone forever. If he can keep this or that valley of old growth standing, it may be standing in 50 years. If it’s gone now, it will be gone for a long, long time, maybe forever.As you said, Mickey Z, we are living at a time when we have perhaps more leverage than at many previous times. Any destructive activity we can halt now may protect that area until the collapse: people couldn’t realistically say that in the 1920s. I believe it was David Brower who said that every environmental victory was temporary while every loss was permanent. I think we are quickly reaching the point where every victory can be permanent.One final thing: the single most effective recruiting tool for the French Resistance in WWII was D-Day, because the French realized once and for all that the Germans weren’t invincible. Knowing that this culture is collapsing should not lead us into narcissism and cowardice, but should give us courage, and should lead us to defend the victims of this culture. 

 By Mickey Z. & Derrick Jensen 

24 January, 2011

Countercurrents.org 

For more about Derrick Jensen and his work, you can find him on the Web here .Until the laws are changed or the power runs out, Mickey Z. can be found on a somewhat obscure website called Facebook .   

Barack Obama is another stock character in the cyclical political theater embraced by the liberal class. Act I is the burst of enthusiasm for a Democratic candidate who, through clever branding and public relations, appears finally to stand up for the interests of citizens rather than corporations. Act II is the flurry of euphoria and excitement. Act III begins with befuddled confusion and gnawing disappointment, humiliating appeals to the elected official to correct “mistakes,” and pleading with the officeholder to return to his or her true self. Act IV is the thunder and lightning scene. Liberals strut across the stage in faux moral outrage, delivering empty threats of vengeance. And then there is Act V. This act is the most pathetic. It is as much farce as tragedy. Liberals-frightened back into submission by the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party or the call to be practical-begin the drama all over again. We are now in Act IV, the one where the liberal class postures like the cowardly policemen in “The Pirates of Penzance.” Liberals promise battle. They talk of glory and honor. They vow not to abandon their core liberal values. They rouse themselves, like the terrified policemen who have no intention of fighting the pirates, with the bugle call of “Tarantara!” This scene is the most painful to watch. It is a window into how hollow, vacuous and powerless liberals and liberal institutions including labor, the liberal church, the press, the arts, universities and the Democratic Party have become. They fight for nothing. They stand for nothing. And at a moment when we desperately need citizens and institutions willing to stand up against corporate forces for the core liberal values, values that make a democracy possible, we get the ridiculous chatter and noise of the liberal class. The moral outrage of the liberal class, a specialty of MSNBC, groups such as Progressives for Obama and MoveOn.org, is built around the absurd language of personal narrative-as if Barack Obama ever wanted to or could defy the interests of Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase or General Electric. The liberal class refuses to directly confront the dead hand of corporate power that is rapidly transforming America into a brutal feudal state. To name this power, to admit that it has a death grip on our political process, our systems of information, our artistic and religious expression, our education, and has successfully emasculated popular movements, including labor, is to admit that the only weapons we have left are acts of civil disobedience. And civil disobedience is difficult, uncomfortable and lonely. It requires us to step outside the formal systems of power and trust in acts that are marginal, often unrecognized and have no hope of immediate success.The liberal class’ solution to the bleak political landscape is the conference. This, along with letters and cries of outrage circulated on the Internet, is its preferred form of expression. Conferences, whether organized by Left Forum, Rabbi Michael Lerner’s Tikkun or figures such as Ted Glick-who is touting a plan to lure progressives, including members of the Democratic Party, into something he calls a “third force”-are where liberals go to feel good about themselves again. These conferences are not fundamentally about change. They are designed to elevate self-appointed liberal apologists who seek to become advisers and courtiers within the Democratic Party. The conferences produce resolutions no one reads. They build networks no one uses. But with each conference liberals get to do what they do best-applaud their own moral probity. They make passionate appeals to work within systems, such as electoral politics, that have been gamed by the corporate state. And the result is to spur well-meaning people toward useless and ultimately self-defeating activity.”What we need is an alliance which consciously incorporates elected Democrats as well as elected Greens and independents, as well as groups, or individual leaders and members of groups, like Progressive Democrats of America and the Green Party,” Glick proposes. “More than that, this alliance eventually needs to support and work to elect candidates running both as Democrats and progressive independents, and maybe even an occasional Republican.”The Tikkun Conference held in Washington last June was another pathetic display of liberal apologists begging Obama to be Obama. The organizers called on those participating to “Support Obama to BE the Obama We Voted For-Not the Inside-the-Beltway Pragmatist/Realist whose compromises have led to a decrease in his popularity and opened the door for a revival of the just-recently-discredited Right wing.” Good luck.The organizers of the Left Forum conference scheduled for this March at Pace University in New York City also communicate in the amorphous, high-blown moral rhetoric that is unmoored from the actual and real. The upcoming Left Forum conference, which has the vacuous title “Towards a Politics of Solidarity,” promises to “focus on the age-old theme of solidarity: the moral act of imagination underpinning working-class victories everywhere. It will undertake to examine the new forms of far-reaching solidarity that are both necessary and possible in an increasingly global world.” The organizers posit that “the potential for transformative struggles in the 21st century depends on new chains of solidarity-between workers in the rich world and workers in the global south, indigenous peasants and more affluent consumers, students and pensioners, villagers in the Niger Delta and environmental campaigners in the Gulf of Mexico, marchers and rioters in Greece and Spain, and unionists in the United States and China.” The conference “will contribute to the intellectual underpinnings of new and tighter forms of world-wide solidarity upon which all successful emancipatory struggles of the future will depend.” The conference agenda, which sounds like a parody of a course catalogue description, includes the requisite academic jargon of “moral act of imagination” and “chains of solidarity.” This language gives to the enterprise a lofty but undefined purpose. And this is a specialty of the liberal class-to grandly say nothing. The last thing the liberal class intends to do is fight back. Left Forum brings in a few titans, including Noam Chomsky, who is always worth hearing, but it contributes as well to the lethargy and turpitude that have made the liberal class impotent.The only gatherings worth attending from now on are acts that organize civil disobedience, which is why I will be at Lafayette Park in Washington, D.C., at noon March 19 to protest the eighth anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Veterans groups on March 19 will also carry out street protests in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Chicago. You can link to the protests here. Save your bus fare and your energy for events like this one. Either we begin to militantly stand against the coal, oil and natural gas industry or we do not. Either we defy pre-emptive war and occupation or we do not. Either we demand that the criminal class on Wall Street be held accountable for the theft of billions of dollars from small shareholders whose savings for retirement or college were wiped out or we do not. Either we defend basic civil liberties, including habeas corpus and the prosecution of torturers or we do not. Either we turn on liberal institutions, including the Democratic Party, which collaborate with these corporations or we do not. Either we accept that the age of political compromise is dead, that the corporate systems of power are instruments of death that can be fought only by physical acts of resistance or we do not. If the liberal class remains gullible and weak, if it continues to speak to itself and others in meaningless platitudes, it will remain as responsible for our enslavement as those it pompously denounces. Chris Hedges writes a regular column for Truthdig.com. Hedges graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times. He is the author of many books, including: War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning, What Every Person Should Know About War, and American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. His most recent book is Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle.

By Chris Hedges

24 January, 2011 

TruthDig.com

Palestinian Authority proposed that only a handful of the nearly six million Palestinian refugees be allowed to return.

By staff and agencies

It is not clear if, or how, “The Palestine Papers” were edited, and very little new information can be found in the documents.

The accumulation of restrictions under the rubric “demilitarization” amounts to nothing more than a new occupation.

When do the demands of demilitarization of a state transcend over sovereignty, to become the imposition of another form of occupation? At its limit, demilitarization is occupation: and sovereignty becomes nothing more than a meaningless banner, flapping in the wind, over a police state.

The Palestine Papers reveal Israel’s negotiator, Tzipi Livni in May 2008 discussing the scope of Palestinian demilitarization with her Palestinian counterparts:

Livni: “First: demilitarization – what you call limited arms. The equation is that on one hand you will have some limited arms for law and order and for fighting internal terrorism. But there is no need – and we cannot afford – a Palestinian army.”

Erekat: “Do I have a choice of who to place on my territory?”

Livni: “No.”

Erekat: “Do you see your army in our territory?”

Livni: “We don’t see ourselves in the territory except for limited cases, like early warning stations and the Jordan Valley… (Jordan Valley) not as territory, but a presence at the border.”

Erekat: “Can I choose where I secure external defence?”

Livni: “No… in order to create your state you have to agree in advance with Israel – you choose not to have the right of choice afterwards. These are the basic pillars.”

Livni makes it absolutely clear with that phrase: “You choose not to have the right of choice.”

The right of choice, of course, is basic to the concept of sovereignty. The basic pillars Livni talks about are no army, no air force, and basically no capacity for external defence. Ahmed Qurei, the chief negotiator is quite unperturbed by this ban, making it clear that he is in confrontation with Hamas and Hezbollah, rather than with any ‘external’ threat. This, of course, is not a problem, Livni is content “for strong police for law and order but not external threats”. The Israelis are happy for the PA to have a strong police state.

Let us be clear: Israel is demanding full spectrum military dominance in the air, on land – and with no capacity for Palestinians to protect themselves in any way whatsoever from either air attack, incursion, or missile attack. Implicit in Livni’s demand is a claim to impunity to pursue whatever military action against Palestinians, Israel may choose to launch: complete freedom of action.

Qurei is too busy making cracks about Hezbollah already being the government in Lebanon, to protest much. He wants arms to fight Hamas, not to defend Palestinians from Israel.

“Nothing more than a new occupation”

But this picture cannot be viewed in isolation to the other aspects of control that Livni is seeking: Israel is demanding control over the borders, control on who may enter and exit the Palestinian state, effective joint control over the internal security apparatus, Israeli vetting of applicants to the security apparatus, restrictions on who may stand for election in the Palestinian state, control over press ‘incitement’, control over the mosques, control over Palestinian airspace and even control over its electro-magnetic field.

These restrictions come on top of an American and European counter-insurgency project that has already set in place an economic oligarchy that is collaborating closely to co-ordinate with Israeli commercial interests.

They are additional too to policies already in place to crack down on any dissent. In the language of one British document, included among The Palestine Papers, the objective being to ‘degrade’ the capabilities of opponents to the PA; to disrupt their communications, to intern their members, to close their civil and charitable organisations, to remove them from public bodies, and to seize their assets.

Whereas to call for the ‘demilitarization’ of a Palestinian state may seem innocuous – and was treated as such by the PLO negotiators – the accumulation of restrictions under the rubric ‘demilitarization’ – amounts to nothing more than a new occupation. The experience of Gaza since 2006 illustrates clearly what can be the result when Israel exercises full military freedom of action against an undefended territory, when it additionally controls the crossings and the borders, when it controls the passage of foodstuffs, when it controls economic resources such as electricity, diesel and cooking gas. Palestinians become their captives.

Israelis may no longer be physically present in Gaza – aside from their temporary incursions – but Gaza is not free, and it is not sovereign. At its limit demilitarization simply is occupation by another name.

Alastair Crooke

Last Modified: 25 Jan 2011 19:35 GMT

Alastair Crooke is the founder of Conflicts Forum, an international movement which engages with Islamist movements broadly. He is the organiser of US and European unofficial dialogues in 2005 with Hezbollah, Hamas and other Islamist movements, and a former special Middle East adviser to European Union high representative Javier Solana. He facilitated various Israeli-Palestinian ceasefires during 2001-2003, and was instrumental in the negotiations leading to the ending of the siege of the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem. He is a former member of Britain’s MI-6 intelligence service.

Source: Al Jazeera

The release of some 1,700 secret documents has exposed the so-called peace process as a criminal farce, part of a permanent US-Israeli conspiracy against the basic rights of the Palestinian people.

The papers, which consist of minutes of negotiating sessions, diplomatic correspondence, memos, maps and other materials dating from 1999 to 2010, were obtained by the Al Jazeera television network. They present a devastating portrait of all sides engaged in the last decade of US-brokered Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) of Mahmoud Abbas is exposed as wholly subservient to US and Israeli interests. It is desperate to salvage an agreement that will secure it the fiction of a Palestinian state at the expense of every historic aspiration of the Palestinian people, which it represses and lies to in a bid to cement the privileges of a small wealthy layer.

To this end, as the documents make clear, the PA’s negotiators were prepared to accept the devouring of East Jerusalem by Zionist settlements, repudiate the right of exiled Palestinians to return to their land, and participate in mass transfers of Arab populations, a form of ethnic cleansing designed to meet Israel’s goal of a demographically secure “Jewish state.” All of this was done behind the backs of the Palestinian people.

 For their part, the Israelis emerge as ruthless and brutal in their determination to suppress the Palestinians and expropriate every possible inch of their land. Absolutely uninterested in reaching any agreement, they utilize the negotiations to extract ever greater concessions from their pliant Palestinian counterparts, while establishing new “facts on the ground” in terms of ever-mushrooming Zionist settlements in the occupied territories.

As for Washington, under Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama alike, US diplomacy assumes a criminal character in relation to the Palestinian question, just as it does throughout the Middle East. Negotiators routinely side with Israel on all substantive issues, while treating the Palestinians with unconcealed contempt. Any attempt by the latter to raise basic issues of international law or even previous commitments made and unceremoniously broken are dismissed as “unrealistic” and foolish.

The arrogance and hostility with which imperialism treats not only the Palestinians but every oppressed people and the working class all over the world was summed up in a remark by then-US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and recorded in one of the transcripts. Dismissing claims on behalf of the millions of Palestinians condemned to exile, statelessness and bare subsistence in squalid refugee camps, Rice commented, “Bad things happen to people all around the world all the time. You need to look forward.”

The continuity of this vicious attitude toward the plight of the Palestinians was made clear by Rice’s successor, Hillary Clinton, who is recorded in a transcript from the fall of 2009 as demanding to know why Palestinians acted as if they were “always in a chapter of a Greek tragedy.”

None of this will come as a revelation to millions of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and the millions more scattered in exile in Lebanon, Jordan and elsewhere. Their daily life of Israeli military strikes, roadblocks, land expropriations and countless humiliations is testament to the fraud and failure of the so-called “peace process.”

Nonetheless, just as the US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks on the corruption and torture practiced by the regime of President Zine El Abadine Ben Ali fueled the mass revolutionary uprising that has overthrown it, the documents published by Al Jazeera pose a mortal threat to the survival of the corrupt and authoritarian regime headed by Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah.

The Palestinian Authority reacted with rage to the publication of the documents, calling them “a bunch of lies” and “fabricated.” Meeting in Cairo with President Hosni Mubarak, PA President Abbas charged that the documents published by Al Jazeera were “intended” as a “mixup,” attributing Israeli negotiating positions to the PA’s own negotiators.

Yasser Abed Rabbo, the secretary-general of the Palestine Liberation Organization, charged that Al Jazeera was trying to “trick and mislead the simple citizen” and suggested that it was acting on behalf of the Islamist movement Hamas, the PLO’s rival, which governs the Gaza Strip.

The leading Fatah faction of the PLO organized a demonstration outside Al Jazeera’s offices in Ramallah, which were hit by vandalism. Some officials have suggested the station will be closed down in the West Bank.

For its part, Hamas said that the documents expose “the level of the Fatah authority’s involvement in attempts to liquidate the Palestinian cause, particularly on the issue of Jerusalem and refugees, and its involvement against the resistance in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.”

The claims that the documents are forged or that Israeli positions are misrepresented as those of the Palestinian negotiators are not credible. The most incriminating material is contained in the transcripts of negotiating sessions in which the source of these positions is unmistakable. In addition to Al Jazeera, the British Guardian newspaper, with which the network shared the material, has vouched for their validity.

Among the most significant of the revelations in the papers released by Al Jazeera are the concessions offered by the PA’s negotiators on core issues, which stood in stark contrast to official positions upheld by the Palestinian movement for decades.

These included:

• An offer to allow Israel to retain control of all but one of its settlements in East Jerusalem, effectively ceding control of nearly all of what was to have been the Palestinian capital to the Israelis. Under international law, all of these settlements are illegal. The Palestinian negotiator, Ahmed Qureia, is quoted in a transcript from a May 2008 negotiating session as describing the concession as “unprecedented” and something that “we refused to do” at Camp David.

• An offer to settle for a “symbolic number” of refugees expelled in 1948 to be allowed to return to Israel, reportedly 100,000 over 10 years. Such a proposal would effectively renounce the rights of more than five million stateless Palestinians.

• An offer to place control of the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount site in Jerusalem’s old city, which includes the Dome of the Rock and al Aqsa mosques, under control of a joint committee. In making the proposal, which renounced claims previously defended by Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat, the PA’s chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, is quoted as declaring sarcastically, “The only thing I cannot do is convert to Zionism.”

Other documents illustrate the intimate collaboration between the Palestinian Authority and US and British intelligence in suppressing militant factions in the occupied territories and conspiring to overthrow Hamas in Gaza. The documents indicate that the PA was given advance warning of the 2008-2009 Israeli invasion of Gaza and bargained with the Israelis over the selection of Palestinian prisoners to be released with the open aim of boosting its image over that of its Islamist rivals.

All of these concessions produced precisely nothing from either Israel or its US ally. In an apparently emotional protest to Obama’s Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, during an October 2009 meeting in Washington, Erekat is recorded as saying, “Nineteen years of promises and you haven’t made up your minds what you want to do with us… We delivered on our road map obligations. Even Yuval Diskin [director of Shabak, Israel’s internal security service] raises his hat on security. But no, they can’t even give a six-month freeze [on settlements] to give me a fig leaf.”

Washington, he complained, was interested only in “PR, quick news, and we’re cost free.” He warned that the failure of the “peace process” to produce anything for the Palestinians was undermining the usefulness of the PA in advancing US policy. “What good am I if I’m the joke of my wife, if I’m so weak.”

As for the Israeli side, the documents quote then-Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni in a 2007 meeting providing a remarkably frank description of Tel Aviv’s negotiating strategy, which has been guided by a determination to prevent any possibility of a viable Palestinian state. “The Israel policy is to take more and more land day after day and that at the end of the day we’ll say that is impossible, we already have the land and we cannot create the [Palestinian] state,” she said.

A similarly frank assessment as to the one-sided and fraudulent character of the “peace process” was offered by a former Israeli negotiator in an interview with the Guardian.

“What’s so striking is not so much the nature of the concessions, it’s that year after year they’re pursuing the same strategy which not only shows itself to have failed but showed itself to be on a slope of constant Palestinian slippage,” said the ex-negotiator, Daniel Levy. “They knew that the Israelis were pocketing whatever they gave, building more settlements and then saying: we need more land.”

Levy continued: “The Palestinians never extracted themselves from that structurally losing proposition, especially the expectation that the Americans would deliver Israel because the Palestinians thought they were the ones being reasonable in the negotiations. But it didn’t happen and it didn’t happen. The Americans constantly sided with the unreasonable side and the Palestinians kept digging themselves deeper and deeper in to this losing proposition.”

This assessment was confirmed by the reaction of the current government of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to the Al Jazeera report. It immediately seized upon the documents dealing with the sweeping concessions offered in relation to East Jerusalem to brand public demands by the Palestinian Authority for a freeze on construction there as “ridiculous.”

The released papers “show that the Palestinian demand over the last year and a half to freeze construction in Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem is ridiculous, since it is clear that they had already conceded the aforementioned neighborhoods in negotiations during Olmert’s tenure,” the Israeli daily Haaretz quoted Israeli officials as saying.

The reality is that, no matter how great the concessions offered by the Palestinian side, neither Israel nor Washington have been interested in a settlement. The “peace talks,” which have now broken down over Israel’s refusal to provide even a temporary and partial freeze on new settlements, have served only as a means of exerting control over the Palestinian population and furthering imperialist intrigues in the broader Middle East.

In Washington, the State Department said it could not vouch for veracity of the documents, but acknowledged that they would nave an impact. “We don’t deny that this release will, at least for a time, make the situation more difficult than it already was,” said spokesman Philip Crowley. “But again, we are clear-eyed about this. We always recognized that this would be a great challenge. But it hasn’t—it doesn’t change our overall objective.”

Among the revelations contained in the documents is that the Obama administration tailored its policy even more closely to that of Israel than the Bush administration. In talks between Obama’s envoy Mitchell and Palestinian negotiator Erekat in the autumn of 2009, Mitchell pushed the PA to cede to Israel’s refusal to recognize the 1967 borders as the basis for negotiations on a Palestinian state.

When Erekat protested that the 1967 borders were part of the 2003 Road Map and had been specifically endorsed by the Bush administration barely a year earlier, Mitchell said Washington was not bound by these commitments.

“Again I tell you that President Obama does not accept prior decisions by Bush,” the US envoy declared. “Don’t use this because it can hurt you. Countries are bound by agreements—not discussions or statements.”

The documents released by Al Jazeera have laid bare the real character of the so-called “peace process,” which has been totally misrepresented by the media. From the beginning, it has served not as a means of ending the six-decade plight of the Palestinian people, but rather of legitimizing endless violence against them and of furthering US interests in the Middle East.

The prostration of the PA leadership exposed by these transcripts signals the dead-end of bourgeois nationalism throughout the Middle East and internationally.

The historic demands of the Palestinian people cannot be resolved through the pursuit of imperialist support for a bantustan-style statelet in the occupied territories. Only the mobilization of the working class—Palestinian and Israeli—and its unification based on a socialist and internationalist program can provide a way out of the present impasse and prevent a new round of murderous warfare.

By Bill Van Auken

25 January, 2011

WSWS.org

The ‘Palestine Papers’ being published this week by al-Jazeera confirm in every detail what many Palestinians have suspected for a long time: their leaders have been collaborating in the most shameful fashion with Israel and the United States. Their grovelling is described in grim detail. The process, though few accepted it at the time, began with the much-trumpeted Oslo Accords, described by Edward Said in the LRB at the time as a ‘Palestinian Versailles’. Even he would have been taken aback by the sheer scale of what the PLO leadership agreed to surrender: virtually everything except their own salaries. Their weaknesses, inadequacies and cravenness are now in the public domain.

Now we know that the capitulation was total, but still the Israeli overlords of the PLO refused to sign a deal and their friends in the press blamed the Palestinians for being too difficult. They wanted Palestine to be crushed before they would agree to underwrite a few moth-eaten protectorates that they would supervise indefinitely. They wanted Hamas destroyed. The PLO agreed. The recent assault on Gaza was carried out with the approval of Abbas and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, not to mention Washington and its EU. The PLO sold out in a literal sense. They were bought with money and treated like servants. There is TV footage of Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton at Camp David playfully tugging at Arafat’s headgear to stop him leaving. All three are laughing. Many PLO supporters in Palestine must be weeping as they watch al-Jazeera and take in the scale of the betrayal and the utter cynicism of their leaders. Now we know why the Israel/US/EU nexus was so keen to disregard the outcome of the Palestinian elections and try to destroy Hamas militarily.

The two-state solution is now dead and buried by Israel and the PLO. Impossible for anyone (even the BBC) to pretend that there can be an independent Palestinian state. A long crapulent depression is bound to envelop occupied Palestine, but whether Israel likes it or not there will one day be a single state in the region, probably by the end of this century. That is the only possible solution, apart from genocide.

By Tariq Ali