Archives: Articles

23 February, 2011

Climatestorytellers.org

Biodiverse Ecological Farming is the Answer, not Genetic Engineering

Industrial globalised agriculture is heavily implicated in climate change. It contributes to the three major greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2) from the use of fossil fuels, nitrogen oxide (N2O) from the use of chemical fertilizers and methane (CH4) from factory farming. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC), atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from a pre–industrial concentration of about 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in 2005. The global atmospheric concentration of CH4 has increased from pre–industrial concentration of 715 parts per billion to 1774 parts per billion in 2005. The global atmospheric concentration of N2O, largely due to use of chemical fertilizers in agriculture, increased from about 270 parts per billion to 319 parts per billion in 2005.

Industrial agriculture is also more vulnerable to climate change which is intensifying droughts and floods. Monocultures lead to more frequent crop failure when rainfall does not come in time, or is too much or too little. Chemically fertilized soils have no capacity to withstand a drought. And cyclones and hurricanes make a food system dependent on long distance transport highly vulnerable to disruption.

Genetic engineering is embedded in an industrial model of agriculture based on fossil fuels. It is falsely being offered as a magic bullet for dealing with climate change.

Monsanto claims that Genetically Modified Organisms are a cure for both food insecurity and climate change and has been putting the following advertisement across the world in recent months.

9 billion people to feed.

A changing climate

Now what?

Producing more

Conserving more

Improving farmers lives

That’s sustainable agriculture

And that’s what Monsanto is all about.

All the claims this advertisement makes are false.

GM crops do not produce more. While Monsanto claims its GMO Bt cotton gives 1500 Kg/acre, the average is 300–400 Kg/acre.

The claim to increased yield is false because yield, like climate resilience is a multi–genetic trait. Introducing toxins into a plant through herbicide resistance or Bt. Toxin increases the “yield” of toxins, not of food or nutrition.

Even the nutrition argument is manipulated. Golden rice genetically engineered to increase Vitamin A produces 70 times less Vitamin A than available alternatives such as coriander leaves and curry leaves.

The false claim of higher food production has been dislodged by a recent study titled, Failure to Yield by Dr. Doug Gurian Sherman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who was former biotech specialist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and former adviser on GM to the U.S Food and Drug Administration. Sherman states, “Let us be clear. There are no commercialized GM crops that inherently increase yield. Similarly there are no GM crops on the market that were engineered to resist drought, reduce fertilizer pollution or save soil. Not one.”

There are currently two predominant applications of genetic engineering: one is herbicide resistance, the other is crops with Bt. toxin. Herbicides kill plants. Therefore they reduce return of organic matter to the soil. Herbicide resistant crops, like Round Up Ready Soya and Corn reduce soil carbon, they do not conserve it. This is why Monsanto’s attempt to use the climate negotiations to introduce Round Up and Round Up resistant crops as a climate solution is scientifically and ecologically wrong.

Monsanto’s GMOs, which are either Round Up Ready crops or Bt toxin crops do not conserve resources. They demand more water, they destroy biodiversity and they increase toxics in farming. Pesticide use has increased 13 times as a result of the use Bt cotton seeds in the region of Vidharbha, India.

Monsanto’s GMOs do not improve farmers’ lives. They have pushed farmers to suicide. 200,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide in the last decade. 84% of the suicides in Vidharbha, the region with highest suicides are linked to debt created by Bt–cotton. GMOs are non–renewable, while the open pollinated varieties that farmers have bred are renewable and can be saved year to year. The price of cotton seed was Rs 7/kg. Bt cotton seed price jumped to Rs 1,700/kg.

This is neither ecological nor economic or social sustainability. It is eco–cide and genocide.

Genetic engineering does not “create” climate resilience. In a recent article titled, “GM: Food for Thought” (Deccan Chronicle, August 26, 2009), Dr. M.S. Swaminathan wrote “we can isolate a gene responsible for conferring drought tolerance, introduce that gene into a plant, and make it drought tolerant.”

Drought tolerance is a polygenetic trait. It is therefore scientifically flawed to talk of “isolating a gene for drought tolerance.“ Genetic engineering tools are so far only able to transfer single gene traits. That is why in twenty years only two single gene traits for herbicide resistance and Bt. toxin have been commercialized through genetic engineering.

Navdanya’s recent report titled, “Biopiracy of Climate Resilient Crops: Gene Giants are Stealing farmers’ innovation of drought resistant, flood resistant and salt resistant varieties,” shows that farmers have bred corps that are resistant to climate extremes. And it is these traits which are the result of millennia of farmers’ breeding which are now being patented and pirated by the genetic engineering industry. Using farmers’ varieties as “genetic material,” the biotechnology industry is playing genetic roulette to gamble on which gene complexes are responsible for which trait. This is not done through genetic engineering; it is done through software programs like athlete. As the report states, “Athlete uses vast amounts of available genomic data (mostly public) to rapidly reach a reliable limited list of candidate key genes with high relevance to a target trait of choice. Allegorically, the Athlete platform could be viewed as a ‘machine’ that is able to choose 50–100 lottery tickets from amongst hundreds of thousands of tickets, with the high likelihood that the winning ticket will be included among them.”

Breeding is being replaced by gambling, innovation is giving way to biopiracy, and science is being substituted by propaganda. This cannot be the basis of food security in times of climate vulnerability.

Women for Diversity: One of the campaigns of Navdanya. Photo courtesy Navdanya.

While genetic engineering is a false solution, over the past 20 years, we have built Navdanya, India’s biodiversity and organic farming movement. We are increasingly realizing there is a convergence between objectives of conservation of biodiversity, reduction of climate change impact and alleviation of poverty. Biodiverse, local, organic systems produce more food and higher farm incomes, while they also reduce water use and risks of crop failure due to climate change.

Biodiversity offers resilience to recover from climate disasters. After the Orissa Super Cyclone of 1998, and the Tsunami of 2004, Navdanya distributed seeds of saline resistant rice varieties as “Seeds of Hope” to rejuvenate agriculture in lands reentered saline by the sea. We are now creating seed banks of drought resistant, flood resistant and saline resistant seed varieties to respond to climate extremities.

Navdanya’s work over the past twenty years has shown that we can grow more food and provide higher incomes to farmers without destroying the environment and killing our peasants. Our study on “Biodiversity based organic farming: A new paradigm for Food Security and Food Safety” has established that small biodiverse organic farms produce more food and provide higher incomes to farmers.

Biodiverse organic and local food systems contribute both to mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. Small, biodiverse, organic farms especially in Third World countries are totally fossil fuel free. Energy for farming operations comes from animal energy. Soil fertility is built by feeding soil organisms by recycling organic matter. This reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Biodiverse systems are also more resilient to draughts and floods because they have higher water holding capacity and hence contribute to adaption to climate change. Navdanya’s study on climate change and organic farming has indicated that organic farming increases carbon absorption by upto 55% and water holding capacity by 10% thus contributing to both mitigation and adaptation to climate change.

Biodiverse organic farms produce more food and higher incomes than industrial monocultures. Mitigating climate change, conserving biodiversity and increasing food security can thus go hand in hand.

Dr. Vandana Shiva is a philosopher, environmental activist and eco feminist. She has fought for changes in the practice and paradigms of agriculture and food, and assisted grassroots organizations of the Green movement in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Ireland, Switzerland, and Austria with campaigns against genetic engineering. In 1982, she founded the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, which led to the creation of Navdanya in 1991, a national movement to protect the diversity and integrity of living resources, especially native seed, the promotion of organic farming and fair trade. She is author of numerous books including, Soil Not Oil: Environmental Justice in an Age of Climate Crisis; Stolen Harvest: The hijacking of the Global food supply; Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability, and Peace; and Staying Alive: Women, Ecology, and Development. Shiva has also served as an adviser to governments in India and abroad as well as NGOs, including the International Forum on Globalization, the Women’s Environment and Development Organization and the Third World Network. She has received numerous awards, including 1993 Right Livelihood Award (Alternative Nobel Prize) and the 2010 Sydney Peace Prize.

Copyright 2011 Dr. Vandana Shiva

23 February, 2011

Countercurrents.org

The democratic development and political revolution in the Arab world mainly in Tunisia and Egypt was long overdue which deserves to be acclaimed as a positive one. In fact the entire area is reeling under the fervor of liberty and freedom and showed to the rest of the world particularly to the western one that they are equally hankering for democracy and just order. It is the western world particularly USA which has supported materially and morally to the dictatorial regimes of the areas to maintain status quo and more so to maintain strategic advantage. Apart from that they also intend to insulate the unjust colonial regime of Israel and remain unperturbed on the face of atrocities unleashed on the indigenous people of Palestine. Above all it is for change as the whole world is changing which is inevitable and no one can resist change for long. But change has been denied till recently in the region to deprive the people in the realization of their democratic aspirations whereby they could lead their lives with dignity and self-respect.

The downfall of Tunisian regime and then fall of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak has had ripple effect which marks the history shaping moment for the Arab World particularly Egypt as it is regarded as the cultural and political crucible and bellwether of the region. It is a harbinger for change for the betterment of the society and for the people at large. And there is lurking fear among the western world that it would lead towards dominance of religious based polity as what happened 32 years back in Iran . Such specter was raised by none other than incumbent Prime Minster of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu in the Knesset as in 1979 Iranian’s revolution brought Ayotullah Khomeni into power to transform an staunch ally of Israel into one of its implacable enemies. Mubarak was also treated by Israel as the last line of defense against radicalism. In fact people want to get liberation from obsolete and repressive regimes and shape their destiny in accordance to the modern values and dignified dwellings. The people want open and fair society and values of justice and fair-play free from nagging suffering. It is also true the way western powers behaved and perpetuated dictatorial regimes with the supposed aim of keeping fundamentalist forces away from the affairs of the state but in the process created conditions for uprisings and insurrection. They had sold the idea that only options left in the Arab World is between Jihadist and Authoritarianism. There was no mid-path.

It is the pernicious mindset on the part of Western Power led by the Neo-Conservatives to break the stalemate of the post-cold war era and they upset the desire of the world community to see the dominance of ‘just world order’ and ‘brave new world’ based on accountability and justice. In the post-cold war era the pogrom perpetrated in Rwanda and Balkans put a stigma on our civilized face. It is the Neo-Conservatives who cooked up in the post-cold war era that now the world would be facing real danger from the rise of ‘Muslim Fundamentalism’ and the media lapped it up and coined that scarecrow as ‘white fury’. For the last sixty years USA supported the despots even after the disappearance of cold war USA supported such autocrats and its unflinching and unequivocal support to the Israel’s unjust acts against Palestine were deeply disapproved by the Arabs.

It is inherent truth that democracy is the necessary panacea for abiding stability and enduring peace. Here it is appropriate to remember that whenever democratic mandate of the people was not respected it created salubrious atmosphere for upheaval. Long back in Algeria the people’s mandate was not respected rather snubbed which had led to violence and thousands lost their precious lives. In Turkey real Democracy was not allowed to get its root and there had been continuous Kurdish problem and other problems and that was very much accommodated by the win of Justice and Development Party (acronym- AKP) led by Recep Tayyip Erdogan religious-tinged Democratic Party. It was thwarted in 2006 when Hamas got the mandate and won 76 seats out of 132 parliamentary seats in the ensuing election of their people but Israel regime well supported by the western power including USA had not allowed them to hold the reign of power. Rather the whole population of Gaza Strip was punished for their democratic decision since then and till now no relief was forthcoming in that beleaguered area. It is apt to reminisce here that none other than former President of USA Jimmy Carter whose group observes conduction of election world over stated that it was absolutely wrong that a democratically mandated party was not allowed to take over the helm of the affairs. We all know it has its own dimension and repercussion because it is directly related to disillusionment and disenchantment which is prelude to chaos and anarchy. It is an irrefutable fact that most of the upheaval is rooted world over in the deprivation of democratic aspirations. The present churning in the Arab World has refuted the claim of the western world that Arab society is not fit for democracy which also helped in raising the racist bogey of Islamo-phobia and perpetuation of unjust dictators. It also negates the fact that Democracy is merely a western construct but has universal value. The western powers keeping their interests intact did just contrary to that and made ‘Faustian Bargain’ with the region’s autocrats by shoring up their regimes. It is corroborated with the statement made by the Vice-President of USA Joseph Biden stated in the month of January that Mubarak had been very responsible relative to America geopolitical interests. It is as if there is a symbiotic relationship between them ignoring the pathetic ordeal of the people weighed down under such emerging insalubrious situation. As US state Department Cable of March 2009 released by WikiLeaks that $1.3 Billion in annual military finance as ‘Untouchable Compensation’ for making & maintaining peace with Israel apart from tangible benefits of military cooperation are clear. Egypt remains at peace with Israel and the US. Military enjoys priority access to the Suez Canal and Egyptian Air Space. Israel has been facing the crisis of its legitimacy even after its formation for 60 long years which is a source of consternation for all its proponents.

They paid lip service to the democratic rights and undermined whatever dissenting voices were there and scuttled those voices. It is caveat for the western powers that they must not impose their cynical and shopworn politics of 20th Century on the destiny of the people of Arab World as USA has been doling out $ 1.3 Billion annually to perpetuate dictatorial regime in Egypt since 1979. For them it is forceful reminder how powerful is the passion for freedom, how strong the loathing for regimes and rulers who tyrannize their own people and how bitter the feelings towards the powers that prefer to prop up friendly dictators.

Fortunately the realism dawned upon the US President Barrack Obama who stressed for the urgent need of the democratic rehabilitation of the Egyptian people which leads towards progress and amelioration of their conditions. It would lead towards filling up the vacuum by the moderate groups and would help in sidelining fundamentalist conservative forces which is equally dangerous and intending to push people on another deleterious line. It is to understand here that his predecessor George Bush inebriated with sole–spokesman-syndrome in the emerging post-cold war order, unleashed Neo-Conservative hatched unnecessary war on Iraq which was not mandated by the UN did it in order to get strategic advantage and perpetuate the hold of Zionist Colonial regime of Israel . They attacked Iraq first proclaimed that they wanted to ferret out Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and when they did not find those then they declared that they came to bring in democracy. And we all know the whole society was decimated and not less than 0.5 million people perished and thousands were maimed for life and ethnic strife was aggravated till now and the end result regime emerged is not certainly a liberal one but fully smeared with conservatism.

It is wrong to say that conservative elements would take over the rein of the country like Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt but it is a fact that even Muslim Brotherhood had not claimed they could be given paramount positions. Although Ayatullah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran who proclaimed that it was a religious awakening, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) retorted back that it was the Egpytian People’s Revolution where both Muslims and Coptic Christian fought hand in hand. Abdel Moneim, a prominent member of MB who wrote in Washington Post stated they support democratic form of government which could achieve freedom from tyranny and foreign intervention. He states ‘it is wrong to posit as some alarmists are suggesting that Egypt’s choices are either the status quo of the Mubarak Regime or a takeover by Islamic extremism’. He proclaimed that we have embraced diversity and democratic values and keeping in mind Egypt’s pluralistic society we have to demonstrate moderation in our agenda. That was buttressed by the MB former Member of Parliament, Ibrahim Zakaria ‘we believe in the principle that people are the origin and source of sovereignty and that the people choose their leaders in free and secret ballots’ speaking to ‘Time’ Magazine, 21st Feb. 2011

It is a fact that the revolution was led by the youths who are equipped with modern technology which is a powerful instrument for the democratization of the society which came in handy for them who they used to their advantage and communicated to their folk through facebook and twitter about socio-economic deprivation and about their helplessness not to participate for their well-being and restoration of their dignity. The role of Al-Jajeera should also not be underestimated in this regard. Here critical mass of protestors emerged and caused for the uprooting of the well-entrenched tyrant of 30 years of Hosni Mubarak and 23 years of Zianul Abidin. In fact there is a strong fresh wind blowing, powered by those information technologies. ‘It will be increasingly difficult for dictators to impose their will through sheer brutality’ Senator of USA Kerry Johnny (‘Time Magazine’, 21st Feb, 2011). The wael Ghonim the Passionate Google Executive who tweeted ‘Freedom is bless that deserves fighting for it’ and people responded overwhelming and since then he became a poster boy of revolution. It provided us the clue that education is empowerment and for that matter knowledge is empowerment which helps in instilling necessary courage to caste off the ignominy of tyranny and enslavement. The Palestinian people who have been fighting one of the mightiest forces on earth with mere stones against the most sophisticated weapons of Israel supplied by the supposed land of freedom i.e. USA but they were yet to be cowed down. Because they have the quest for education and they could be the force to reckon with for emancipation in the entire region and would cause the death knell of the obsolete and oppressive regimes of the area. According to Chandra Muzzafar the well -known scholar from Malaysia that proportionally Palestine is leading in the entire world as far as Ph.D holder is concerned. That is why Palestine democratic aspirations have been perpetually crushed by the western world by imposing Israelis which had been actively colluded by the Arab regimes.

The new development certainly infuriates the US administration to ponder over and recalibrate its foreign policy from Mediterranean Sea to the Gulf. The reverberation of change is bound to be felt on the western world. But the big political development will lead towards better human right scenario and freedom. ” Egypt is going to have a big, big impact around the region,” said Salman Sheik, director of The Brookings Doha Center in Qatar . All hues of dictatorial regimes alike started facing people’s ire and they already initiated giving concessions to the people to soothe their ruffled liberation feathers. It is wrong to assert that people’s revolution is at risk of collapsing into chaos and destabilize the whole region. The exponent of status quo brought such propaganda in the discourse to perpetuate their hold in the area and in their resources. They are the people who in the name of achieving fabled stability in the region, perpetuated despotic and anti-democratic regime. “Dude, Egyptians invented writing on the wall,” it said. “You really should learn to read it”, the people has given right and just reply to such obnoxious thinking which helps in the fleecing the resources of the country and allowed to play on the aspirations of the people.

The immediate trigger was to get rid of economic distress and widespread corruption and strived for the restoration of their dignities. The dictatorial regime fleeced the national resources as Mubarak is said to have assets worth $ 70 billion (World’s richest business magnate of Carlos Slim of Maxico is worth of $ 54 Billion whereas Bill Gate has net worth of $53 Billion) and indulged into self-aggrandizement at the cost of palpable deprivation and endemic poverty. For that matter the Zianul Abidin and his wife families owned 50% of the wealth of Tunisia.

The chronic lack of jobs and upward mobility was perhaps the biggest factor driving millions of enraged Egyptian Youths into the streets demanding change. The western world must not fear about the evolution of democratic polity in the region as Democracy always creates a just order where inherent stability could be achieved and people’s aspirations are given necessary space for outlet which is the most stabilizing factor. We accept the statement made by the Barrack Obama regime that peaceful transition towards democratic polity is absolutely critical for the long term well-being of Egypt . Now they could speak loudly not just in whispers for the realization of the democratic aspirations, protection of their rights and the society could be free from the repression and poverty which has the potential to corrode values and destroys dignity.

Democracy justly paraphrased by Woodrow Wilson makes the world a safe place has every reason to rejoice on the development in the Arab World. It is subscribed by the Atlanta Charter of 1941: a yearning for freedom, opportunity and rule of law. It is led by the youth as they want change break free from the tyrannical system as William Wordsworth prelude written in the aftermath of the French Revolution:-

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive

But to be young was very heaven

‘This is the greatest day of my life. The country has been liberated after decades of repression’’ Md. Al Baradei, the Nobel Laureate and leader of the Movement commented in the post Mubarak downfall scenario. The Jasmine Revolution of Tunisia (after National Flower of Tunisia) emanated its fragrance which wafted through the entire Arab World to erase the stink of accumulated grime of dictatorship reflected in tyranny and oppression and usurpation of the liberal space. Truth is bound to spread and inflict on unjust system. It is aptly pointed out by Abdul Bari Atwan editor of the Palestinian Daily, Al Quds Al Arabi ‘The Arab nation is patient, but its patience is similar to that of camel. When it is furious, a camel does not stop until it wreaks revenge on its persecutors. It seems that such a camel has now broken from its ties’. The call for the end of the dictatorial regimes has gathered momentum heralding for the building of the political evolution in the region and elsewhere. Here they are able to capture the moral imagination of the international community as long back what Nelson Mandela had achieved against the apartheid regime of South Africa. It is indeed a source of rejuvenation for all the democracy loving people of the world. This is the dawn (democracy) what the Arab People anxiously waited for!

Asad Bin Saif is working with the well-known Mumbai-based social organisation BUILD as coordinator of Campaign, Communication and Advocacy.

As social networking sites link protesters across the Middle East, the US shifts position on Internet freedom.

While the US broadly supports Internet freedom, many American technology companies make handsome profits selling filters and other censoring technology to repressive regimes [GALLO/GETTY]

In early 2010, Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, gave a much-lauded speech on Internet freedom, promising to make online freedoms part of the “American brand”.

At the time, most discussion surrounding the topic in mainstream media was focused almost entirely on Iran and China, two countries well known for their restrictive practices toward the Internet. Clinton focused largely on the two countries, but also noted restrictions on online speech in Tunisia, Uzbekistan, Egypt, and Vietnam, arguing for the development of tools to circumvent Internet filtering and pushing for information freedom.

The Department of State’s Internet freedom agenda, dubbed “21st Century Statecraft”, was well received but managed to raise the ire of various pundits over the course of the past year as they noticed a disconnect between Clinton’s words and the government’s actions.

Much of that ire stemmed from the Department of State’s treatment of WikiLeaks in late 2010, with particular focus on what was effectively censorship by intermediaries Amazon and PayPal, both of which cut off Wikileaks from their services.

New landscape

Cut to one year later and the world’s Internet has been turned on its head: Google has stopped censoring in China, effectively ending its operations there; Egypt has become the second nation to ever shut down the Internet; and Syria–one of the most restrictive countries in the world when it comes to the Internet–has made baby steps toward increased freedom, unblocking Facebook, Blogspot, and YouTube for the first time since 2007.

The Department of State’s agenda seems to have changed as well. On February 15, Secretary Clinton gave a second “Internet freedom” speech at George Washington University. As others, like Evgeny Morozov have noted, this speech demonstrated a marked improvement in understanding the various controls effected toward the Internet.

Rather than focusing on circumvention technology as a silver bullet, Clinton, referring to Internet controls, quipped that there is “no app for that”. She tackled the subject of WikiLeaks head on, not relenting on the legality of the stolen documents, but noting that it was not, in fact, the Department of State that had ordered Amazon’s deactivation of WikiLeaks’ hosting.

But, as Morozov put it, “the bad news is that Clinton’s speech is as important for the subjects that it has avoided”. Indeed, what was sorely lacking from Clinton’s speech was recognition of the ways in which the United States itself impedes Internet freedom.

Corporate filters

Though the Department of State has put ample funding–over $30 million–into circumvention technology, this strategy fails to recognise that the majority of the tools used to filter the Internet are American-made. Companies like Intel, Websense, and Cisco–which was given an innovation award by the State Department for unrelated work–make the filtering products used in China, Vietnam, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, and beyond.

The export controls enacted by the Departments of Commerce and Treasury toward Syria, Iran, Sudan, North Korea, and China affect online freedom as well. Though intended to harm the regimes and not the people, these sanctions effectively restrict the free flow of information online.

For example, Syrian nationals cannot download Google Earth or Chrome. They cannot participate in Google’s Summer of Code, nor can they purchase official copies of Microsoft products.  Even exports of circumvention technology to nationals of Syria is impermissible without a license.

Though some strides have been made in easing these controls–notably toward Iran and Sudan, but not Syria or the others– their stringency harms the livelihoods of the very people they’re meant to help.

Furthermore, there remains a disconnect between 21st Century Statecraft and US realpolitik. When Egypt first cut off the Internet, statements from the highest echelons of the US government–Vice President Joe Biden to be precise–claimed Egyptian President Mubarak was “not a dictator,” undermining potential 21st Century Statecraft initiatives.

US mistakes

Rami Khouri, in a July 2010 New York Times op-ed, remarked: “Feeding both the jailer and the prisoner is not a sustainable or sensible policy. I would not be surprised if some wise-guy young Arab soon sends a tweet to Hilary Clinton saying, ‘you’re either with us, or you’re with the security state.”

Khouri’s prescient comment rings true, even seven months later.

As Rebecca MacKinnon remarks, there is disconnect between Secretary Clinton’s rhetoric and the treatment of the Internet in the United States as well. A recent attempt to shut down 10 sites containing child pornography lead to the Department of Homeland Security mistakenly shutting down 84,000 sites, leading many to question the lack of due process, as well as–no doubt–the department’s technical savvy.

These issues have lead some to question whether the US government has any business at all interfering with–and often, funding–initiatives for greater online freedom.  And indeed, many young Arab activists have expressed not only a lack of desire, but a lack of need for US funding.

In a July 2010 blog post, Mauritanian activist Nasser Weddady stated that: “As of now, it looks to me like Washington DC politicians need Middle East activists a heck lot more than Middle Eastern activists need them.”

Following the events in Tunisia and Egypt–largely unaided by foreign help–this seems truer than ever.

With that in mind, the US is nevertheless uniquely positioned to push for greater freedoms. In addition to its stated values, many of the Internet’s great platforms, not to mention the Internet itself, came from American innovation.

But with great freedom comes great responsibility, and as the Department of State reflects upon its initiative, it should ensure that any move toward greater Internet freedom begins at home.

Jillian York is a writer, blogger, and activist based in Boston. She works at Harvard Law School’s Berkman Centre for Internet & Society and is involved with Global Voices Online.

February 2011

A substantial portion of the more than 1,600 State Department documents WikiLeaks has published recently refer to the ongoing efforts of U.S. diplomacy to isolate and counter the Venezuelan government.

Since Hugo Chavez won the presidency for the first time in 1998, Washington has engaged in numerous efforts to overthrow him, including a failed coup d’etat in April 2002, an oil industry strike that same year, worldwide media campaigns, and various electoral interventions. The State Department has also used its funding agencies, USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), to channel millions of dollars annually to anti-Chavez NGOs, political parties, journalists, and media organizations in Venezuela, who have been working to undermine the Chavez administration and force him from power. When these interventionist policies have been denounced by the Chavez government and others, Washington has repeatedly denied any efforts to isolate or act against the Venezuelan head of state.

By contrast, the State Department cables published by WikiLeaks provide clear evidence that not only has Washington been actively funding anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela, it has also engaged in serious efforts to convince governments worldwide to assume an adversarial position against President Hugo Chavez.

A “Formidable Foe”

In a secret document by current Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Craig Kelly and sent by the U.S. embassy in Santiago in June 2007 to the Secretary of State, CIA, and Southern Command of the Pentagon, along with a series of other U.S. embassies in the region, Kelly proposed “six main areas of action for the U.S. government (USG) to limit Chavez’s influence” and “reassert U.S. leadership in the region.”

Kelly, who played a primary role as “mediator” during the 2009 coup d’etat in Honduras against President Manuel Zelaya, classifies Chavez as an “enemy” in his report. “Know the enemy: We have to better understand how Chavez thinks and what he intends…. To effectively counter the threat he represents, we need to know better his objectives and how he intends to pursue them. This requires better intelligence in all of our countries.” Further on in the memo, Kelly confesses that Chavez is a “formidable foe,” but “he certainly can be taken.”

In 2006, Washington activated a Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Mission Manager for Venezuela and Cuba. The mission, headed by clandestine CIA veteran Timothy Langford, is one of only four such intelligence entities of its type. The others were created to handle intelligence matters relating to Iran, North Korea, and Afghanistan/Pakistan, evidence of the clear priority that Washington has placed on Venezuela as a target of increased espionage and covert operations.

Another suggestion made by Kelly in the secret cable is a recommendation to increase U.S. presence in the region and improve relations with Latin American military forces: “We should continue to strengthen ties to those military leaders in the region who share our concern over Chavez.”

Kelly proposed a “psychological operations” program against the Venezuelan government to exploit its vulnerabilities. “We also need to make sure that the truth about Chavez—his hollow vision, his empty promises, his dangerous international relationships, starting with Iran—gets out, always exercising careful judgment about where and how we take on Chavez directly/publicly.”

Kelly recommended U.S. officials make more visits to the region to “show the flag and explain directly to populations our view of democracy and progress.” Kelly also offered details on how Washington could better exploit the differences among South American governments to isolate Venezuela: “Brazil…can be a powerful counterpoint to Chavez’s project…. Chile offers another excellent alternative to Chavez…. We should look to find other ways to give Chile the lead on important initiatives, but without making them look like they are our puppets or surrogates. Argentina is more complex, but still presents distinct characteristics that should inform our approach to countering Chavez’s influence there.”

Kelly also revealed the pressure Washington has been applying to Mercosur (Market of the South) not to accept Venezuela as a full member in the regional trade bloc. “With regard to Mercosur, we should not be timid in stating that Venezuela’s membership will torpedo U.S. interest in even considering direct negotiations with the trading bloc.”

The cables published by WikiLeaks not only reveal U.S. hostility towards Venezuela, but also the requests made by a few regional leaders and politicians to work against President Chavez. One secret document from October 2009, referring to a meeting between Mexican President Felipe Calderon and U.S. Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, tells how Calderon confessed he was “trying to isolate Venezuela through the Rio Group.”

Several secret documents authored by the U.S. embassy in Colombia reveal efforts by the ex-president Alvaro Uribe to convince Washington to take action against Venezuela. In a December 2007 cable, the U.S. ambassador in Colombia recounts a meeting between Uribe and a delegation of U.S. congressmembers, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. According to the text, Uribe “likened the threat Chavez poses to Latin America to that posed by Hitler in Europe.” In yet another report summarizing a January 2008 meeting between Uribe and the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, Uribe is quoted as recommending military action against Venezuela. “The best counter to Chavez, in Uribe’s view, remains action—including use of the military.” Later in that same cable, Uribe urged Washington to “lead a public campaign against Venezuela…to counter Chavez.”

In addition to regional politicians and U.S. diplomats urging plans against President Chavez, one cable reveals how, during a meeting between a Venezuelan Archbishop and the U.S. ambassador, the religious leader asked Washington to act against his own government. At that meeting in January 2005, according to the document, Archbishop Baltazar Porras told Ambassador William Brownfield that the “U.S. government should be more clear and public in its criticism of the Chavez administration” and that the “international community also needs to work and speak out more to contain Chavez.”

The plans and strategies revealed through these documents confirm what other evidence has already corroborated, i.e., that the U.S. continues to fund opposition groups that undermine Venezuelan democracy while escalating its hostile discourse and policies against the Chavez government.

Eva Golinger, winner of the International Award for Journalism in Mexico (2009), is a Venezuelan-American attorney and author of The Chavez Code (2005) and Bush vs. Chavez: Washington’s War on Venezuela (2006).

February 2011

Mark Weisbrot’s ZSpace Page

One area of U.S. foreign policy that the WikiLeaks cables help illuminate, which the major media has predictably ignored, is the occupation of Haiti. In 2004, the country’s democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, was overthrown for the second time, through an effort led by the United States government. Officials in Haiti’s constitutional government were jailed and thousands of its supporters were killed.

The Haitian coup, besides being a repeat of Aristide’s overthrow in 1991, was also very similar to the attempted coup in Venezuela in 2002, which had Washington’s fingerprints all over it. Some of the same people in Washington were even involved in both efforts. But the Venezuelan coup failed, partly because Latin American governments immediately and forcefully declared that they would not recognize the coup government.

In the case of Haiti, Washington learned from its mistakes in the Venezuelan coup and gathered support for an illegitimate government in advance. A UN resolution was passed just days after the coup and UN forces, headed by Brazil, were sent to the country. The mission, still headed by Brazil, has troops from a number of other Latin American governments that are left of center, including Bolivia, Argentina and Uruguay. They are also joined by Chile, Peru, and Guatemala.

Would these governments have sent troops to occupy Venezuela if that coup had succeeded? Clearly, they would not have considered such a move, yet the occupation of Haiti is no more justifiable. South America’s progressive governments have challenged U.S. foreign policy in the region and the world, with some of them regularly using words like imperialism and empire as synonyms for Washington. They have built new institutions such as UNASUR to prevent these kinds of abuses from the North. Bolivia even expelled the U.S. ambassador in September of 2008 for interfering in its own internal affairs.

The participation of these governments in the occupation of Haiti is a serious political contradiction for them and it is getting worse.

The WikiLeaks cables illustrate how important the control of Haiti is to the United States. A long memo from the U.S. embassy in Port-au-Prince to the U.S. Secretary of State answers detailed questions about current Haitian President Rene Preval’s political, personal, and family life, including such vital national security questions as “How many drinks can Preval consume before he shows signs of inebriation?” It also expresses one of Washington’s main concerns: “His reflexive nationalism and his disinterest in managing bilateral relations in a broad diplomatic sense, will lead to periodic frictions as we move forward our bilateral agenda. Case in point, we believe that in terms of foreign policy, Preval is most interested in gaining increased assistance from any available resource. He is likely to be tempted to frame his relationship with Venezuela and Chavez-allies in the hemisphere in a way that he hopes will create a competitive atmosphere as far as who can provide the most to Haiti.”

This is why they got rid of Aristide, who was much to the left of Preval and why we won’t let him back in the country. This is why Washington funded the recent “elections” that excluded Haiti’s largest political party, the equivalent of shutting out the Democrats and Republicans in the United States. And this is why MINUSTAH (the UN-backed military mission) is still occupying the country, more than six years after the coup, without any apparent mission other than replacing the hated Haitian army, which Aristide abolished as a repressive force.

People who do not understand U.S. foreign policy think that control over Haiti does not matter to Washington because it is poor and has no strategic minerals or resources. But that is not how Washington operates, as the WikiLeaks cables illustrate.

For the State Department and its allies, it is all a ruthless chess game, and the pawns matter. Left governments will be removed or prevented from taking power where it is possible to do so. The poorest countries—like Honduras—present the most opportune targets. A democratically-elected government in Haiti, due to its history, would inevitably be a left government and one that will not line up with Washington’s foreign policy priorities for the region. Hence, democracy is not allowed.

Thousands of Haitians have been protesting the sham December 2010 elections, as well as MINUSTAH’s role in causing the cholera epidemic, which has taken more than 2,300 lives. Judging from the rapid spread of the disease, there may have been gross criminal negligence, i.e., large-scale dumping of fecal waste into the Artibonite River. This mission costs over $500 million a year, when the UN can’t even raise a third of that to fight the epidemic that the mission caused or to provide clean water for Haitians. Now the UN is asking for an increase to over $850 million for MINUSTAH.

It is time that the progressive governments of Latin America quit this occupation. It goes against their principles and the will of the Haitian people.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: The Phony Crisis, writes a weekly column for the Guardian (UK), and has written numerous articles on economic and foreign policy.

From:   Z Net – The Spirit Of Resistance Lives

23 February, 2011

Al Jazeera

Israel’s media presents Egyptian democracy as a threat, with one commentator lamenting the end of colonialism

Over the past three weeks the Israeli media has been extremely interested in Egypt.

During the climatic days of the unprecedented demonstrations, television news programmes spent most of their airtime covering the protests, while the daily papers dedicated half the news and opinion pages to the unfolding events.

Rather than excitement at watching history in the making, however, the dominant attitude here, particularly on television, was of anxiety– a sense that the developments in Egypt were inimical to Israel’s interests. Egypt’s revolution, in other words, was bad news.

It took a while for Israel’s experts on “Arab Affairs” to get a grip on what was happening. During the early days of unrest, the recurrent refrain was that “Egypt is not Tunis”.

Commentators assured the public that the security apparatuses in Egypt are loyal to the regime and that consequently there was little if any chance that President Hosni Mubarak’s government would fall.

Media switch

Once it became clear that this line of analysis was erroneous, most commentators followed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s lead and criticised President Barack Obama’s Administration for not supporting Mubarak. The Foreign News editor of one channel noted that: “The fact that the White House is permitting the protests is reason for worry;” while the prominent political analyst Ben Kaspit expressed his longing for President George W. Bush.

“We remember 2003 when George Bush invaded and took over Iraq with a sense of yearning”, Ben Kaspit wrote. “Libya immediately changed course and allied itself with the West. Iran suspended its military nuclear program. Arafat was harnessed. Syria shook with fear. Not that the invasion of Iraq was a wise move (not at all, Iran is the real problem, not Iraq), but in the Middle East whoever does not walk around with a big bat in his hand receives the bat on his head.”

Israeli commentators are equivocal on the issue of Egyptian democracy. One columnist explained that it takes years for democratic institutions to be established and for people to internalise the practices appropriate for democracy, while Amir Hazroni from NRG went so far as to write an ode to colonialism:

“When we try to think how and why the United States and the West lost Egypt, Tunis, Yemen and perhaps other countries in the Middle East, people forget that. The original sin began right after WWII, when a wonderful form of government that protected security and peace in the Middle East (and in other parts of the Third Word) departed from this world following pressure from the United States and Soviet Union… More than sixty years have passed since the Arab states and the countries of Africa were liberated from the ‘colonial yoke,’ but there still isn’t an Arab university, an African scientist or a Middle Eastern consumer product that has made a mark on our world.”

Fear and the brotherhood

While only a few commentators are as reactionary as Hazroni, an Orientalist perspective permeated most of the discussion about Egypt, thus helping to bolster the already existing Jewish citizenry’s fear of Islam. Political Islam is constantly presented and conceived as an ominous force that is antithetical to democracy.

Thus, in the eyes of Israeli analysts, the protestors- that Facebook and Twitter generation- are deserving of empathy but also extremely naïve. There is a shared sense that their fate will end up being identical to that of the Iranian intellectuals who led the protests against the Shah.

Channel Two’s expert on “Arab Affairs” explained that: “The fact that you do not see the Muslim Brotherhood does not mean they are not there,” and another expert warned his viewers not to “be misled by ElBaradei’s Viennese spirit, behind him is the Muslim Brotherhood.”

According to these pundits, the Muslim Brotherhood made a tactical decision not to distribute Islamists banners or to take an active part in leading the protests. One commentator declared that if the Muslim Brotherhood wins, then “elections are the end of the [democratic] process, not its beginning,” while an anchorman for Channel Ten asked former Minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer whether “the person who says to himself: ‘How wonderful, at last the state of Egypt is a democracy,’ is naïve?”

The Minister responded: “Allow me even to laugh. We wanted a democracy in Iran and in Gaza. The person who talks like this is ignoring the fact that for over a decade there has been a struggle of giants between the Sunni and Shia with tons of blood spilled. The person who talks about democracy does not live in the reality we live in.”

Democratic threat

Ben-Eliezer’s response is telling, not least because it is well known that Israel supported the Shah regime in Iran and has not proven itself to be a particularly staunch supporter of Palestinian democracy. Democracy in the Middle East is, after all, conceived by this and prior Israeli governments as a threat to Israel’s interests.

Dan Margalit, a well-known commentator, made this point clear when he explained that Israel does not disapprove of a democracy in the largest Arab country but simply privileges Israel’s peace agreement with Egypt over internal Arab affairs.

Israel, one should note, is not alone in this self-serving approach; most western countries constantly lament the absence of democracy in the Arab world, while supporting the dictators and helping them remain in office. In English this kind of approach has a very clear name – it is called hypocrisy.

Neve Gordon is the author of Israel’s Occupation and can be reached through his website.

Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2011

A man is arrested by police in front of the Peace Cinema, where internet social networks were calling to join a “Jasmine Revolution” protest, in downtown Shanghai on February 20, 2011.

It has been fascinating to watch as Beijing traverses the tricky ground of revolution in the Middle East. Even as the United States is clearly struggling to find its voice on the dramatic changes underway, China’s leadership has found itself caught between the potential advantages that might accrue to the country and the challenges that it may well face.

In the early days of the protests, some Chinese commentators suggested that the U.S. loss would be China’s gain. As Mei Xinyu noted in the Global Times, “There is obvious complementarity between these countries and China. China not only has growing demand for external market and resources but also exports high-quality engineering services. After the pains of political instability, we can realistically expect these countries to seek more extensive cooperation with China in order to reduce their dependence on the West.”

Of course others weighed in with a different voice. A Caixin editorial noted, “Autocracy creates instability; democratic deliberations lead to peace. Support for the replacement of an authoritarian regime would only serve short-term interests. Only the establishment of democratic institutions in the Middle East will form a fundamental basis for long-term stability.”

But the early days are over. Now Beijing faces a different kind of challenge. Muammar al-Qaddafi has resurrected the ghost of June 1989, talking about fighting to the “last drop” of his blood and using the military to crush protestors like the Chinese government did in Tiananmen Square. It’s never pleasant to have others reference your bloody history, particularly when you have yet to come to terms with it.

At the same time, some pro-democracy activists in China have started calling for a series of peaceful protests to be held every Sunday across a number of Chinese cities—a jasmine revolution. The first Sunday of protests fizzled out, but the reaction from the Chinese government was instructive—thousands of armed police massed at the identified protest locations, university students were urged to stay on campus, and known political dissidents were detained.

Thus far, Beijing has surprised no one by its moves to block public mention of Qaddafi’s statements. However, it has surprised many with its agreement to sign on to a UN Security Council statement that discusses the necessity of Libya respecting “freedom of peaceful assembly and of expression, including freedom of the press.” The irony is striking, of course, but no more striking than the writing of Mr. Mei, who notes: “Under pressure from domestic audiences disgusted at the tales of corruption and repression emerging from the aftermath of the regime, the Western powers were forced to abandon their complacent pro-dictatorship stance.” Did he intend the irony?

24 February, 2011

Falls Church News-Press

It has taken two months for the contagion that began with the immolation of a fruit seller in Tunisia to reach the first significant oil producing nation.

As oil production in Libya grinds to a halt and Muammar Gadhafi clings to power amidst increasing turmoil, it is beginning to look as if it may be sometime before Tripoli resumes its normal oil exports. While the 1.6 million barrels a day (b/d) that the Libyans pumped in January may not appear significant in a world that produces some 88 million barrels each day, we should remember that those barrels are being consumed somewhere in a world where they are consumed just as fast as they are produced. If there is anything that we have learned in the last 40 years, it is that relatively small disruptions in oil production can lead to relatively large increases in oil prices.

OPEC, the International Energy Agency, and the Saudi oil minister are already rushing to reassure us that we have nothing to fear. The OECD has reserve stockpiles totaling 1.6 billion barrels of oil and OPEC is forever reminding us about the six million b/d of spare oil production capacity that they claim can be turned on as soon as it becomes necessary. This of course would be nice if the upheaval in Libya was going to be the only problem, but it isn’t. There are at least half a dozen major Middle East oil exporters with large numbers of digitally-connected underemployed youths and are run by heredity or less-than-democratic corrupt governments. In recent days we have seen flavors of the “Tunisian contagion” erupt in Algeria, Kuwait, Iran, and Iraq which are indeed very significant oil exporters. The upheaval in Bahrain, not a major exporter, has even had a, so far minor, reflection in the Shiite portions of Saudi Arabia with its 8 and maybe 10 or 12 million b/d of oil production. This week the King of Saudi Arabia announced $35 billion worth of government aid to the poorest of his subjects suggesting that someone in Riyadh is getting nervous.

The conditions that created the current upheavals can only worsen. Rising oil prices are bound to stifle tourism and foreign investment in the Middle East and a looming global food shortage seems likely to make life even tougher for the growing ranks of un- or underemployed poor. Governments that have massive oil revenues can afford to buy, or try to buy, the acquiescence of their peoples, but adequate food supplies could turn out to be a different matter. As we saw with Russia last summer, massive crop failures can easily shut down food exports as governments become more concerned about domestic food riots than the wellbeing of other countries. The bottom line is that it seems likely we shall be seeing disruptions, perhaps serious ones, in other oil producing states in the not too distant future.

Those closely watching the balance between worldwide oil supply and demand are well aware that getting the global economy through the next 18 months without a major oil price spike depends largely on two factors. First is a significant drop in the rate of increase in China’s demand for oil which has been growing unusually quickly in the last six months. Second is the existence of OPEC’s spare production capacity which will have to come into play to prevent shortages from developing. While the IEA currently puts this spare capacity at 4.7 million b/d, and the Saudis alone insist they can pump another four million b/d, other observers say this figure is likely to be too optimistic. No country, not even the Saudis, can or would want to pump up and sell its last possible barrel for long. Some well-informed observers believe that the Saudi’s effective spare capacity may be more on the order to two million b/d provided they decide to produce it.

Add the loss of all or a major portion of Libyan oil production for an unknown period and the likely more-than-forecasted increase in Chinese demand, to the possibility that the Saudis will never produce much more than 10 million b/d, and the world is in for some real problems. To avoid shortages, the price of oil will be moving significantly higher. This week we have already seen oil trade in London at $108 a barrel and analysts are already talking about oil moving beyond the $147 all-time nominal peak set three years ago – a notion that was widely rejected four weeks ago. Should oil get back in the vicinity of $150 or beyond later this year, recent history tells us that a violent reaction is likely to set in. Given the fragility of the US and other OECD economies, the demand for oil is likely to drop sharply and with it will fall much economic activity fostered by people moving around in cars and planes or spending discretionary money.

The question of the day, however, is whether or not the current political upheavals will come to be recognized as a major turning point in the history of the oil age. There is no question that the loss of Libyan production, if prolonged, will accelerate the day when global oil production begins its final decline towards the end of the oil age.

However, the optimistic case holds that any outage of Libyan production will be of short duration and the upheavals will not spread to other oil exporting countries. If this should be true much higher oil prices could be delayed for a year or two. The pessimistic case says that the Libyan outage will continue for a while; will not be replaced by a rapid increase in Saudi exports; additional shortages will develop if other oil exporters have significant domestic problems: and the current price increases continue steadily until the global economy falters. If this should occur the Tunisian contagion really was an inflection point in world history.

24 February, 2011

Al Jazeera

Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, has said in a speech on Libyan state television that al-Qaeda is responsible for the uprising in Libya.

“It is obvious now that this issue is run by al-Qaeda,” he said, speaking by phone from an unspecified location on Thursday.

He said that the protesters were young people who were being manipulated by al-Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden, and that many were doing so under the influence of drugs.

“No one above the age of 20 would actually take part in these events,” he said. “They are taking advantage of the young age of these people [to commit violent acts] because they are not legally liable!”

At the same time, the leader warned that those behind the unrest would be prosecuted in the country’s courts.

He called on Libyan parents to keep their children at home.

“How can you justify such misbehaviour from people who live in good neighbourhoods?” he asked.

The situation in Libya was different to Egypt or Tunisia he said, arguing that unlike people in the neighbouring countrie,  Libyans have “no reason to complain whatsoever”.

Libyans had easy access to low interest loans and cheap daily commodities, he argued. The one reform he did hint might be possible was a raise in salaries.

Mustafa Abdel Galil, who resigned three days ago from his post as the country’s justice minister, spoke to Al Jazeera at a meeting of tribal leaders and representatives of eastern Libya in the city of Al Baida.

He warned that Gaddafi has biological and chemical weapons, and will not hesitate to use them.

“We call on the international community and the UN to prevent Gaddafi from going on with his plans in Tripoli,” he said.

“At the end when he’s really pressured, he can do anything. I think Gaddafi will burn everything left behind him.”

The United Nation’s Human Rights Council will decide whether it will send an international team to investigate the alleged violations of international human rights law in Libya at a meeting in Geneva on Friday.

‘Symbolic’ leader

Gaddafi argued that he was a purely “symbolic” leader with no real political power, comparing his role to that played by Queen Elizabeth II in England.

He also warned that the protests could cut off Libya oil production. “If [the protesters] do not go to work regularly, the flow of oil will stop,” he said.

Ibrahim Jibreel, a Libyan political activist, said that the fact that Gaddafi was speaking by phone showed that he did not have the courage to appear publically, and proved that he remained “under self-imposed house arrest in Tripoli”.

Jibreel said there were similarities between Thursday’s speech and one Gaddafi gave earlier in the week.

“The theme of people who have taken pills and hallucinations is one that continues to occur,” he said.

Jibreel noted Gaddafi’s reference to loans and that he would reconsider salaries. “I think that there [are] some concessions that he wants to make, in his own weird way,” he said.

Struggling

Gaddafi is struggling to maintain his authority in the country, as major swathes of territory in the east of the vast North African country now appear to be under the control of pro-democracy protesters.

Ali, an eyewitness to the shooting, told Al Jazeera by phone that soldiers began shooting at peaceful protesters on Martyrs’ Square with heavy artillery at around 6am and had continued for 5 hours.

“They were trying to kill the people, not terrify them,” he said, explaining that the soldiers had aimed at the protesters’ heads and chests.

He estimated as many as 100 protesters had been killed. Approximately 400 people had been injured and were now in the town’s hospital. He said he had filmed the bodies after the shooting had stopped, but was unable to send the footage because internet access has been cut off.

“The people here didn’t ask for anything, they just asked for a constitution and democracy and freedom, they didn’t want to shoot anyone,” he said.

Gunfire could be heard in the background as Ali spoke, and he said the protesters were expecting the soldiers to launch another direct attack on Martyrs’ Square later in the evening.

Despite the risk of more shooting, he said he and the other protesters would continue their protest, even if it cost their lives.

Mosque ‘attacked’

Also on Thursday, a Libyan army unit led by Gaddafi’s ally, Naji Shifsha, blasted the minaret of a mosque being occupied by protesters in Az Zawiyah, according to witnesses.

According to witnesses, pro-Gaddafi forces also attacked the town of Misrata, which was under the control of protesters.

They told Al Jazeera that “revolutionaries had driven out the security forces”, who had used “heavy machine guns and anti-aircraft guns”.

They said the pro-Gaddafi forces were called the “Hamza brigade”.

Similar clashes have also been reported in the cities of Sabha in the south, and Sabratha, near Tripoli, which is in the west.

Anti-government protesters appeared to be in control of the country’s eastern coastline, running from the Egyptian border through to the cities of Tobruk and Benghazi, the country’s second largest city.

Ahmed Gadhaf al-Dam, one of Gaddafi’s top security official and a cousin, defected on Wednesday evening, saying in a statement issued by his Cairo office that he left the country “in protest and to show disagreement” with “grave violations to human rights and human and international laws”.

Al-Dam was travelling to Syria from Cairo on a private plane, sources told Al Jazeera. He denied allegations that he was asked to recruit Egyptian tribes on the border to fight in Libya and said he went to Egypt in protest against his government’s used of violence.

Communications blocked

Libyan authorities are working hard to prevent news of the events in the country from reaching the outside world.

Thuraya, a satellite phone provider based in the United Arab Emirates, has faced continuous “deliberate inference” to its services in Libya, the company’s CEO told Al Jazeera.

Samer Halawi, the company’s CEO, said his company will be taking legal action against the Libyan authorities for the jamming of its satellite.

“This is unlawful and this in uncalled for,” he said.

The company’s engineers have had some success in combating the jamming, and operations were back on almost 70 per cent of the Libyan territory on Thursday, Halawi said. The blocking was coming from a location in Tripoli.

The Libyan government has blocked landline and wireless communications, to varying degrees, in recent days.

Some phone services were down again on Thursday. In the town of Az Zawiyah, phone lines were working but internet access was blocked.

Nazanine Moshri, reporting from the northern side of the Tunisian-Libyan border near the town of Ras Ajdir, said that security forces were confiscating cellphones and cameras from people crossing into Tunisia.

“The most important thing to them is to not allow any footage to get across the border into Tunisia,” she reported.

Capital paralysed

Tripoli, the Libyan capital, meanwhile, is said to be virtually locked down, and streets remained mostly deserted, even though Gaddafi had called for his supporters to come out in force on Wednesday and “cleanse” the country from the anti-government demonstrators.

Libyan authorities said food supplies were available as “normal” in the shops and urged schools and public services to restore regular services, although economic activity and banks have been paralysed since Tuesday.

London-based newspaper the Independent reported, however, that petrol and food prices in the capital have trebled as a result of serious shortages.

Foreign governments, meanwhile, continue to rush to evacuate their citizens, with thousands flooding to the country’s borders with Tunisia and Egypt.

24 February, 2011

Countercurrents.org

It dates from America’s 19th century industrial expansion when workers moved away from farms to factories, mines, and other urban environments, with harsh working conditions, low pay, and other exploitive abuses. As a result, labor movements emerged, organizing workers to lobby for better rights and safer conditions, pitting them against corporate bosses yielding nothing without a fight.

During unionism’s formative years, workers were terrorized for organizing. In company-owned towns, they were thrown out of homes, beaten, shot, and hanged to leave management empowered.

The 1892 Homestead Steel Works strike culminated in a violent battle between Pinkerton agents and workers. As a result, seven were killed, dozens wounded, and, at the behest of Andrew Carnegie, owner of Carnegie Steel, Governor Robert Pattison sent National Guard troops to evict workers from company homes, make arrests, and help CEO Henry Clay Frick’s union busting strategy. It worked, preventing organizing of the Works for the next 40 years.

The Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions chose May 1, 1886 as the date for an eight-hour work day to become standard. As the date approached, unions across America prepared to strike. On May 1, national rallies were held, involving up to 500,000 workers.

On May 4, the landmark Haymarket Square riot protested police violence against strikers the previous day. Someone threw a bomb. Police opened fire. Deaths resulted. Seven so-called anarchists were convicted of murder. Four were executed.

Radicalized by the incident, Emma Goldman became a powerful social justice voice through writing, lecturing, being imprisoned for her activism, and finally emigrating to Russia after its revolution, then elsewhere in Europe. After her death, she was buried in Chicago near the graves of the Haymarket radicals she supported.

Led by American Railway Union’s Eugene Debs, the 1894 Pullman strike was the first national one, involving 250,000 workers in 27 states and territories. America’s entire rail labor force struck, paralyzing the nation’s railway system. At the time, The New York Times called it “a struggle between the greatest and most important labor organization and the entire railroad capital.”

At issue were unfair labor practices, including long hours, low pay, poor working conditions, and little sympathy from owner George Pullman. On his behalf, President Grover Cleveland sent federal troops. Hundreds of others were given police powers. At the time, unionists were seen threatening US prosperity.

The strike was broken, killing 13, wounding dozens and resulting in Debs’ arrest, trial, conviction for violating a court injunction, and imprisonment for six months. Radicalized by the experience, he became America’s leading socialist figure when released, later running five times for president, in 1920 while again in prison for opposing US involvement in WW I.

Founded in 1905, the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW or Wobblies) had 100,000 members at its peak in the 1920s. Led by Big Bill Haywood, Eugene Debs, and others, it was committed to help workers against abusive management practices. It’s motto was “an injury to one is an injury to all.” It’s goal was revolutionary, saying in its Constitution:

“The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people. (The) struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the (unfair) wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth….It is the mission of the working class to do away with capitalism (for) a new society within the shell of the old.”

As a result, corporate bosses and Washington sought to crush it. In 1917, the Wilson administration used the Espionage and Sedition Act to raid and disrupt union meetings across the country, arresting hundreds on the grounds that they hindered the war effort by opposing it. In 1918, they were tried, convicted and given long sentences, except Haywood. Released on bail after conviction, he fled to Russia where he remained.

From 1918 – 21, the infamous Palmer Raids ravaged the union further during the time of the first Red Scare, effectively busting it, though it’s still around, a shadow of its former self. Visit its web site at iww.org to follow their latest activities, including comments on class warfare in Wisconsin.

In the early 20th century, Colorado labor wars raged, notably pitting mine bosses, National Guard troops, and strikebreakers against workers. In his People’s History of the United States, Howard Zinn wrote poignantly about the 1913-14 Ludlow, CO coal strike and subsequent massacre, killing 75 or more strikers, strikebreakers, and bystanders for defying what he called “fuedal kingdoms run by (coal barons that) made the laws,” imposed curfews, and ran their operations more like despots than businessmen.

Other Union Busting Efforts

During the 1902 coal strike, 14 miners were killed and 22 injured in Pana, IL. In 1904, a Dunnville, CO battle between state militia forces and workers left six dead, others injured, 15 arrested, and 79 exiled to Kansas.

During the 1909 New York shirtwaist strike, female garment workers were arrested, a judge telling them, “You are on strike against God.” In March 1911, a fire at New York’s Triangle Shirtwaist factory killed 46, mostly women and young girls working in sweatshop conditions. They still exist today. Earlier articles discussed them, accessed through the following links:

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2009/03/modern-slavery-in-america.html

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2010/02/global-sweatshop-wage-slavery.html

In 1912, the IWW-led Lawrence, MA Bread and Roses textile strike was largely successful. It was credited with inventing the moving picket line, a tactic to avoid arrest for loitering. Also in 1912, National Guard forces were used against striking West Virginia coal miners. In July that year, striking Brotherhood of Timber Workers were confronted by armed Galloway Lumber Company thugs, resulting in four deaths and dozens wounded, the incident called the Grabow Riot.

In 1913, New Orleans police shot three maritime workers, striking against the United Fruit Company. One died.

In 1914, Butte, Montana militia crushed striking Western Federation of Miners workers.

On January 19, 1915, famed labor leader Joe Hill was arrested in Salt Lake City, UT on bogus murder charges. Nonetheless, he was executed 21 months later. Before his death, he wrote Bill Haywood saying, “Don’t mourn – organize!” The same day, Roosevelt, NJ factory guards shot 20 rioting strikers.

In 1916, Everett (WA) Mills strikebreakers attacked and beat strikers. Police stood back without intervening, claiming the incident took place on federal land. Three days later, 22 unionists were arrested for speaking out. In October that year, IWW members were beaten, whipped, kicked and impaled for their activism. At their subsequent November 5 meeting, seven were shot and killed, 50 others wounded, and unknown numbers were unaccounted for.

Numerous other incidents at that time involved shootings, hangings, beatings, and arrests, unionists viciously attacked to disrupt them.

In 1919, nearly four million workers struck, including against against steel and coal companies. Management retaliated. The year’s Great Steel Strike failed. Company owners called workers dangerous radicals threatening America. Federal and National Guard troops again were used, resulting in violence, deaths, injuries and arrests. From 1919 – 23, numerous coal strikes also occurred, government again siding with management.

In 1920, the Battle of Matewan resulted in nine deaths, later sparking an armed rebellion of 10,000 West Virginia coal miners at the Battle of Blair Mountain, the largest insurrection since the Civil War against which army troops intervened.

In 1922, the Herrin, IL coal strike massacre left 21 dead. In 1927, picketing coal miners were massacred in the company town of Serene, CO. In 1929, National Guard troops and armed thugs destroyed the National Textile Workers Union (NTWU) office during the Loray Mill Strike.

During the 1937 Little Steel strike, Youngstown Steel and Tube and Republic Steel employed hundreds of armed police who fired on strikers trying to prevent scabs from entering factories. On May 30, things exploded when Chicago police joined them, opening fire on picketing strikers and their families, killing 10 and injuring hundreds.

Earlier in the 1930s, unionists were convicted of criminal syndicalism. Vigilantes beat Harlan County, KY strikers. Police killed striking Ford Dearborn, MI strikers. Four cotton workers were killed on strike. National Guard forces killed two Toledo, OH Electric Auto-Lite strikers, wounding hundreds. Police attacked and fired on striking Minneapolis Teamsters. Other deaths, beatings and arrests occurred throughout the decade, even after passage of the landmark 1935 Wagner Act.

In 1932, the Hoover administration warred on WW I veterans, demanding promised bonuses. General Douglas MacArthur-led government troops burned their camps for marching peacefully for their rights.

In 1962, Jack Kennedy’s Executive Order 10988 established limited collective bargaining rights for federal employees. It spawned state and local efforts to expand theirs.

In 1968, National Guard troops were used against Memphis, TN sanitation worker strikers, days before Martin Luther King’s assassination, there to support them. Violence followed, including beatings. A young unarmed boy was killed emerging from a housing development.

Union busting post-WW II was mostly nonviolent, but just as determined to deny workers their rights after passage of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act. It greatly weakened union clout, allowing stiff penalties for noncompliance.

It enacted “unfair labor practices,” prohibiting jurisdictional strikes (relating to worker job assignments), secondary boycotts (against companies doing business with others being struck), wildcat strikes, sit-downs, slow-downs, mass-picketing against scabs, closed shops (in which workers must join unions), union contributions to federal political campaigns (now freely given candidates), and more while legalizing employer interventions to prevent unionizing drives.

Serious erosion of union power to bargain collectively followed. As a result, employers can illegally fire union sympathizers and receive only minor wrist slap fines after years of expensive litigation to prove wrongdoing. Moreover, they can fire workers for any reason like incompetence or none at all. In addition, strikes are further neutralized because companies can hire replacements or threaten to move offshore.

Since the 1980s especially, earlier hard won rights significantly eroded after Reagan busted PATCO strikers, discussed in a previous article, accessed through the following link:

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/02/wisconsin-ground-zero-to-save-public.html

From then to now, it’s been all downhill to where private and public workers face losing all rights unless mass activism resists. Despite Wisconsin heroics, national actions are sorely lacking, largely because union bosses collude with management and political leaders against their own rank and file.

“Confessions of a Union Buster”

In his book, Martin Jay Levitt describes from experience what happens, saying:

“Union busting is a field populated by bullies and built on deceit. A campaign against a union is an assault on individuals and a war on the truth. As such, it is war without honor. The only way to bust a union is to lie, distort, manipulate, threaten, and always (one way or another) attack. The law does not (intervene)….rather, it serves to suggest maneuvers and define strategies,” pitting media-supported companies, government, and corrupted union bosses against rank and file unionists, on their own, their grit, resourcefulness, and staying power alone for strategy.

Levitt also calls the National Labor Relations (Wagner) Act a “union buster’s best friend” because “its complexity….presents endless possibilities for delays, roadblocks, and maneuvers that can undermine a union’s efforts and frustrate” members. The union buster’s key tactic is delay ahead of elections, buying time to organize “counter organizing drives,” targeting members and immediate supervisors to fear, not embrace, unionism as allied with their interests.

Efforts are also made to discredit unionists by “routinely pr(ying) into (their) police records, personnel files, credit histories, medical records, and family lives in search of a weakness” to use against them. When no dirt’s found, targeted workers are called gay or accused of cheating on their wives. It works in blue collar towns.

Other techniques involve “sackings,” even though illegal under NLRA’s Section 8(a)(3), prohibiting firing workers for urging others to join unions. Nonetheless, union busters know that reinstatement procedures take time, often years. The idea is to weaken support prior to elections, focusing heavily on winning over supervisor support, who, in turn, can influence rank and file members.

Learn more on Levitt’s web site, accessed through the following link:

http://www.unionbusting101.com/index.html

He also provides “Top Secret” information of what can and can’t be said on the issues, accessed through the link below:

http://www.unionbusting101.com/Top_Secret.pdf

He calls his purpose an effort “to inform and educate WORKERS and Union Organizers about what to expect from management in regards to Union Busting Terrorist Tactics used during union campaigns by management and their consultants in their attempt to defeat their employees from forming a union….or destroy (ones) that already exist.”

Nonetheless, the Wagner Act, though measurably weakened, lets workers unionize. Specifically, its Section 7 states:

“Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection.”

Levitt also provides information on union busting propaganda, tactics used by Walmart and other companies, labor union resources, for-profit union busters, and more.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI) and American Rights at Work Education Fund on Thwarting Union Organizing

On May 20, 2009, they cited a new five-year study, showing employer anti-union behavior intensifying. Cornell University Professor Kate Bronfenbrenner (a noted labor expert) said employers are more than twice as likely to use 10 or more tactics to thwart organizing efforts.

Titled “No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing,” it focused on coercive and punitive tactics against organizing efforts, including threats, intimidation, interrogation, harassment, surveillance, retaliation and firings to thwart it. As a result, most workers without unions who want them at best find their wish indefinitely postponed.

Even when workers successfully unionize, 52% have no contract a year later, and for 37% it’s two years. Moreover, besides intensive union busting tactics, employers are less likely to offer incentives such as unscheduled raises, positive personnel changes, bribes, special favors, social events, promises of improvement, and employee involvement programs.

In addition, private sector campaigns differ markedly from public sector ones, at least during the 1999 – 2003 period she studied. Recent events in Wisconsin, Ohio and other states show this very much is changing. Though most states let workers freely organize, current tactics show they’re subjected to similar private sector tactics to strip away their rights and leave them powerless.

As a result, unionists face increasingly hard times because companies, government, and corrupted union bosses use today’s economic environment against them, pleading hard times reasons for cutting back when, if fact, they’re exploiting current conditions to reward corporate favorites at their expense.

Joe Hill was right saying “organize” to fight back. So is imprisoned human rights lawyer Lynne Stewart, saying: “Organize – Agitate, Agitate, Agitate, Love Struggle!”

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/.