Archives: Articles

The dominoes are knocking over each other at such a rapid pace that India should not be surprised if Naxalites and Maoists find curious backers in the highest echelons of the State. Not because people up there are particularly endeared to Naxalite strategy and tactics, but some of them are reconsidering their options and have realized that in this insane rush towards ramrodding India into a neo-liberal Valhalla, a large majority of the citizens of India are being ripped apart, torn asunder and shoved into the gutters, sewers, swamps and bogs of this nation. Something is going wrong and if a course correction is not made now, things are going down the tubes to hell in a hand basket. The collateral damage has been so obvious that no less than the Central Government’s own offices have declared the attempts at displacing the “poorest of the poor” (the PM’s own words), and the forced evacuation and hamletization of aboriginal people, as the “biggest land grab since Columbus. ” Whoever drafted that phrase or statement is an extraordinarily thoughtful and historically wary person. Because she or he knew what was around the bend. And it has come about faster than the powers ever imagined. It was supposed to have been done surreptitiously, quietly and with the fanfare and dog and pony show associated with 9% growth drowning out the screams of the displaced. It did not pan out that way.

Indians, be they analysts, economists, bureaucrats, historians, scientists, advocates, IAS officers and even retired senior commanders in the services are not unconscious and ahistorical babblers. After all Indians bore the brunt of the British Empire for two hundred years. The process of colonization is such that it leaves behind a genealogy of awareness, of remembrance, the ability to connect the dots and not be taken for a ride. Indians pass on the lessons of their parents’ generation to their next in line. To put it bluntly, Indians are not fools. They do not take kindly to the incessant repetition of official speak. Just as Iraqis and Afghanis aren’t either. Indians know that occupation, whether it is by goras or by their proxies are never tolerated quietly.

The sons and daughters and the grandchildren of freedom fighters, of Gandhian activists, of Sarvodaya activists, followers of Vinoba Bhave, of the Congress Socialists, of the followers of “Nehruvian socialism”, of the followers of JP Narayan, of those the British chose to call “terrorists” and old-style retired Communists from the Tebhaga and Telengana period, know where “the buck stops.” They may not be supporters of the Maoists, but they know that this time around, something is going terribly wrong and this mad race to “modernize” India has only one group of takers—those who salivate over the glam and glitter of Ratan Tata, Narendra Modi, the Ambanis, the Jindals, the Mallyas and their main backers, Chidambaram, Ahluwalia, Kamal Nath and a handful of others.

The dominoes are beginning to fall. And despite the clear cut statement by the PM’s office that all statements on the Maoist issue will only come from the Home Minister’s office, within twenty four hours, Mr. Digvijay Singh spoke up, and he is no small fish.

“He (Mr Chidambaram) is treating it purely as a law and order problem without taking into consideration the issues that affect the tribals,” Digvijay Singh, wrote in the Economic Times. Further on he went on to say, “We can’t solve this problem by ignoring the hopes and aspirations of the people living in these areas… In a civilised society and a vibrant democracy, ultimately it is the people who matter,” he added.

The chips are going to fall, one by one. It is only a matter of time, before Indians from all walks of life will speak up. It does not have to be the tireless voices of the Roys, the Navlakhas, Sundars, Bhusans, Himanshu Kumars only. And it will not be the voices of Justice PB Sawant and Suresh, Professor Yash Pal, Drs. Giri, Bhargava and Subramanium who officiated in the Indian Peoples Tribunal either. Soon other journals and magazines will join Tehelka, Outlook, Mainstream, Open magazines and occasionally The Hindu and even 24 Ghanta (the Kolkata TV channel), as well. Because, there is a tradition in India of quietly re-visiting the past and not simply concocting a present. There is a tradition of thoughtfulness and a renaissance mentality that gently warns against the rabid promotion of the “us and them” dichotomy. There is a tradition in India of being alert to upstarts who want to steal the show.

Actors, actresses, scientists, sports personalities will also speak up. News channels, despite the corporate sponsorship they enjoy, will eventually break their bondage and slip in the truth from the hills and rivers of Dandakaranya. There is a limit to how much an entire nation can be duped into this proto-fascist frenzy. Shades of George Bush, post-911! It lasted for a while and Ms. Susan Sonntag, Gore Vidal and a host of others were similarly brutally abused for questioning the rabid war-mongering and xenophobia that followed. So will it happen in India. Even in the Bombay movie tradition, there is a long list of Sahnis, Kapoors, Azmis, Abbas, the heirs in Bengal of Bijon Bhattacharya and Shombhu Mitra and the musical tradition of Salil Choudhury, Sahir Ludhianvi, Majrooh Sultanpuri and others all over the country will come out and have their voices be heard.

This is a fork in the road. And if you take the wrong end of the fork, there is no retreat. Hidden agendas will not work in this India. Whether you are a Maoist supporter or not, the facts are clear that the Maoists are NOT on the wrong side of history. You cannot juggle the reality by endlessly discussing the dichotomy of law and order versus development. This is a falsification of the debate. To thump your chest and bemoan the plight of “ our Jawans” as the CPI(Marxist) and the BJP recently did in Parliament, smacks of the same anti-intellectual tradition that followed 911 in the US.

The Maoists have, as per their own interpretations, clearly figured out what is going disastrously wrong and they have chosen to highlight this. Their fight has been a fight of resistance, albeit violent. And while the Maoists did not choose violence as their first step ( the counter-Maoists can continue to whine away about the Maoists constitutional edict to seize power by armed struggle etc, highlighting the aspect of power seizure as if it is an overnight coup d’état and not a long drawn out struggle for structural change) they have no choice but to defend their gains. For a long time, the fathers and mothers of liberalization sold the story to the media and who in turn parroted it out, day in and out that India needed to “liberalize.” Behind that well chosen misnomer, the Indian state sold a bill of goods to India’s proto-gullible middle class that questioning this “liberalization” would amount to un-patriotic activity. And the bloggers, twitterers, facebookers went all out to spread the same gospel. Well, that balance is now being tipped. Scores of blogs and sites have now hit out hard against this one sided misrepresentation.

If India was the same nation, it was some fifteen years ago, it would not attract much attention, either internally or externally. The times have changed. Today, what happens in Dantewada is written about in Washington DC, in San Francisco, in Moscow, in Amsterdam, London, Singapore, Paris and Johannesburg within hours. Call it what you will, there are representatives of the new media, stationed everywhere, picking up on each other’s pronouncements and belting out stories instantaneously. And some of these stories do not bode well for the folks who quietly promoted the camp of the suave and cocky Mr. P. Chidambaram. Because word has gotten around that within the ruling corridors that there is considerable double taking or to put it somewhat euphemistically some soul searching going on. Mr. Chidambaram had some vague notions that one day he would be an applicant for the position of the PM of this country. Dynasty or not, the Gandhi family knows that Chidambaram is a chip of the old block. For those of you who remember, this is the progeny of the Old Congress Syndicate. The ruling class of India are not a monolithic block and they continue to have their own skirmishes and cock-fights like Morarji Desai and Sanjiva Reddy on one side and the VV Giris, Indira-clan on the other side. Let us not forget that out of the Indian electorate of 714 million, 153,482,356 voted for the Congress party (21% of the electorate) and Manmohan Singh had to run in Assam and Chidambaram required a recount to get their seats. Within the UPA, there are plenty of forces who are not going to put up with the high-handedness of the Chidambaram coterie.

Somewhere amongst the denizens in India’s ruling corridors there are families, groupings, influences that have a long lineage going back to India’s struggle to free itself from Britain. In that lineage, non-alignment did well. Playing one superpower against the other. Despite the hidebound theories of the ruling classes’ propensities, the fact is that after all is said and done, the ruling class is not united. On the one hand there are the outright compradors and on the other side are the compromisers who desperately wish for a new superpower. There has always been an Indian state of mind, which eventually shakes itself out of its torpor and calls a spade a spade.

The people of India and I mean those who do not read blogs and do not know who George Dick Obama could be, vote with their fists, when they are kicked around too much. Mrs. Indira Gandhi found that out. The BJP realized that in no time. Karat and Yechury smarted under the same blows and Buddhadev Bhattacharya is going to find it out pretty soon. Even though voter turn out in India is still hardly anything to be proud of, when Indians do vote they vote with their minds.

By Trevor Selvam

17 April, 2010

Countercurrents.org

More than three quarters of the U.S. Senate, including 38 Democrats, have signed on to a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton implicitly rebuking the Obama Administration for its confrontational stance toward Israel.

The letter, backed by the pro-Israel group AIPAC, now has the signatures of 76 Senators and says in part:

We recognize that our government and the Government of Israel will not always agree on particular issues in the peace process. But such differences are best resolved amicably and in a manner that befits longstanding strategic allies. We must never forget the depth and breadth of our alliance and always do our utmost to reinforce a relationship that has benefited both nations for more than six decades.

A similar letter garnered 333 signatures in the House, and its support marks almost unified Republican support for Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, along with strong, but more divided, public Democratic discomfort with Obama’s policies in the region.

Signatories include key Democrats like Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, Chuck Schumer, and Robert Menendez as well as all but four Republicans, with signers including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, John McCain, and Scott Brown.

Majority Whip Dick Durbin, however, did not sign; nor did Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry and ranking member Richard Lugar.

The full Senate letter, circulated by Senators Barbara Boxer and Johnny Isakson, is here.

Dear Secretary Clinton:

We write to urge you to do everything possible to ensure that the recent tensions between the U.S. and Israeli administrations over the untimely announcement of future housing construction in East Jerusalem do not derail Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations or harm U.S.-Israel relations. In fact, we strongly believe that it is more important than ever for Israel and the Palestinians to enter into direct, face-to-face negotiations without preconditions on either side.

Despite your best efforts, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have been frozen for over a year. Indeed, in a reversal of 16 years of policy, Palestinian leaders are refusing to enter into direct negotiations with Israel. Instead, they have put forward a growing list of unprecedented preconditions. By contrast, Israel’s prime minister stated categorically that he is eager to begin unconditional peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Direct negotiations are in the interest of all parties involved – including the United States.

We also urge you to reaffirm the unbreakable bonds that tie the United States and Israel together and to diligently work to defuse current tensions. The Israeli and U.S. governments will undoubtedly, at times, disagree over policy decisions. But disagreements should not adversely affect our mutual interests – including restarting the peace process between Israel and her neighbors and preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

From the moment of Israel’s creation, successive U.S. administrations have appreciated the special relationship between our two nations. Israel continues to be the one true democracy in the Middle East that brings stability to a region where it is in short supply. Whether fighting Soviet expansionism or the current threats from regional aggression and terrorism, Israel has been a consistent, reliable ally and friend and has helped to advance American interests. Similarly, by helping keep Israel strong, the United States has helped to reduce threats to Israel’s security and advance the peace which successive Israeli governments have so avidly sought.

It is the very strength of our relationship that has made Arab-Israeli peace agreements possible, both because it convinced those who desired Israel’s destruction to abandon any such hope and because it gave successive Israeli governments the confidence to take calculated risks for peace. As the Vice President said during his recent visit to Israel: “Progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the U.S. and Israel.” Steadfast American backing has helped lead to peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan.

We recognize that our government and the Government of Israel will not always agree on particular issues in the peace process. But such differences are best resolved amicably and in a manner that befits longstanding strategic allies. We must never forget the depth and breadth of our alliance and always do our utmost to reinforce a relationship that has benefited both nations for more than six decades.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Johnny Isakson

United States Senator

By Ben Smith

In the 1960s, Grace Slick of Jefferson Airplane sang, in “White Rabbit,” about when “the men on the chessboard get up and tell you where to go.” Now, in a surreal, through-the-looking-glass moment, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, the almost classic definition of a pawn, has done exactly that. In a series of angry, frustrated outbursts, Karzai has declared that the United States is acting like an invader and occupier, that “there is a thin curtain between invasion and cooperation-assistance,” that the heavy-handed US and NATO military operations could transform the insurgency into a “national resistance” and that he himself might throw in his lot with the Taliban. He said, not without reason, that the Obama administration was trying to undercut his efforts to reach a settlement with the Taliban. And an Afghan who attended a meeting with Karzai told the New York Times, “He believes that America is trying to dominate the region, and that he is the only one who can stand up to them.” 

The idea that the urbane Karzai, educated in India, might join the Taliban is highly unlikely. Installed in 2001 with US support, Karzai has acquired a well-deserved reputation for tolerating rampant corruption and for making power-sharing deals with violent warlords. And he was almost universally accused of engineering widespread fraud during his re-election bid last August. Still, he has a point, and although he is at best an imperfect vehicle to represent nationalist opinion, Karzai is accurately reflecting the feelings of an increasing number of Afghans about the US occupation, now in its ninth year–feelings no doubt inflamed by recent Afghan government allegations that US Special Operations forces tampered with evidence to cover up their killing of civilian women near Gardez.

Karzai has also launched, apparently without US support, a significant peace initiative. Earlier this year he unexpectedly declared that he would seek to reconcile with top-level Taliban leaders, and he announced his intent to convene a tribal jirga, or council, in May to discuss how to bring the Taliban back into Afghan political life. In March Karzai met with representatives of one of the three main insurgent groups, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s Islamic Party, whose delegates presented a peace plan predicated on a negotiable withdrawal date for US and NATO forces. The plan, according to the delegation, was also acceptable to the main Taliban leadership.

Despite the oft-repeated claim by US government officials that the war has no military solution, Washington has offered little or no support for Karzai’s peace efforts. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Karzai’s meetings with Hekmatyar’s representatives “premature.” American officials have long insisted that US troops must first deliver punishing blows to the Taliban before talks are considered. The Pentagon has telegraphed its plans to launch an all-out offensive to seize control of Taliban-dominated Kandahar beginning in June, following hard upon its mini-offensive to oust the Taliban from Marja, a key district in Helmand province.

But the news on the military front isn’t good. Despite the trumpeting of the supposed US victory in Marja–touted as the first concrete demonstration of the effectiveness of the surge of 30,000-plus troops ordered by Obama in December–the situation there is fast unraveling. The Taliban’s shadow governor for the region has come back, and the insurgents have “re-seized control and the momentum,” according to Maj. James Coffman, a US civil affairs leader in the area. “The Taliban are everywhere,” a tribal elder told a reporter on the scene. The United States can’t afford too many victories like Marja.

Karzai reportedly opposed the Marja offensive. In early April he told tribal elders in Kandahar–where his brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, heads the provincial council–that he isn’t enthusiastic about the planned US attack there either. Ahmed Wali, a notoriously corrupt wheeler-dealer and reputed drug kingpin, also maintains quiet links to Taliban officials. Such ties would be important, perhaps crucial, if there is any hope of a negotiated deal. But astonishingly, a US military officer recently threatened Ahmed Wali with death if he’s caught talking to the Taliban.

What does it mean when the president of the country the United States is occupying says he might join the insurgency? What does it mean when a US officer threatens to kill the president’s brother for meeting with the insurgents? What does it mean when the president opposes major military offensives launched by the occupying power? Here’s what it means: that the US enterprise in Afghanistan is hopelessly misguided.

It’s possible the United States is the only player that doesn’t realize that its strategy can’t work. Karzai is angling for a deal, although whether he can survive in a post-American Afghanistan is open to question. The Taliban and their allies, including Hekmatyar’s Islamic Party, are exploring their options for a political accord. Likewise, India and Pakistan, the two key outside players in Afghanistan’s drama, are maneuvering to gain advantage.

Pakistan, of course, created the Taliban in the 1990s as a cat’s paw for extending influence in Afghanistan. Since then the Pakistani army and intelligence service have maintained not-so-covert ties to the Taliban, and they continue to see the organization as a potential ally even though they have arrested some key leaders recently as a result of US pressure. India, for its part, long supported Karzai’s allies in the old anti-Taliban Northern Alliance. But recently the startling news emerged that New Delhi is making plans to open direct lines to the Taliban. That could mean India does not want to cede to Pakistan the sole power to bring the Taliban to the bargaining table.

In his December speech announcing the surge, Obama declared that US forces would begin to withdraw in July 2011. Whether or not he holds to that date, all of the region’s players are making plans based on the notion that the occupation can’t last much longer. It certainly can’t be sustained much longer in the United States politically–the burden it places on the budget in a time of economic crisis and vast deficits is too great, and the likelihood of quick battlefield successes is diminishing. Though Obama has already carried out two major reviews of Afghan policy, it’s time for a third. And this one has to center on the question of how to engage all of the stakeholders in Afghanistan’s tragedy in search of a political accord.

Robert Dreyfuss, a Nation contributing editor, is an investigative journalist in Alexandria, Virginia, specializing in politics and national security. He is the author of Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam and is a frequent contributor to Rolling Stone, The American Prospect, and Mother Jones.

By Robert Dreyfuss

15 April, 2010
The Nation

Copyright © 2009 The Nation

In Canada, Holocaust Memorial Day has been established by Heritage Canada to be on April 11. It is a good opportunity to review what we learn from the Holocaust experience and how we apply these lessons to the troubled situation in the Middle East.

This year, students in more than 60 cities took part in educational meetings on conditions in Palestine as part of Israeli Apartheid Week, held March 1–7. It is a controversial event, not popular in Canadian government circles. It is criticized for supposedly dishonouring the victims of Hitler’s holocaust.

I am a survivor of the Jewish Holocaust, the Nazis’ mass murder of Europe’s Jews. The tragic experience of my family and community under Hitler makes me alert to the suffering of other peoples denied their human rights today – including the Palestinians.

True, Hitler’s Holocaust was unique. The Palestinians are victims of ethnic cleansing and apartheid. Hitler started with that, but went on to extermination. In my family’s city in Poland, Piotrkow, 99% of the Jews perished.

Yet for me, the Israeli government’s actions toward the Palestinians awaken horrific memories of my family’s experiences under Hitlerism: the inhuman walls, the check points, the daily humiliations, killings, diseases, the systematic deprivation. There’s no escaping the fact that Israel has occupied the entire country of Palestine, and taken most of the land, while the Palestinians have been expelled, walled off, and deprived of human rights and human dignity.

Many levels of government have recently been attacking the movement against Israeli apartheid, saying that it is anti-Jewish in character. This is bizarre. When Nelson Mandela opposed South African apartheid, was this anti-White? No, Mandela proposed that all South Africans, Whites included, join on a basis of democracy and equality in freeing the country from racial oppression. And that is precisely the proposal that the movement against Israeli apartheid makes to all inhabitants of Israel/Palestine.

We are told that Israeli Jews will never accept such a democratic solution. Why? Is there something wrong with their genes or their culture? The very notion is absurd – in fact, its logic is anti-Jewish. Opposition to Israeli apartheid is based on hope – a hope founded on the common humanity of the region’s Jewish and Palestinian inhabitants.

But my mother and father then lived in Paris. They were active in the ‘Union des Juifs,’ a Jewish resistance organization closely linked to socialist parties and other anti-Nazi groups. When the Nazis started rounding up Jews in France, the Union des Juifs hid thousands of Jewish children among anti-Nazis across the country. My parents were killed. But a brave peasant family in Auvergne, at great risk, took me in and hid me. And that is why I am here today.

The Nazis were routed, and the resistance dealt blows to racism that are felt in France even to this day.

There is a lesson here for us today. Hitler seemed all-powerful at the time. But he could not crush the resistance, a broad people’s alliance embracing many religions and many political viewpoints.

We need that kind of alliance in resisting oppression today – including the oppression of the Palestinians.

The right of exiled Palestinians to return to their country.

An end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian land.

The right of Palestinians within Israel to full equality.

On July 9, 2005, 170 Palestinian civil society organizations called for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against the institutions of Israeli apartheid. The BDS movement helped to end the crime of South African apartheid. Since 2005, the BDS movement against Israeli apartheid movement has won wide support around the world.

Nelson Mandela, the great leader of BDS against South African Apartheid, said, that justice for the Palestinians is “the greatest moral issue of the age.”

As for the 7,000 self-haters, they need to add a couple of zeros to that total. In my experience, support of Palestine is stronger in the Jewish population than in society as a whole. And Jewish people work alongside their Palestinian brothers and sisters as a strong component of the Palestine solidarity movement.

Holocaust Awareness Week is an appropriate time to review our proud history as Jewish universalists, welcoming and encompassing humanity. We, as Jewish supporters of the Palestinians, stand on the finest traditions of Judaism, its great contributions to human religion, philosophy, science, and solidarity through the ages. The rights we expect for the Jewish people, we demand for all humanity – above all, for the Palestinians that the Israeli government oppresses in our name.

By Suzanne Weiss

One of the world’s foremost educators on Peak Oil, Richard Heinberg, in an exclusive interview for MMNews: “We are currently seeing the end of economic growth as we have known it.” Further on, he talks about the financial / economic crisis, monetary changes vis-à-vis a shrinking energy supply, and the Century of Declines: “Peak Everything.”

 

American journalist and writer Richard Heinberg is one of the world’s foremost Peak Oil educators. He has taught at New College of California’s Campus for Sustainable living a program on “Culture, Ecology and Sustainable Community” until March 2008 and is a Senior Fellow in Residence of the Post Carbon Institute in Santa Rosa, California. He is the award-winning author of nine books including:

The Party’s Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies (2003),

Powerdown: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World (2004),

The Oil Depletion Protocol: A Plan to Avert Oil Wars, Terrorism and Economic Collapse (2006),

Peak Everything: Waking Up to the Century of Declines in Earth’s Resources(2007).

His monthly MuseLetter has been published since 1992 and his essays and articles have appeared widely in such journals as The American Prospect, Public Policy Research, Quarterly Review, Z Magazine, Yes!, Resurgence, The Futurist and European Business Review. Moreover, he was featured prominently in documentary films such as “The End of Suburbia” (2004) by Gregory Greene and Barrie Silverthorne (see for more information:www.endofsuburbia.com). With a wry, unflinching approach based on facts and realism, Mr. Heinberg exposes the tenuousness of our current way of life and offers a vision for a truly sustainable future. Since 2002, he has given over three hundred lectures on the subject matter of Peak Oil to a wide variety of audiences. He and his wife Janet Barocco live in Santa Rosa, California

Mr. Heinberg, your most successful book-title to this date is ”The Party’s Over.“ For those of our readers who have never heard of you and that book: What kind of party is it that you were writing about and why do you assume that this festivity and its special features are about to come to an end?

The “party” was humanity’s one-time-only opportunity to fuel economic growth and technological innovation with a bounty of cheap, abundant energy from fossil fuels. The harvesting of oil, coal, and natural gas has inevitably proceeded on a best-first or low-hanging fruit basis. While the Earth still possesses a wealth of unexploited energy resources, the cheapest and easiest-accessed of those resources have by now already been used. All of these fuels are in the process of becoming more expensive, and the various energy alternatives are limited in one way or another in their ability to replace hydrocarbons. That means we are currently seeing the end of economic growth as we have known it. The impacts for transportation, globalization, and world food supplies will be serious indeed.

As a rather critical observer of that party: Do you see significant hints that a growing number of participants realize that “The Last Waltz” is near? Or are you afraid that large parts will continue to dance no matter what?

After over a decade spent in trying to alert policy makers and the general public about this issue, I have concluded that only a small minority have any idea what is in store. The “dance” you speak of is indeed coming to an end, but it appears to most that the problem is purely a financial one, and that once the global economic crisis is sorted out, we will all be able to get back to business as usual. I do not believe that is an option. We have reached a fundamental turning point, foreseen in the “Limits to Growth” study of 1972. For a while, world leaders may be able to redistribute wealth in various ways—most likely from the poor to the rich—in order to make it appear that the global economy is continuing to grow. But I suspect that this will work only for a very few years at most. At some point soon, it will become clear that economies are contracting. And then most people will look for someone to blame. No doubt politicians will oblige by trotting out various scapegoats.

What about the hosts of the party, who pay the band – the so-called elites? They’re aware of the coming situation for a long time, right? What kind of plans do they have in store for themselves and the rest of us in your opinion? As part of the elites, the Central Intelligence Agency for example, which has always entertained close ties to the financial district in New York City,[1] had the Peak Oil problem on its radar screen at least since the late 1970’s.[2] Hence, we can be sure that some influential interests not only knew that this historical watershed event was coming, but also that they had enough time to prepare for it.

Strangely enough, I think most of the “elites” are victims of their own public relations efforts. They have promoted the careers of economists who told them what they wanted to hear—that economic growth is the normal and inevitable state of affairs, and that there are no real limits to growth. Yes, certainly there are analysts in the CIA and the military who understand where this is all heading, but—if the ex-analysts I’ve talked to are typical of their colleagues—they have learned that reports about resource constraints are not welcome, unless they are framed in terms of the contest for geopolitical leverage

At the end of last year, the World Energy Outlook 2009 received a very cautious reception – for example from your side.[3] Why was that and how was it linked to the ongoing discussion about oil reserves? May I also ask you to explain to our readers why the picture related to the latter seems very blur and since when?

Oil “reserves” consist of estimates of the amount of oil that geologists believe can be economically extracted from oilfields that have been discovered, drilled, and mapped. Unfortunately, reserves reporting is not a transparent affair in many countries that have state-controlled oil industries. There is strong evidence to suggest that OPEC nations have systematically and substantially over-estimated their reserves for over two decades.

In 2009, the International Energy Agency (IEA) took a first cautious step in the direction of realism when it published, in its annual World Energy Outlook, an assessment of rates of production decline from the world’s old, giant oilfields, which yield the bulk of the world’s crude oil. On average, there is a net production decline of 4.5 percent per year from existing fields, which means that the world has to develop a Saudi Arabia ’s worth of new production capacity every five years or so just to maintain existing total production volumes. That is an enormous feat, especially given the fact that oil discovery rates have been falling since the early 1960s. New oilfields are sill being found, of course, but typically they are very expensive to locate and exploit, when compared to the oilfields that were being discovered only a decade or two ago.

This debate, that we’ve just mentioned, is continuing right now again on a large scale.[4] Maybe there is, if one wants to, an end to it. During an interview with investigative journalist and book author Mike Ruppert, I’ve asked him a few things about the National Energy Policy Development Group, NEPDG, that was run by then-Vice President Richard Cheney in Spring of 2001. Mr. Ruppert stated:

“Essentially the NEPDG appears to have been set up, almost from the first day of the Bush administration, to find out how much oil was left, who had it, and how it could be obtained (bought or stolen) to support U.S. hegemony, U.S. consumption, and the monetary paradigm. … The fact that the NEPDG records have been kept secret from the American people who paid for it is one of the greatest crimes of all time. Seeing those records now would save a lot of duplicated effort in trying to inventory how much oil there is left. The figures on oil reserves quoted by producing nations and companies are as fraudulent and cooked as the books on mortgages, banking, and even Bernie Madoff. … It was Peak Oil that was driving Dick Cheney’s Task Force and nothing else.”[5]

Do you agree with Mr. Ruppert in general and in particular on the notion that the secret NEPDG-records could help us to find out “how much oil there is left”?

Since we don’t know what those records contain, we also don’t know if they would help us to know much more about future energy supply options. Certainly if an agency like the IEA were empowered to perform on-the-ground audits of oilfields in all oil exporting countries, we would know much more than we do now.

In another interview, I’ve asked economist James K. Galbraith, who thinks that the Peak Oil scenario “ needs to be taken seriously,” if he agrees that it would be time to make those secret files of the NEPDG public. He answered by saying:

“Yes. I do agree that files of this type should be made public. If there is an argument, which undoubtedly some people will make, for a national security reason not to make them public, then an appropriate procedure, which we have followed in this country in the past, is to appoint a panel of independent outsiders, not previously connected to the government, to review the documents and to make them public unless there is a compelling reason not to, with arguments about what is compelling and not-compelling ultimately resolved by the president himself. That’s a model that has been applied successfully in the past in the United States on a matter of this kind. I think it would be very useful to do it in this and other instances on the conduct of the Bush administration.”[6]

My question for you is: Wouldn’t it be a good goal for the Peak Oil movement in the U.S. and around the globe to come together for a concerted effort to make happen what Mr. Galbraith was talking about? Even if there was only a slim chance to accomplish this goal?

Yes, this would be a worthy goal from a certain standpoint. However, the peak oil “movement” is a highly non-political collection of individuals with little sense of group identity or any history of concerted political action. Even if the effort succeeded, I doubt if much truly new information would be revealed. Many “peak oil” analysts are already extremely well informed on world energy supply issues—much better informed than all but a very few officials at even the highest levels of government, and better informed than most of the members of the National Energy Policy Development Group. So the advantage would not be in finding out some information that is currently being kept secret, it would simply be in seeing public confirmation of certain key bits of information that are seldom discussed in the mainstream media.

Mr. Heinberg, you have stated publicly in 2004 that you have your doubts related to the official narration of the attacks of 9/11. May I ask you if those attacks are in your opinion connected to Peak Oil?

I have no idea. My assertion then and now is simply that the events of 9/11 were not properly investigated. It is certainly tantalizing to imagine what a proper investigation would uncover, but imagine we must—because at this point the likelihood of a re-opening of that case is extremely remote. It is a dead issue.

One facet of the “Global War on Terror” that resulted from those attacks, is the U.S. invasion of Iraq. What has this invasion to do with oil, or more specifically: with the competitive relationship between the US-dollar vs the Euro? Was there a threat looming for the so-called “Petrodollar System” that was established during the early 1970’s?

There was some speculation at the time of the invasion that part of the motive was to protect the U.S. dollar, which is the currency used in nearly all international oil sales. Saddam Hussein had been threatening to abandon the use of the dollar, and some saw this as a mortal threat to global dollar hegemony. In retrospect, I’m not sure that analysis holds up, though I agreed with it at the time. While the level of U.S. debt is such that one might expect other nations to be looking for some alternative to the dollar for international transactions, the reality is that there is no good candidate at the moment.

I suspect that there were complex motives for the invasion of Iraq. It is strange that even today, seven years later, we must speculate on this question. The public still has not been told the real reasons for one of the longest and most expensive wars in recent history.

What would happen to the US economy if the “Petrodollar System” would collapse? Do you see signs that this arrangement to the advantage of US-American consumerism could come to an end rather sooner than later?

At some point the dollar will indeed fail as a currency. Whether this failure comes about as a result of oil exporters dumping the dollar, or simply because of problems inherent to the U.S. economy remains to be seen. And it is impossible to know whether that moment is a few months or many years ahead of us. I suspect that we will see some serious problems with the dollar well before 2020. Certainly every effort will be made to keep the current world monetary system working as long as possible, but the problems just keep accumulating. The result may be a rather sudden re-adjustment in which enormous amounts of apparent wealth simply disappear, and global trade comes to a nearly complete halt, at least temporarily.

In the past, you have said that the worst thing that could happen is a financial / economic crisis at the exact same time when we’re about to enter the Peak Oil phase. Well, obviously this seems to be the case now. Why has this been a nightmarish outlook for you? And do you think that this financial / economic crisis, which remains mysterious and enigmatic to most people, will usher in on a global scale what Robert Kennedy once called “the mindless menace of violence”? If you agree on that, isn’t that the result not of this crisis alone, but also because people are not told the truth about its long-lasting character in an honest way?

The reason it’s bad for both an energy crisis and a financial crisis to occur together is that each makes the other harder to address. Without adequate credit and investment capital, how will we build renewable energy infrastructure to replace our current fossil-fuel-dependent transport and electricity systems? And without cheap energy, how can we dig ourselves out of a financial crisis?

As you point out, both are indeed happening now, and this should be no surprise given the inherent linkages between energy prices and the health of the economy. Will we see global violence as a result? Of course I hope the answer is “no,” but the likelihood of war would be substantially reduced if the general public had a better idea of why their standard of living is eroding. Since politicians don’t really understand what is happening, I suppose they can be somewhat excused for not telling their constituents. But that means, once again, that the most likely response will be a hunt for scapegoats.

Now that we’ve already touched the subject “money”: What has the financial crisis and the ongoing recession to do with the monetary system and debt-based growth? Is there a tricky part involved – just as Mike Ruppert characterized it this way during the above mentioned interview:

a)The current global economic paradigm — governed by fractional reserve banking, fiat currency, and compound interest (debt-based growth) — is inherently and by definition a pyramid scheme. Money is useless without energy. One cannot eat a dollar bill or crumble it up and throw it in his gas tank. Each of the trillions of dollars created out of thin air since the fall of 2008 is a commitment to expend energy that cannot and will not ever be there.

b) There can be no “recovery”, no return to growth (which is what the economic paradigm demands), without energy.[8]

Yes, I agree with Mike Ruppert on this. If the world is to return to stability, an entirely new economic system, based on a new and different form of money, will be required. The world still has willing workers and consumers, and enormous productive capacity in the forms of factories, soils, and recyclable materials. But without a functioning monetary system, there will be no means of connecting production with consumption. Our current money system requires constant growth so as to enable repayment of the interest on the debts that created the money to begin with, so it cannot function well in the context of general resource scarcity and economic contraction.

How does a new monetary system need to look like vis-à-vis Peak Oil?

There are many possibilities for alternatives, including tradable energy vouchers.

Is it this monetary change that has to take place that constitutes the “Heart of Darkness” so to speak when it comes to the problem that the elites and the mainstream media are “too fearful to publicise peak oil reality”?[9]

I don’t think reality is that conspiratorial. Certainly there are some deep, dark conspiracies out there, but with regard to peak oil my belief is that, for the most part, the elites genuinely do not understand the situation or its implications.

Of interest with regard to the recession is of course the oil price spike of 2008. Global Portfolio Strategist Marshall Auerback stated in an interview with me that even though “recessionary pressures were already ‘baked in the cake’ well before the oil price spike”, that this was “the straw that broke the came ‘s back, or the ‘icing on the cake.’”[10] That given, I would like to get your reading of that oil price spike. Do you agree with James Hamilton’s analysis given in “Causes and Consequences of the Oil Shock of 2007-08”?[11]

Yes, I discussed Hamilton’s analysis at some length in my essay “Temporary Recession or the End of Growth?” http://heinberg.wordpress.com/ There’s no point trying to paraphrase that article here; if readers are interested, they can read it. I think it’s a pretty good summary of the situation.

Critique on the Peak Oil scenario comes from all kinds of sides. Among them are the advocates of the abiogenic petroleum origins. What is your response to those critiques – for example related to the doubts that the common theory of fossil fuels was never scientifically proven?

I have also published an essay on this subject, titled “The Abiotic Oil Controversy” http://energybulletin.net/node/2423. To summarize: there may indeed be some interesting points for further research regarding the origins of some of Earth’s hydrocarbons. But that research is unlikely to have immediate practical implications for the supply of oil or natural gas. These fuels are found only in sedimentary basins, and those basins have already been identified by geologists using every tool from pick and compass to seismic surveys to satellite imaging. Moreover, oil and gas wells are observed to deplete, and are not observed to replenish themselves in an economically significant way over humanly observable time scales. The very few exceptions to these general statements have been studied by geologists and explained in terms of local anomalies.

Another thing one can hear quite often is that Peak Oil authors / educators like you are spokesmen for big oil interests. Does this make sense to you? Why should the oil and automobile industry be interested in propagating a “Peak Oil myth”?

If I’m secretly on the payroll of an oil company, then somebody forgot to let me in on the secret. A few of the oil companies are delicately admitting some of the main elements of the peak oil thesis. Other oil companies heatedly deny any possibility of supply problems and call people like me very nasty names. Some of the auto companies, such as Toyota, understand peak oil and speak of it openly. But I don’t see any public relations advantage whatsoever in some supposed cynical plot to promulgate a “peak oil myth.” I’ve been studying this subject for over a decade and have interviewed dozens of people inside and outside of these industries, including scientists, managers, economists, and public relations officers, and have seen no evidence whatsoever of such a plot. Instead I see general ignorance and denial. Those within the industry who do understand peak oil tend to be scientists, though there are exceptions. Scientists often do rather poorly at following instructions with regard to fabricating myths. They have an annoying habit of seeking out data, analyzing it, and thinking for themselves.

Mr. Heinberg, we seem to face huge problems with Climate Change, Overpopulation and the depletion of natural resources in general, not only hydro carbons. Climate Change is discussed worldwide – so let the both of us concentrate on the other two points. Where the whole problem of Peak Oil is getting real ugly is the whole issue of Overpopulation. Without oil there would never have been the possibility to let the world population rise to 6.5 billion human beings. Therefore, the outlook of Peak Oil is that now that we have all those humans on Planet Earth, the oil that supports them declines. Two questions: how do you cope with the knowledge you have about that day in, day out? And don’t you fear that mankind is about to lose the last rest of dignity that was leftover after the barbaric events of the 20th Century?

How do I cope with the knowledge? Well, it’s distressing, but one learns to cope. As we age, we are forced to cope with the knowledge of our own mortality. Our relatives and friends start dying. It’s depressing, but we go on. What would be really depressing would be to have knowledge about imminent global crises but to have no way of influencing the situation. In fact, there is a great deal that still can be done to lessen impacts on humanity and the natural world, and as we engage in that kind of activity it tends to help us psychologically.

Another major problem that we face is the depletion of natural resources in general – you sum it up best by giving your book on this subject the title: “Peak Everything.”[12]In that book you mention that:

Can you tell us how we humans can survive this especially seen under the focus of Liebig’s Law (or the Law of the Minimum)?

As I say in the book, we must reduce the scale of the human project—our population and our consumption rates (the latter especially in the industrialized nations). That means redesigning our economic and food systems, re-localizing and down-sizing them, until they can be maintained with renewable resources harvested at sustainable rates.

Do you fear that some people in powerful positions become increasingly “trigger happy” – that is to say, that they will try to get us involved in a major war as a Last Exit Strategy?

I don’t see major war as an “exit strategy”; if it happens, it will likely be simply a failure of politics—an expression of the inability of leaders to solve the worsening problems that are confronting them.

To sum our interview up, Mr. Heinberg: We’re about to enter extremely interesting, stormy times. They have a lot of danger in store for us. On the other hand, isn’t it true that the coming 20 – 30 years will be a great opportunity to totally re-evaluate who we are and what is really important to us?

Absolutely. Every crisis is an opportunity, and we will be presented with the greatest array of opportunities in history. Survival will require us to evolve quickly, and to change our thinking, our habits, and our expectations. If we do these things, it is just possible that the society that emerges in the process will be far more stable, interesting, and beautiful than the one we see around us today.

Thank you very much for taking your time, Mr. Heinberg!

My pleasure, thank you!

 By Lars Schall

Josh Stieber, a former U.S. Army Specialist, is speaking out. A member of the Bravo Company 2-16 whose acts of brutality made headlines this week with the Wikileaks release of the video “Collateral Murder,” Stieber says such acts were not isolated incidents, but were commonplace during his tour of duty. “After watching the video, I would definitely say that that is, nine times out of ten, the way things ended up,” says Stieber. “Killing was following military protocol. It was going along with the rules as they are.”

“Collateral Murder” provides footage from an American Apache helicopter involved in a July 2007 shooting incident outside of Baghdad that left over a dozen people dead, including two Reuters employees. Stieber was not present at the scene, but knows those who were and is familiar with the environment. “A lot of my friends are in that video,” he says. “If it shocks and revolts you, it shows the reality of what war is like. If you don’t like what you see in it, it means we should be working harder towards alternatives to war.”

Josh Stieber Bio

Stieber is a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War working to promote peace and seek alternatives to combat. He currently resides in Washington, D.C

Recently in a poetic recital on T.V. in Saudi Arabia a Muslim poetess Hissas Hilal burst out against the strict control regime for women in her country. It was voice of protest and very bold protest at that, perhaps unthinkable in her regimented society. It was of course in verses of her poem. She said through veiled face about Islamic preachers, “who sit in the position of power”, but are “frightening” people with their fatwas and “preying like a wolf “ on those seeking peace.

This may not be the condition in all Islamic countries but traditional Muslim societies impose several restrictions and still are not ready to relax. the kind of hijab many Muslim women wear covering their faces and looking at the world only through two eye holes remains controversial among Muslim scholars, theologians and modern intellectuals. Question is what is to be done.

No one can deny the fast pace of change in the globalised world and it is becoming increasingly challenging to retain present controls exercised on women in traditional societies. This controversy has been going on ever since modernity asserted itself since 19th century. Many reforms took place in Muslim countries and women could win a degree of liberation.

However, later part of twentieth and beginning of twenty-first century saw re-emergence of traditional Islam, particularly salafi Islam. No society registers linear progress and progressive measures, in turn bring more challenges. Reasons, not to be discussed here are both economic and political, apart from social and cultural. This complex nature of tension between tradition and modernity is both challenge and opportunity.

What is important in this debate, which is often ignored in these debates, is that what we practice in the name of Islam is more cultural than religious or scriptural and also that we depend too much on tradition while defending or opposing the restrictions applied on women. A good example of this is a recent book published from Pakistan on “Chehre ka parda wajib ya ghair wajib” (Face Veil – Compulsory or Not) compiled by Prof. Khurshid Alam. It is a very scholarly debate between two learned scholar one defending and the other opposing face veil.

However, the book depends entirely on contradictory traditions of the Prophet (PBUH) and his companions cited by various medieval scholars. You find in abundance both kinds of traditions (hadith) insisting on face veil or thinking it unnecessary and both the scholars use these traditions to strengthen their position. This approach only reinforces traditional cultural Islam.

We should not ignore the fact that the most of the traditions (except those on moral, ethical or pertaining to ibadat (matters of worship) reflect Arab culture on one hand, and medieval west Asian or central Asian culture, on the other. The jurists have also maintained that Arab Adat (customs and traditions) could become part of Shari’ah law and many Shari’ah laws incorporate the Arab ‘adat.

In the book I am referring to, there is very little direct approach to the Qur’an or fresh reflections on the relevant Qur’anic verses. Let Muslim jurists and scholars realize that Arab ‘adat are far from divine and should not necessarily form the basic structure of the Shari’ah law. Today we must change this cultural base through direct reflections and fresh understanding of the Qur’anic verses relevant to women. This attempt would establish individual dignity and freedom of choice for women. Freedom of conscience is an important doctrine of the Qur’an and so is the individual dignity. Qur’an is far more in harmony with human dignity and freedom that the traditional medieval cultural practices.

This approach will. In no way, injure the divine nature of Shari’ah law and also would liberate it from its traditional cultural basis incorporating patriarchal values of Arab culture rather than the divine spirit of the Qur’an. This would liberate Muslim women and give them sense of dignity and freedom reducing tension between tradition and modernity. This opportunity should not be lost causing more agony to women and creating dilemma of choice for them. Most of the Muslim women want to follow their religion and also enjoy certain benefits of modernity. The Muslim scholars and jurists should end this agony.

Asghar Ali Engineer

If we were to study carefully the evolution of events that took place over the past 6,000 years of recorded history, we will discover that most of the world’s problems stemmed out from politics of one kind or another. The New Webster Dictionary of the English Language describes “politics” as “the science of government; that part of ethics which relates to the regulation for the preservation of its safety, peace, and prosperity.”

Meaning of Politics

Also, politics is derived from the Greek word “polis” meaning city, which consists of citizens that make up the state or the nation. Those who become involved in the government of a nation are normally viewed as politicians. Needless to say, politicians are human beings that may be good or bad, beneficial or detrimental, and generous or egoistic. The people of a nation always tend to benefit when their politicians are highly concerned with their human needs.

At the same time, people in general always tend to suffer in many ways when their politicians carry agendas that are beneficial to a selected few but detrimental to many others. These kinds of politicians are viewed as abusive and the greatest problem people are faced with in this regard lies in how to get rid of them fast and smooth, peacefully and effectively. Since politicians differ from each other enormously it is somewhat difficult and confusing to have them classified by political or religious affiliation or other devised categories.

The Romans had a proverb, aliud est theoria aliud est practica – one thing is theory and other thing is practice. On the whole, people all over the world seem to share at least one thing in common about politicians. This was pointed out by well-known writer George Orwell who said: “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind.” This statement cannot be taken lightly because it has been verified to be true century after century to this very same day.

Let us examine carefully George Orwell’s words. Suppose we come to know that the food we are about to share with many of our friends is poisonous, what would we do? Shall we proceed to consume it knowing that all of us afterwards will be sick, if not dead? Or shall we have it discarded and seek for a remedy to this problem? If we were to tell the people that this food is very good and tasty and they believe us, they will surely proceed to eat it only to face the tragic consequences that will follow.

Deceitful Politics in Operation

Is it possible that in the world of politics we manage to reach a point as to find it necessary to reduce the sacred lives of many to merely a piece of furniture?! Moreover, to turn an insult into an injury, the US later insisted that the Iraqis were better off now, following the American invasion, than they were before under Saddam Hussein. Quite a few humanitarian and non-governmental organizations visited Iraq to see for themselves what was going on there. They asked little children between the ages of nine and twelve the following question: “What would like to do when you grow up?

We were told that some 80% of the Iraqi children said without hesitation: “Killing Americans!” Those that raised the question in the first place were very much surprised with this reply. So they proceeded to ask: “Why do you want to do that?” Each of these children gave more or less the same answer: “Because Americans killed my father, they killed my mother and they killed or maimed my brothers, sisters and friends.”

Others added saying: “Americans destroyed our homes and schools and all of our belongings and now we are all homeless.” When the Iraqi adults were asked: “Don’t you feel better that the US troops removed Saddam Hussein from office?” They all said unanimously: “We were much better before the invasion of Americans because then we still had our houses and schools, our spouses were alive and well and all of us enjoyed seeing our children playing and growing up. Now a number of them are gone and others are maimed and ruined for life.”

Ironically, the United States views itself as a nation of democracy that is “ruled by the people who elect their representatives to serve them as senators and congressmen.” Well, the vast majority of the American people proved to be against the US invasion of Iraq. Moreover, after such an invasion the American people, as a whole, continued to say loud and clear that the US government should pull out all US troops from Iraq without further delay. We had even US presidential candidates, one of whom was Dennis Kucinich, who vowed to pull out all American troops out of Iraq without further delay, if elected.

Orwell’s Saying at Work

Unfortunately, like George Orwell well pointed out, the US government succeeded to make the tremendous amount of civilian killings in Iraq look respectable, “a necessity to safeguard the freedom, democracy and security of the United States” as some leading politicians said over and over again in the US news-media. By the way, in the last US presidential elections Barack Obama was elected as the next US President primarily because he promised to end the war in Iraq and bring all US troops back home, even though as of now his promise has not yet been fulfilled.

Also, the American people elected Barack Obama as their US President because he promised that he would resort to solve political problems through healthy dialogues and strong diplomacy and not through struggles and wars. This peaceful approach in the sphere of world politics that he promised enabled him to win the Nobel Peace Prize as well. Of course, this new US President has still time to prove his sincere promises in replacing struggles and wars with harmony and peace everywhere. However, when he escalated the war in Afghanistan many Americans felt highly disappointed.

Besides, due to the fact that the United States is deeply immersed in a culture of war mentality, the unjust struggle in the Middle East is still on. The way to bring politics under control is for the people in the world to see to it that those that represent them in the government give top priority on people’s health care and education rather than on continued struggles and wars which lead to nowhere except to the eventual bankruptcy of the national economy. The time has arrived when the people should bring politics under their full control.

Anything that politicians say which is not conducive to the welfare of all people without exception should be viewed as dangerous and should never get our support. Anything that politicians say which is beneficial to welfare of people from every walk of life and procession should receive our wholehearted support. To this end, we must keep good politicians and get rid of the bad ones.

There is not one single group in the world that could claim to be perfect, an ideal source of inspiration. In other words, it is not wise for us to make it a habit to elect politicians because of their affiliation with a specific political party or with a religion of one kind or another. It would reveal a great lack of wisdom on our part if we were to view blindly things the way politicians would want us to see them in order to control us.

Political Meaning of “Pro-Life”

Let us illustrate this by some practical example. In the United States people are notably influenced by the name the political party carries: Republican versus Democrat, or the politician’s religious affiliation. In this latter one, Americans feel often trapped in a political dilemma, especially when they are faced by self-proclaimed “pro-life” politicians versus self-proclaimed “pro-choice” politicians. These divisions or classifications are nothing but meaningless and deceitful frames people choose to put in their mind.

It will help us understand better where we stand in politics if we were to illustrate what has just been stated with some evidences that bring into proper focus the contradictions found in politics. Republicans claim to be “pro-life.” This certainly pleases many clergymen especially when Republicans stress that “the sacredness of life starts from the moment of conception.” Like George Orwell well stated, this political statement is “designated to make lies sound truthful.” In fact, we need here to raise one serious question.

If the sacredness of life starts from the first moment of conception then does this sacredness of life end with the moment of birth? This is a very relevant question since Republicans always tend to solve virtually all political problems at the global level with all sorts of struggles and wars. This is revealed in their putting more money in the manufacture and sales of weapons, in the building of hundreds of US military bases around the world and in their instigation of more struggles and wars where millions of innocent people are killed, including pregnant women!

We all know that actions speak louder than words. Since struggles and wars could only be waged by people, is it possible that Republicans and those who claim to be “pro-life” may have ulterior motives? Are they “pro-life” as to make sure more humans are born to be used later as instruments to massacre millions of innocent people? Republicans, with other politicians that support US belligerent foreign policies, succeed to make “murder appear to be respectable,” as George Orwell remarked. Many US politicians state that “wars cannot be avoided when the freedom, democracy and security of the USA is involved!”

If that is the case, then we need to define well the meaning of freedom democracy and security, otherwise we will continue to misuse such words to the detriment of the American nation and, as a matter of fact, of every other single nation in the world. The New Webster Dictionary of the English Language defines these three stated terms as follows.

Freedom, Democracy and Security

Freedom is described as “the state of being free; exemption from slavery, confinement, or constraint; liberty; independence; openness; outspokenness.” Each time the United States invades other countries, and interferes with their internal affairs does it make sense to say that this was to preserve American freedom?! What about if Russia and China were to invade the USA under the guise of preserving Russian and Chinese freedom?

Democracy is described as “that form of government in which the supreme power rests with the people, ruling themselves either directly or through representatives. It’s a government, as Abraham Lincoln put it that is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” The United States has no right whatsoever to impose its form of government on other nations by military force, under the guise of “preserving” its so called democracy.

Security is described as “the state of being secure; freedom from apprehension; freedom from danger or risk; something that secures against pecuniary loss.” How does the manufacture and sales of weapons to anyone that gives the right price, the eventual US military invasion of a nation along with the forming of so called military alliances bring security to the American nation that takes the initiative to attack other nations?

We are all familiar with the saying that “what goes around comes around,” and with the Master Teacher’s firm warning to “put the sword away for he who kills by the sword will die by the sword.” In view of what has been stated, it is quite obvious that many politicians in quite a number of countries have eventually emerged to be very dangerous to their respective nation’s people. People everywhere need to become fully aware of this tangible reality and do something about it, the sooner the better.

Let us all face our greatest challenge courageously keeping in mind that “when there is a will there is a way.” In the social sphere, the people exist to control politics and not the other way round. Politicians who resort to dialogues and diplomacy rather than struggles and wars, should receive our full support since they prove to be very beneficial to all people without exception.

by Charles Mercieca, Ph.D. 

-Professor Emeritus, Alabama A&M University

“They will not criminalize us, rob us of our true identity, steal our individualism, depoliticize us, churn us out as systemized, institutionalized, decent law-abiding robots. We refuse to lie here in dishonor!”

– Bobby Sands, Provisional Irish Republican Army

Deir Yassin, Palestine, Live from Palestine, 9 April 2010 : It’s as if the very moment I passed by Bab al-Amud or Damascus Gate in Jerusalem’s Old City, I was transported back in time to a forbidden place, a place I was forced to feel as though I was illegally trespassing through just by gazing at it, a place now belonging to others. “This place you talk about no longer exists. It’s been long gone.” That’s what they continue to say with such impunity and disregard, but those sentiments of deterrence wouldn’t stop me. They never had before, and they wouldn’t stand a chance now. I was determined to go back, to see it all again with my own eyes, to capture every sight so the memories would be engraved in my head forever, despite any and all pretentious constructions that would be made without our permission. Despite all the renovations and reconstructions to make it “their own,” it would always be Deir Yassin to me.

“Deir Yassin,” she says with a sadness, a sense of loss in her eyes each time she speaks of the atrocious day she lost her home. “Deir Yassin,” she says with a childlike innocence in her voice as she recalls sweet memories before her entire world was completely denatured by evil. “Deir Yassin,” the imperishable words of my grandmother continue to resonate with me each day for she made me promise to never forget, and that’s a promise I intend to keep to her.

I followed the imperiously-placed road signs leading to Givat Shaul until the memories began flooding back, one by one. With no place to park, I took the chance of leaving the yellow-plated car on the side of the road, near the abandoned blue fence so I would be able to step back in time on foot. In the cool breeze of that afternoon, standing on the ledge overlooking the Har HaMenuchot cemetery in scenic view of the Jewish Holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem, I inhaled deeply and digested the view of what was now known as Givat Shaul. As I stood there taking in the surreal surroundings of Mount Herzl and Yad Vashem, I was overcome by emotions as the tales of my grandmother soon came to life right before my very eyes.

“See right there,” she pointed behind me, “that was my father’s stone quarry, and there’s the grain mill.” For as long as I live, I’ll never forget the look on her face, the way her lips quivered, the way she tapped her tired fingers on her chest with such pride, and the high pitch in her voice as she spoke with such nostalgia. As a little girl, she played house with her friends at the nearby monastery surrounded by fig, almond and apple trees, just as any child would do, oblivious to the tragedy that awaited them. At eight years old though, her childhood was no longer one free of trauma and injustice. In less than a day, she was forced to leave everything she had ever known behind, taking nothing with her but the clothes on her back. Sixty-two years ago, she had once called this place home. This was home, and without her knowledge, her permission, or her right, it was all taken away. Someone else callously decided it was no longer hers to claim. The thought of that still makes me feel as though I’ve been kicked repeatedly in the stomach.

It’s difficult to return to Deir Yassin without suddenly becoming transfixed by the blatant ethnic cleansing and hypocrisy lying on the very ground once belonging to the native Palestinians who called this very ground home less than seven decades ago. Chilling tales and memories have allowed Deir Yassin to live on in the hearts and minds of countless worldwide, allowing it to be deemed as so much more than just a name associated with death, destruction and pillaging. Deir Yassin will continue to resonate as a lesson of resilience and determination to never forget.

Before walking back to the car and bidding my farewell to Deir Yassin once again, I stood on the ledge overlooking Mount Herzl with the hope of trying to absorb and digest all that I had seen that day. Standing there captivated by all that I had taken notice of this time, I couldn’t help but feel as though my blood began to boil. Looking onto the grand, monumental view of Yad Vashem erected to honor those who so unjustly lost their lives in the Holocaust, I stood on the land where my own family too lost their livelihoods and lives so unjustly without so much as a marker to honor them. A mile away from Deir Yassin sits a memorial to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust, to remind the world of the inhumanity that took place with such impunity. Today, it continues to remind the world of the atrocities that took place with a timeless, ubiquitous message of “never to forget man’s inhumanity to man.”

I can’t help but feel as though the overwhelming irony is shamelessly mocking me as I stand there on the other side of Yad Vashem in Deir Yassin, where a massacre took place 62 years ago. I stood there honoring those whose names don’t appear in a museum, whose voices are rarely, if ever, heard in the media, and whose legacies are insolently ignored and omitted from textbooks and classrooms, rendering them invisible to so many in the world. Standing there, I wonder if those who visit the museum look over to the other side and even know what occurred there some 60 years ago, whether or not they question what happened, and whether or not they feel any sympathy like they do for their own. Deir Yassin carries with it such magnitude, for it is not just the story of a massacre, but the story of two peoples — the victims and the victims of those victims — whose fates allowed them to be conjoined on stolen land.

Wiped off the post-1948 maps of Israel, Deir Yassin can never and will never be wiped out of the minds of Palestinians worldwide, those under occupation and those in the diaspora. No matter how the maps and signs are altered, I will always find a way back to Deir Yassin, because it is my moral responsibility to return and keep its legacy alive. This is where I come from. This is where my family, who are still alive and well to remember, suffered. This is where injustice took place, and I will never forget. After all, it was Simon Wiesenthal who said that “hope lives when people remember,” when observing the suffering of the Jews at the hands of injustice. Likewise, the suffering of the Palestinians deserves to be dignified as well. As any people who have been subjugated and oppressed, Palestinians too will hold on to their relentless refusal to concede and forget.

Despite all the agony, anguish and traumatizing memories that have echoed with her throughout her life, my grandmother’s eyes still light up just at the sound of hearing Deir Yassin. Today, this place that’s been associated with such pain and suffering to so many continues to instill such pride and joy in her. I’ve never known such strength and resilience, but I hope to learn from it every single day.

So, today, I commemorate the 62nd anniversary of the Deir Yassin Massacre. Commemorating Deir Yassin is not to create a sadistic exploitation of the suffering of a people. It is a reminder to us all that injustice did take place there, and that it is our responsibility to remember that the atrocities and intolerance we see and hear about today had their inception with Deir Yassin. Deir Yassin, which catapulted the Nakba, our catastrophe, is an undeniable marker of unabashed injustice, and it will continue to deter any prevarication and the notion that “ignorance is bliss.” Deir Yassin signifies that Palestinians existed and still exist, and we will never give up without a fight.

David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, was mistaken when he arrogantly asserted that “the old will die and the young will forget,” for he underestimated the indomitable will of the Palestinian people. Despite heartache, pain and suffering, we will never relinquish a dream so imbedded in our hearts and minds. Yes, the old may die, but the young will never able to forget, and to paraphrase Bobby Sands, “our revenge will be the laughter of our children,” those who will carry on this dream and fight for justice. This dream will live on in the hearts of generation after generation; it is an inextinguishable fire burning inside our hearts, and what we say today will be our lifelong commitment to it.

By Dina Elmuti

Dina Elmuti is a graduate student in the Masters in Social Work program at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

A novelist and former prisoner of Saddam Hussein’s regime gives her reaction to the Wikileaks Iraq video

I know the area where this massacre was committed. It is a crowded working-class area, a place where it is safe for children to play outdoors. It is near where my two aunts and their extended families lived, where I played as a child with my cousins Ali, Khalid, Ferial and Mohammed. Their offspring still live there.

The Reuters photographer we see being killed so casually in the film, Namir Noor-Eldeen, did not live there, but went to cover a story, risking his life at a time when most western journalists were imbedded with the military. Noor-Eldeen was 22 (he must have felt extremely proud to be working for Reuters) and single. His driver Saeed Chmagh, who is also seen being killed, was 40 and married. He left behind a widow and four children, adding to the millions of Iraqi widows and orphans.

Witnesses to the slaughter reported the harrowing details in 2007, but they had to wait for a western whistleblower to hand over a video before anyone listened. Watching the video, my first impression was, I have no impression. But the total numbness gradually grows into a now familiar anger. I listen to the excited voices of death coming from the sky, enjoying the chase and killing. I whisper: do they think they are God?

“Light ’em all up!” one shooter says.

“Ah, yeah, look at those dead bastards. Nice,” says another.

“Well, it’s their fault bringing their kids into the battle,” one says when ground troops discover two children among the wounded.

In their Apache helicopter, with their sophisticated killing machinery, US soldiers seem superhuman. The Iraqis, on the ground, appear only as nameless bastards, Hajjis, sandniggers. They seem subhuman – and stripping them of their humanity makes killing them easy.

As I watch, I feel the anger calcify in my heart alongside the rage I still feel over other Anglo-American massacres: Haditha (which has been compared to the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam war); Ishaqi (where 11 Iraqi civilians were killed in June 2006); Falluja; the rape and killing of A’beer al-Janaby and her family; the British Camp Breadbasket scandal.

We often hear of the traumas US soldiers suffer when they lose one of their ranks, and their eagerness to even the score. We seldom hear from people like the Iraqi widow whose husband was shot, who looked me in the eye last summer, and said: “But we didn’t invade their country.” Unlike this video, the injustice she feels will not fade with time. It is engraved in the collective memory of people, and will be until justice is done.

By Haifa Zangana

10 April, 2010

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