Archives: Articles

 

 

4 February, 2011

Countercurrents.org

It’s might be a special Middle East domino, pieces that fall one by one, all rigidly American and western allies, that have long been nurtured into a special relationship based on mutual interests. However, it might be too simplistic to believe that falls are inevitable but it is of no doubt, however, changes in the political map of the Middle East is imminent and 2011 could well be remembered as the year of winds of change.

The impending Sudanese split between north and south into two states is turning out to be miniscule compared to the regime removal in Tunisia of Zain Alabidine Ben Ali. Egypt is about to follow next in the domino game with the current regime facing increasing pressure to leave, with calls for President Husni Mubarak to abdicate from office.

The United States and Europe previously in disbelief, later apprehension are now in sober acceptance that their long-term ally Husni Mubarak is on shaky grounds and that his position as president is no longer tenable. As they did in the past, they don’t want to continue to back the wrong horse as they did with the Shah in Iran in the face of the mass demonstrations that finally lead to his downfall in 1978.

As repeated by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama himself there must be an “orderly transition” and the establishment of a real democratic system in Egypt and such must may be made “quickly” and not in September 2011, a reference to what Mubarak early said about not fighting presidential elections set for that month.

Everyone is bracing themselves for the second piece of the domino to fall and appear to be accepting it well in the light of the dramatic strategic changes that could follow in a post-Mubarak era.

Also, Obama is appearing to be giving up so quickly on an American erstwhile ally who has far outstayed his welcome in office in spite of the converging of interests over the decades since 1981 when Mubarak first took office.

The US president might be hoping that if he sides with the Egyptian people now, the United States can still salvage some of her relations in a post-Mubarak scenario, given her traditional social, political and economic relations with the regime. It is now time to switch sides.

In reality the Egyptian uprising so-called, crisis or revolution, is creating a global strategic situation with many of the world powers holding their breath and heart beats because of the far-reaching consequences a post-Mubarak Egypt would have on the political and security dimensions, alliances and blocs on the local, regional and international levels.

Locally nationalists, liberals, leftists and Islamists could be in line for the formation of the next government in Egypt under a post-Mubarak administration that would involve the first time free elections rather than fixtures, fixing, and manipulations of the system and ballot boxes. This would be in spite of the fact Americans, Europeans and Israelis are not making it a secret about fearing a government dominated by Islamists, which would certainly have an effect on the geo-strategic relations of the area.

But the revolution taking place, the protests, demonstrations and rallies, are being lead by young people, internet buffs, experts at online connectivity who have been quickly joined by the middle classes and professionals.

It is not being seen as an uprising lead by political parties and political movements those that have existed in one way or another under this regime like the Wafd and the Muslim Brotherhoods who have build a mass following despite being made illegal in the 1950s.

On the regional level, a new administration could very well alter the traditional regional alliances and interests. Egypt has long been seen within the Saudi Arabia-Jordan axis, and under a new government it might tilt towards Syria, that is if indeed rule there remains within the confines of the Baath political party. The coming period is fluid, murky, and probably very unstable where conjectural analysis is difficult to make.

What is being said is that the regime is fighting its last breath trying to make concessions, but trying to stay in power through extending its hands to the opposition. Mubarak, has for instance appointed a first ever first vice president in tough security chief Omar Sulieman to try and establish a dialogue with the opposition.

On the international level, and in a post-system change, there could certainly be more room for the return of Russia into the Middle East orbit, harking back to the old days of the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s when the then Soviet Union had a strong presence in Egypt.

The Egyptian door could become more ajar to China as a new and potential ally, no doubt as a business and economic market, and even as a sphere of political influence. However, China is still not rocking the boat too much, trying to shield its own population from seeing the mass demonstrations in Cairo’s Tahrir Square and other Egyptian cities lest their own would start demanding change.

Israel is worried because of the potential loss of a strategic partner in Husni Mubarak. Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu is in deep tension. As far as Israel is concerned, and despite the fact that there exists at best a frosty normalization between the two countries, Cairo is at present, neutralized through the peace treaty signed between the two countries in 1979. Under a new Egyptian domino fall, such cold relations could hot up again because Egyptians have never accepted normalization with Israel.

The rest of the Arab world is in a flux of excitement and trepidation, there is a new sense of political change from its western shores of Africa to the Arabian Gulf where everyone is watching, meditating, speculating whether a New Middle Eastern order is being built. To dampen the impact, Kuwait for instance recently paid each of its citizens, young and old, 1000 Kuwait Dinars (around $3000) in token of their appreciation to them in a farfetched scenario that Kuwaitis might rise against their political system.

But the people of Algeria, Jordan, Yemen and Syria have not been so lucky, taking the brunt of international hikes on their local economies, resulting in soaring prices, and high unemployment. Many have been lending muted support, even pleasure with many albeit outside the region asking which piece of the domino would fall next in the Middle East.

It is argued all of the initial four could be candidates for the next political upheaval and problems as they all experienced demonstrations and mass rallies in protest at raising food prices, and low wages in their home countries.

For some reason however, international commentators are putting their bets in Jordan to fall despite its globalized nature, political pluralism and parliamentary representation. The monarch, King Abdullah has finally heeded calls led by the opposition and the Islamic Action Front and removed Prime Minister Samir Al Rifai and his government.

However, the opposition, have stressed that their call for political reform does not, in no way, mean regime change as it is the case in Egypt. There demonstrations have started from the hundreds of thousands to around a million in one day, and with levels of violence coming from pro-Mubarak demonstrators who are feared to be government agents sent on the streets.

It is from seeing these demonstrators from afar that prompted Yemeni President to come on the scene and say he will not be re-standing in the next presidential elections in 2013. He would also suspend legislation that would make him president for life and he wouldn’t be grooming his son to take over, something which Mubarak was doing with his son Jamal from as early as 1999.

Judging from the level of demonstrations that have been taking place in Yemen almost on a daily basis—one estimated at 5000 in the capital Sanaa—and those in the country. Saleh may have offered his last statement as a token in hope the public would not step up pressure against him and back off from demand for his removal being openly made on the streets.

In between choosing Jordan and Yemen, it should be plain to see it is the latter that is expected as the next domino piece to fall because of level opposition the Yemeni president is facing internally, and from the Houthi sect in the north of the country. Their demands lie between a complete split from the Yemeni state to greater equality with their other Yemeni brethrens and the rest of the country.

For the United States, it’s simply a strategic equation. Although, and it is no doubt, Yemen has been important in fighting Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaada, and has strategic worth on the Red Sea, the priorities have always been to the geographical north. It is to Saudi Arabia and Jordan with the latter serving a very important part of the link and domino as bulwark against radicalism in the midst of Israel to the east, the Palestinians, Hizbollah and Syria further to the north as well as bloody, chaotic Iraq to the east.

Literally overnight, the Arab world has become nightmare scenario for the American administration, and that is maybe why they are paying particular attention to Jordan, a traditional all of the West and the United States, and who like Egypt, has been buttressed with much American aid.

And so, Jordan is definitely not a kingdom that is seen as an entity going to fall because of its geography, politics, stability and security, and the United States will make sure it will not fall or be nowhere near in falling because of the unique nature of its strategic role in the region.

As well, and on the contrary, if Egypt does fall, the United States would likely double its efforts to make sure Jordan will remain stable and secure. Any other way would mean American policy has failed miserably in the region and that would shatter the image of its hegemony in the global system, and give rise to the reemergence of multipolarity as opposed to its current unipolar dominance gained since the end of the Cold War and of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

04 February, 2011

Countercurrents.org

The line from Gilbert & Sullivan’s HMS Pinafore relates well to what’s going on in Egypt, perhaps elsewhere in the region as well, saying: “Things are seldom as they seem. Skim milk masquerades as cream.”

Visceral street anger is real. What’s orchestrating it, however, is suspect, especially its likely Washington impresario, implementing long-planned regime change for new faces continuing old policies, leaving deep-rooted hardships unaddressed. The script is familiar.

In his book “Freedom Next Time,” John Pilger discussed Nelson Mandela’s betrayal in post-apartheid South Africa, embracing what he called “Thatcherism,” telling Pilger:

“You can put any label on it you like; you can call it Thatcherite, but for this country, privatization is the fundamental policy.”

In 1990, two weeks before freed from prison, he was quoted saying:

“The nationalization of the mines, banks and monopoly industries is the policy of the ANC (and changing) our views….is inconceivable. Black economic empowerment is a goal we fully support and encourage, but in our situation state control of certain sectors of the economy is unavoidable.”

In 1955, that view became ANC Freedom Charter policy. Its liberation struggle wasn’t just political but also economic. White mine workers earned 10 times more than blacks, and large industrialists used security forces to enforce order by disappearing dissenters.

Post-apartheid, a new way was possible, Mandela poised to lead it by rejecting market orthodoxy for economic justice. In 1994, ANC candidates won overwhelmingly. Nonetheless, despite transitioning peacefully, betrayal, not progressive change followed. Black South Africans became predatory capitalist hostages. They still are, worse off now than under apartheid.

Even The New York Times noticed, writer Celia Dugger headlining on September 26, 2010: “Wage Laws Squeeze South Africa’s Poor,” saying:

“In the 16 years since the end of apartheid, South Africa has followed the prescriptions of the West, opening its market-based economy to trade, while keeping inflation and public debt in check (by following IMF diktats). It has won praise for its efforts,” but at a price. “For over a decade, the jobless rate been among the highest in the world,” exacerbated by the global economic crisis, “wiping out more than a million jobs.”

Overall, the toll included:

— double the number of people impoverished on less than $1 a day from two to four million;

— unemployment doubling to 48% from 1991 – 2002, currently even higher;

— two million South Africans losing their homes while the government built only 1.8 million others;

— in the first decade of ANC rule, nearly one million South Africans lost farms; as a result, shack dwellers grew by 50%;

— in 2006, 25% of South Africans lived in them with no running water or electricity;

— the HIV/AIDS infection rate is about 20%; ANC officials deny its severity and do little to help; as a result, average life expectancy is lower than in 1990;

— 40% of schools have no electricity;

— 25% of people have no clean water, and most with it can’t afford the cost;

— 60% have inadequate sanitation, and 40% no telephones.

Post-apartheid came at a high price with political empowerment traded for economic betrayal, and no planned relief for millions of suffering South Africans, victims of predatory capitalism.

Post-Communist Russia

The Berlin Wall’s fall should have been triumphant for millions. Instead it was tragic for Russia and post-Soviet states like Ukraine, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and others.

In March 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev came to power, promising political and social change, but wasn’t around long enough to lead it. He liberalized the country, introduced elections, and favored (then) Scandinavian-style social democracy, combining free market capitalism with strong social safety net protections. He envisioned “a socialist beacon for all mankind,” an egalitarian society, but never got the chance to build it.

When the Soviet Union dissolved, he was out. Boris Yeltsin replaced him, supporting harsh Chicago School orthodoxy, masquerading as “reform.” Former apparatchiks profited along with a new oligarch “nouveaux billionaire” class, strip-mining Russia’s wealth, then shipping it offshore to tax havens.

Predatory capitalism devastated ordinary Russians, enriching a select few at their expense. The toll included:

— 80% of farmers bankrupt;

— about 70,000 state factories closed, causing an epidemic of unemployment;

— 74 million Russians (half the population) impoverished; for 37 million of them conditions were desperate, and the country’s underclass remained permanent;

— alcohol, painkilling and hard drug used soared;

— since 1995, HIV/AIDS increased 20-fold;

— suicides also rose, and violent crime more than fourfold; and

— Russia’s population declined by around 700,000 a year before leveling off; unfettered capitalism killed 10% of it – a startling condemnation of how capitalist excess harms so many, including in other post-Soviet states.

Free Market Repression in Haiti

Except briefly in 1804 after revolutionary liberation turned slaves into citizens and during Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s tenure as president, Haitians suffered harsh predatory capitalist exploitation, making it the region’s poorest nation and one of the poorest globally. Even before the devastating January 2010 earthquake, followed by greater than ever depravation and raging cholera, its burdens included:

— imperial control as a de facto US colony;

— its ruling elite having dominant social and economic control; six families controllig the economy, media, universities, commerce and trade;

— the region’s most unequal wealth distribution and one the most unequal globally;

— 1% of Haitians controlling half the country’s wealth;

— in contrast, over 80% enduring harrowing poverty;

— three-fourths of the population living on less than $2 a day and over half (56%) less than $1 a day;

— 5% of the population owning 75% of the arable land;

— rampant unemployment and underemployment; two-thirds or more of workers with no reliable jobs, and most with them earn below-subsistance pay;

— structural adjustments decimating the rural economy, forcing displaced peasants to cities for non-existent jobs;

— public sector employment the lowest in the region at less than .7%;

— life expectancy only 53 years; the highest hemispheric death rare, and infant mortality is double the regional average at 76 per 1000;

— the World Bank placing Haiti in its bottom rankings based on deficient sanitation, poor nutrition, high malnutrition, and inadequate health services;

— over half its people food insecure and half its children undersized from malnutrition;

— more than half with no access to clean drinking water;

— its bottom hemispheric ranking in health care spending with only 25 doctors and 11 nurses per 100,000 population and most rural areas with no access;

— the highest HIV-AIDS incidence outside sub-Sararan Africa;

— the region’s lowest sweatshop wages for Haitians lucky enough to have work;

— called “the Republic of NGOs,” most exploit Haitians brutally for profit; and

— its longstanding “restavec” system, entrapping hundreds of thousands of children in forced bondage;

Overall, America maintains imperial dominance, controlling Haiti’s resources, its economy and politics. It exploits Haitians ruthlessly, strip-mines the country for profits, and installs new regimes no different from old ones.

The same story repeats globally, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, plagued by war, occupation, torture, oppression, appalling poverty and unemployment, no security, clean water, enough food, shelter, medical care or other essential services. US “liberation” brought millions of deaths, disease, hunger, depravation, and grievous unaddressed human suffering. Moreover, privation levels keep rising as well at home because Washington refuses to address them.

A Final Comment

Post-WW II decolonization produced neocolonial regimes, Cold War politics, the Non-Aligned Movement, emergent nationalism, ethnic conflicts, and American imperial dominance, distinguished by its:

— abhorrence of democracy;

— support for neocolonial strongmen, mostly police state dictatorships serving Western interests; and

— use of direct or proxy belligerence for world capitalist enforcement, keeping the world safe for big money.

Old orders passed. New ones emerged. Everything changed but stayed the same, more than ever dominated by finance capital and monopoly corporations, controlling governments for their own self-interest at the expense of harshly exploited workers globally. As a result, today’s world is characterized by instability, declining living standards, police state harshness, and enormous human suffering, especially in areas like the Middle East.

Across the region, people want it ended, pitting revolutionary populism against imperial harshness offering pretense, not change. As a result, expect new faces continuing old policies, yielding nothing unless sustained mass outrage persists. That’s today’s reality, resolution still in doubt, but odds always favor the strong.

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/

 

 

 

 

 

 

04 February, 2011

Killinghope.org

A cautionary tale

In July of 1975 I went to Portugal because in April of the previous year a bloodless military coup had brought down the US-supported 48-year fascist regime of Portugal, the world’s only remaining colonial power. This was followed by a program centered on nationalization of major industries, workers control, a minimum wage, land reform, and other progressive measures. Military officers in a Western nation who spoke like socialists was science fiction to my American mind, but it had become a reality in Portugal. The center of Lisbon was crowded from morning till evening with people discussing the changes and putting up flyers on bulletin boards. The visual symbol of the Portuguese “revolution” had become the picture of a child sticking a rose into the muzzle of a rifle held by a friendly soldier, and I got caught up in demonstrations and parades featuring people, including myself, standing on tanks and throwing roses, with the crowds cheering the soldiers. It was pretty heady stuff, and I dearly wanted to believe, but I and most people I spoke to there had little doubt that the United States could not let such a breath of fresh air last very long. The overthrow of the Chilean government less than two years earlier had raised the world’s collective political consciousness, as well as the level of skepticism and paranoia on the left.

Washington and multinational corporate officials who were on the board of directors of the planet were indeed concerned. Besides anything else, Portugal was a member of NATO. Destabilization became the order of the day: covert actions; attacks in the US press; subverting trade unions; subsidizing opposition media; economic sabotage through international credit and commerce; heavy financing of selected candidates in elections; a US cut-off of Portugal from certain military and nuclear information commonly available to NATO members; NATO naval and air exercises off the Portuguese coast, with 19 NATO warships moored in Lisbon’s harbor, regarded by most Portuguese as an attempt to intimidate the provisional government. In 1976 the “Socialist” Party (scarcely further left and no less anti-communist than the US Democratic Party) came to power, heavily financed by the CIA, the Agency also arranging for Western European social-democratic parties to help foot the bill. The Portuguese revolution was dead, stillborn. 1

The events in Egypt cannot help but remind me of Portugal. Here, there, and everywhere, now and before, the United States of America, as always, is petrified of anything genuinely progressive or socialist, or even too democratic, for that carries the danger of allowing god-knows what kind of non-America-believer taking office. Honduras 2009, Haiti 2004, Venezuela 2002, Ecuador 2000, Bulgaria 1990, Nicaragua 1990 … dozens more … anything, anyone, if there’s a choice, even a dictator, a torturer, is better.

We are so good even our enemies believe our lies

I’ve devoted a lot of time and effort to the question of how to reach the American mind concerning US foreign policy. To a large extent what this comes down to is trying to counterbalance the lifetime of indoctrination someone raised in the United States receives. It comes in news stories every day.

On January 27, the Washington Post ran a story about the State Department personnel who were held hostage at the American embassy in Tehran, Iran for some 14 months, 1979-81. The former hostages were preparing to hold a 30th anniversary remembrance the next day.

“It was wrong on every conceivable count,” said L. Bruce Laingen, who was the charge d’affaires. “It was absolutely wrong. … That is my most vivid memory today.” Former political officer John W. Limbert agrees, saying that he “would take any opportunity” to tell his captors “what a terrible thing they had done by their own criteria.”

What criteria, I wonder, did the man think his Iranian captors were guided by? In 1953, the United States had overthrown the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh, resulting, as planned, in the return to power from exile of the Shah. This led to 26 years of rule by oppression including routine torture as the Shah was safeguarded continuously by US military support. Is this not reason enough for Iranians to be bitterly angry at the United States? What was Mr. Limbert thinking? What do Americans who read or hear such comments think? They read or hear distorted news reports pertaining to America’s present or historical role in the world every day, and like in the Washington Post article cited here — there’s no correction by the reporter, no questions asked, no challenge put forth to the idea of America the Noble, America the perpetual victim of the Bad Guys.

Atheist: “Blasphemy is a victimless crime.”

Salman Taseer was murdered in Pakistan a few weeks ago. He was the governor of Punjab province and a member of the secular Pakistan People’s Party. The man who killed him, Mumtaz Qadri, was lauded by some as a hero, showering rose petals on him. Photos taken at the scene show him smiling.

Taseer had dared to speak out against Pakistan’s stringent anti-blasphemy law, calling for leniency for a Christian mother sentenced to death under the blasphemy ban. A national group of 500 religious scholars praised the assassin and issued a warning to those who mourned Taseer. “One who supports a blasphemer is also a blasphemer,” the group said in a statement, which warned journalists, politicians and intellectuals to “learn” from the killing. “What Qadri did has made every Muslim proud.”2

Nice, really nice, very civilized. It’s no wonder that decent, god-fearing Americans believe that this kind of thinking and behavior justify Washington’s multiple wars; that this is what the United States is fighting against — Islamic fanatics, homicidal maniacs, who kill their own countrymen over some esoteric piece of religious dogma, who want to kill Americans over some other imagined holy sin, because we’re “infidels” or “blasphemers”. How can we reason with such people? Where is the common humanity the naive pacifists and anti-war activists would like us to honor?

But war can be seen as America’s religion — most recently Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and many more in the past — all non-believers in Washington’s Church of Our Lady of Eternal Invasion, Sacred Bombing, and Immaculate Torture, all condemned to death for blasphemy, as each day the United States unleashes blessed robotic death machines called Predators flying over their lands to send “Hellfire” (sic) missiles screaming into wedding parties, funerals, homes, not knowing who the victims are, not caring who the victims are, thousands of them by now, as long as Washington can claim each time –- whether correctly or not — that amongst their number was a prominent blasphemer, call him Taliban, or al Qaeda, or insurgent, or militant. How can we reason with such people, the ones in the CIA who operate these drone bombers? What is the difference between them and Mumtaz Qadri? Qadri was smiling in satisfaction after carrying out his holy mission. The CIA man sits comfortably in a room in Nevada and plays his holy video game, then goes out to a satisfying dinner while his victims lay dying. Mumtaz Qadri believes passionately in something called Paradise. The CIA man believes passionately in something called American Exceptionalism.

As do the great majority of Americans. Our drone operator is not necessarily an “extremist”. Sam Smith, the publisher of the marvelously readable newsletter, the Progressive Review, recently wrote: “One of the greatest myths draped over this land is that the so-called wing nuts mainly come from the far right and left. And that there is, however, a wise and moderate establishment that will save us from their madness. In fact, the real wing nuts are to be found in the middle. … having captured both public office and major media, [they] spread disaster, death and decay with impunity. Take, for example, the 60,000 some American troops killed in pointless wars beginning with Vietnam. Now count the number of political assassinations, hate murders, terrorist acts and so forth. There is simply no comparison. Yet every war that we have fought in modern times has been the direct choice of the American establishment, those who pompously describe themselves as moderates, centrists, or bipartisan.” 3

Extending the comparison: In 2008 a young American named Sharif Mobley moved to Yemen to study Arabic and religion. American officials maintain that his purpose was actually to join a terror group. They “see Mobley as one of a growing cadre of native-born Americans who are drawn to violent jihad.” 4 Can one not say as well that the many young native-born Americans who voluntarily join the military to fight in one of America’s many foreign wars “are drawn to violent jihad”?

Items of interest from a journal I’ve kept for 40 years

(Some written by me, most by others; for those lacking a source you can send me an email.)

>> “The biggest crimes of our generation — torture, warrantless wiretapping, and extraordinary rendition — would not have come to light but for the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. For the hand-wringing “but we can’t willy-nilly reveal classified information” crowd, do you think Abu Ghraib wasn’t classified?” – Jesselyn Radack

>> “The principal beneficiary of America’s foreign assistance programs has always been the United States.” – US Agency for International Development, “Direct Economic Benefits of U.S. Assistance Programs” (1999); i.e., most of the money is paid directly to US corporations.

>> In 1963, the Kennedy administration was faced with a steadily disintegrating situation in Vietnam. At a turbulent cabinet meeting, Attorney General Robert Kennedy asked: If the situation is so dire, why not withdraw? Historian Arthur Schlesinger, present at the meeting, noted how “the question hovered for a moment, then died away.” It was “a hopelessly alien thought in a field of unexplored assumptions and entrenched convictions.”

>> I watched 21 Marines in full dress uniform with rifles, fire a 21-gun salute to the President. It was then that I realized how far America’s military had deteriorated. Every one of them missed the bastard.

>> Soviet expansion was self-defense, not imperialism like with the United States. The Soviets, in World War I and II, lost about 40 million people because the West had used Eastern Europe as a highway to invade Russia. It should not be surprising that after WW2 the Russians were determined to close down that highway.

>> In March 2010 Secretary of “Defense” Robert Gates complained that “the general [European] public and the political class” are so opposed to war they are an “impediment” to peace.

>> The major problem in establishing both the United States and Israel as nations was what to do with the indigenous people. Same solution. Kill ’em. Without legality. Without mercy.

>> From the film “The Battle of Algiers”:

Journalist: M. Ben M’Hidi, don’t you think it’s a bit cowardly to use women’s baskets and handbags to carry explosive devices that kill so many innocent people?

Ben M’Hidi: And doesn’t it seem to you even more cowardly to drop napalm bombs on defenseless villages, so that there are a thousand times more innocent victims? Of course, if we had your airplanes it would be a lot easier for us. Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets.

>> … the seamless transition from the Cold War to a perpetual Global War on Terrorism

>> One of the reasons some countries allow US bases is because the leaders are worried about being overthrown in a coup and they think that the presence of the US military might discourage such action, or that if a coup breaks out the US can help to put it down. There’s also the large payments made to the government by the US and the prestige factor. Small countries can have inferiority complexes and, as absurd as it may seem to the likes of you and I, having an American base in the country can seem to be a feather in their cap; one of the same reasons they join NATO. Another reason for a base: the US can have intelligence information embarrassing to the country’s leader. This is known as blackmail.

>> George Washington referred to the new American republic as the “infant empire”

>> Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.

>> “He [Obama] is trying to say: ‘Do not hate us … but we will continue to kill you’.” – Ayman al-Zawahri, Al Qaeda’s second-in-command

>> “Since both the US and France lost in Vietnam, then the ‘fight for our freedom’ must have been unsuccessful, and we must be under the occupation of the North Vietnamese Army. Next time you’re out on the street and you see a passing NVA patrol, please wave and tell them Tim says hello.” – Tim Moriarty

>> The American Museum of History, on the Mall in Washington, DC: One of the popular exhibitions in recent years was “The Price of Freedom: Americans at War”. This included a tribute to the “exceptional Americans [who] saved a million lives” in Vietnam, where they were “determined to stop communist expansion”. In Iraq, other true hearts “employed air strikes of unprecedented precision”.

>> “The United States became the target of terrorists on 9/11 not because of the country’s freedom and democracy, but because U.S. Middle East policy has had nothing to do with freedom and democracy.” – Stephen Zunes

>> The Wikileaks documents raise issues of national embarrassment, not national security.

>> Orange, Rose and Green Revolutions in other countries require coordinated US government intervention aimed at creating what has been called “genetically modified” grassroots movements.

>> Mikhail Gorbachev: “I feel betrayed by the West. The opportunity we seized on behalf of peace has been lost. The whole idea of a new world order has been completely abandoned.” (Interview in 2000.)

>> George Bernard Shaw used three concepts to describe the positions of individuals in Nazi Germany: intelligence, decency, and Naziism. He argued that if a person was intelligent, and a Nazi, he was not decent. If he was decent and a Nazi, he was not intelligent. And if he was decent and intelligent, he was not a Nazi. — (I suggest that the reader make any substitution for the word “Nazi” s/he deems appropriate.)

>> “The whole art of Conservative politics in the 20th century is being deployed to enable wealth to persuade poverty to use its political freedom to keep wealth in power.” – Aneurin Bevan, Labour Party (UK) minister, 1897-1960

>> “Which adversary has a navy justifying our expenditure of $90 billion for 30 Virginia-class submarines, and which enemy air force justifies our plans for about 340 F-22 fighter planes at a cost of $63 billion? This is pork and waste writ large, making the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ look like child’s play.” – Letter in the Washington Post, 2009

>> So many foreign leaders keep silent in the face of US crimes, even when they’re the victim, that we’ve gotten used to that. So Hugo Chávez’s outbursts can seem weird and dangerous.

A talk by William Blum

Saturday, April 2, 7:00 pm

University of Pittsburgh at Titusville, PA

504 East Main Street

Broadhurst Auditorium

Titusville is about 2 hours by car from Pittsburgh and 2 1/2 hours from Cleveland.

For further information: 888-878-0462

Or email Mary Ann Caton at caton@pitt.edu

Notes

1. William Blum, “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower”, pages 187, 228 for sources ↩

2. Washington Post, January 5, 2011↩

3. Progressive Review, January 27, 2011 ↩

4. Washington Post, September 5, 2010 ↩

William Blum is the author of:

Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2

Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower

West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir

Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire

Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at www.killinghope.org

Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website.

To add yourself to this mailing list simply send an email to bblum6 [at] aol.com with “add” in the subject line. I’d like your name and city in the message, but that’s optional. I ask for your city only in case I’ll be speaking in your area.

(Or put “remove” in the subject line to do the opposite.)

Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission. I’d appreciate it if the website were mentioned.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Monday 7 Feb 2011

After almost two weeks of mass protests in Egypt, some intellectuals, activists and parties hold talks with the government, while the majority of protesters refuse to leave Tahrir square before president Mubarak steps down

As some Egyptian opposition groups joined talks on Sunday with the government toward overhauling the country’s political system and responding to the demands of the 25 Janurary Revolution, thousands of protesters who have maintained their daily demonstratons and overnight occupation of Tahrir square for the past two weeks insist on Mubarak’s resignation as a precondition to any negotiations. Many of them believe the opposition movements don’t represent them. Although the government has been changed, protesters are still camping in Tahrir square refusing to go anywhere until the regime and its head are brought down.

“We are here because nothing has been changed; they change cards, they change faces, but the regime is still the same. A good example is the ex-minister of trade Rachid Mohamed Rachid. They offered him a position in the new government, and when he refused they put him on the black list and confiscated his money,” said Shaimaa Shalash, an interior designer who has been camping in Tahrir square for the past ten days. Rachid was in Dubai when the decision was made.

A great many of the protesters in Tahrir square would agree with Shalash that their demands haven’t been met yet and that the decisions that have been taken are meaningless. They also believe that the officials are still very arrogant in their speeches, from Mubarak, who reads from a paper and doesn’t look people in their eyes, to Omar Suleiman, his newly appointed vice president who threatened the protestors that if they don’t go home “it won’t be good”, to Ahmed Shafiq, the newly-appointed prime minister.

“[Shafiq] went on TV with a big smile saying he will send food and candies to Tahrir. He is making fun of us. He is being very arrogant. It is the same regime that belittles the people and despises them,” adds Shalash, who insists she won’t go home before the protestors’ demands are met.

Although Shalash rejects negotiations with what she believes is an unwanted regime, opposition representatives are currently holding talks with the prime minister and the vice president.

Gamal Fahmi, a member of the journalists’ syndicate council, agrees with Shalash that protestors in Tahrir sqauare are not going to leave unless their demands are met. “Mubarak is stripping down the regime piece by piece, that’s why we should continue to put pressure on them to get what we want,” says Fahmi, who doesn’t mind that some opposition parties are negotiating with the regime. “Even if they don’t represent us, at least they will tell the authorities what is happening here. People here are creating their own mechanisms, one day there are a million protesters, the second day they are on a warrior break,” adds Fahmi, who describes the general scene at Tahrir square as spectacular.

Fahmi, like many of the protesters in Tahrir, doesn’t have a clear agenda as to what to next and admits there is “no catalogue for revolution”. “It will create its own mechanisms, online and offline,” adds Fahmi.

Dina Shokri, a freelance photographer, who is looking clearly exhausted from the sleepless nights at Tahrir is also undaunted. She believes the regime’s tactics until today defy logic. “The only logical scenario is that Mubarak resigns. He is playing a time game, but it is not in his favour. We have more time than him as a matter of fact,” says Shokri, who also doesn’t mind the negotiations and says some people representating her views are attending the negotiations but they haven’t reached any of their demands yet. “The regime has to leave, emergency law has to end, and the rigged parliament has to be dissolved, both the upper and lower houses, nothing of that was achieved,” adds Shokri.

But unlike Shokri, Fahmi and Shalash, Omar El-Kafrawi, who studies engineering, does mind the negotiations and believes no one represents him and no one should speak for him. He asserts that he is staying in Tahrir until all demands are met. These include the removal of the regime, establishing a national unity government that amends the constitution, establishing a new modern secular state, dissolving the parliament, an immediate end to emergency law, and putting those responsible for killing protesters on trial.

“We want freedom, integrity, and justice. We the young people were brutally beaten and killed by the police last week, and the opposition parties were not there. Now after the massacres are over they want to jump on our movement,” says El-Kafrawi, asserting that he has no political affiliation and that all parties have their own agendas and are working for their own benefits while independents like him are working for Egypt’s benefit.

El-Kafrawi, who aspires to be Egypt’s president in 2050 when he believes there will be democracy and free elections, accuses Egyptian TV of brainwashing people and prefers it shuts down because “this is the money of tax payers, they waste it – no one watch their lies.”

Mohamed Khaled, 31, who works in marketing, does not insist on Mubarak’s resignation if he stays on only as a figure without political or legislative power. “He can delegate to Omar Suleiman, who would need to change the constitution, end emergency law, dissolve the parliament, and assure freedom of political parties and the press,” says Khaled. Some agree with him that it is not only Mubarak that needs to be removed, but the regime itself, which consolidates all political and legislative power in the hands of one person.

Most of the protesters Ahram Online spoke to in Tahrir say they dream of a modern democratic state. “All that we have been offered is a bunch of promises. We don’t have anything tangible yet. For thirty years we have seen lying and rigging. If only he removes the emergency law, and dissolves the parliament, we may believe him that he will leave in September and change the constitution, but we don’t believe him,” adds Khaled.

Mohammed Hafez, who teaches Arabic in Germany and has come back to participate in the demonstrations, is ready to compromise. “We won’t get all of our demands. Mubarak doesn’t seem to be leaving, but we need to make sure we get the rest of our demands that insure his regime goes, and we have a new democratic secular state with a new constitution, and a new parliament and fair elections,” says Hafez, who is eager to form a representative list of people for a national unity government – mostly lawyers, judges and journalists, some Copts and Muslim Brotherhood members, as well as ElBaradei and Ahmed Zewil. “These people represent us, understand politics and can take us to a safe democracy,” adds Hafez, who says he won’t go back to Germany or to work before achieving democracy.

Although protestors in Tahrir square appear to agree on one demand – the removal of the regime – they may differ on whether to negotiate or not, and if so, how. “This is one of the main drawbacks of the revolution. Usually people think about what they want and then they start a revolution, but now it is the other way around. We have created the revolution first and then in the next transitional period, we will be allowed to see politics, and decide what to join and what to do,” says Mohammed Kalfat, a translator who participated in the sit in.

Wondering what’s next, Salma Said, a cultural manager and activist who has participated in the sit-in since day one, says Mubarak has to resign first, then we need to work on the grassroots level. “We should write down our list of demands and the actual time frame, and work on together to reach consensus on it, everyone in Tahrir. Then we send our list to the vice president or Amr Moussa,” adds Said, who tried reaching a consensus with her fellow Tahrir protesters but couldn’t deliver her message. “They told me I will cause confusion,” says Said.

 

http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/5112.aspx

February 8, 2011

 

special to   CBC News

Of all the remarkable developments pouring out of Egypt these days, one pertinent issue has yet to receive the attention it deserves – the curious case of Hosni Mubarak’s wealth.

How much is it? Where is it all kept? And where did it come from?

Over the years, reputable sources have insisted that the president and his two sons, Gamal and Alaa, have accumulated somewhere between $15 and $30 billion dollars in family wealth. Some estimates go far higher.

We should keep this in mind when some Egyptian and U.S. officials bleat on about Mubarak’s “60 years of devoted service to his country” and that he deserves an “honourabl exit.”

Indeed, while the world media has understandably concentrated on the calls for freedom and democracy emanating from Tahrir Square, some reporters have noted the words most chanted in the streets of Cairo are “corruption,” stealing” and “thieves.”

So far, in the negotiations to replace Mubarak, the top opposition voices have skirted around this potentially explosive issue.

Still, on Monday, a group of 20 prominent Egyptians petitioned the public prosecutor to investigate these stories of the ruling family’s vast wealth and how exactly it has been accumulated during the Mubaraks’ 30-year lock on power.

Its rich source, according to several Mideast experts, flows from the sons being granted free shares in any new enterprise opening in Egypt.

Corporate tithing

Foreigner enterprises that wish to do business in Egypt are commonly asked to give a free 20 per cent stake to prominent Egyptians, according Christopher Davidson, professor of Middle East Politics at Durham University in England.

“This gives politicians and close allies in the military a source of huge profits with no initial outlay and little risk,” Davidson said in an interview “Almost every project needs a sponsor and Mubarak was well placed to take advantage of any deals on offer.”

Understanding this kind of corporate tithing explains the hold the Mubarak family has on the country’s ruling elite. But reporting on Mubarak’s “hidden billions” may significantly complicate the efforts of both Egyptians and outsiders to nudge the aging president from office (and presumably into exile) in a peaceful transfer of power.

 

As the extent and source of his wealth becomes better known, it will become much harder for those in the West, to argue that Mubarak should stay on until September as a guarantee of stability in the region.

Because he has been a dutiful regional partner in the Middle East, successive U.S. administrations have been ready to downplay Mubarak’s authoritarian rule.

But if hard evidence emerges of corruption running into the billions of dollars, then we should expect to see that familiar spectacle of official Washington scrambling away from yet another strongman friend.

Abuse and intimidation

“All this raises a question,” New York Times columnist Roger Cohen insisted this week.

“In the name of what, exactly, has the United States been ready to back and fund an ally whose contempt for the law, fake democracy and gross theft flouts everything for which America stands?”

Of course, the U.S. and many other nations, including Canada, will say Mubarak’s stability was vital to Mideast peace.

But these friends of Egypt now can’t be “shocked” to discover the true extent of top-down corruption in his country.

It has been no secret that, under 30 years of Mubarak rule, traditional corruption in Egypt expanded at every level.

Egypt’s government has been thoroughly abused by a system of bribes and favours backed up by intimidation and legal threats.

Anyone who hinted at financial abuse inside Egypt risked arrest and possibly torture by the feared secret police, who had their own stake in a corrupt system.

Even the military, beyond criticism in Egypt, has such extensive business interests that U.S. diplomats viewed it as a form of “Military Inc.,” according to a recent New York Times story.

The military owns enterprises in electronics, hotels, energy and even household appliances and bread production that are often run by retired generals.

According to Transparency International’s annual corruption index, Egypt ranks an ignominious 98th of 178 countries, just ahead of Mexico.

Astonishing non-achievement

As for the immediate crisis, however, one has to wonder about the willingness of a systemically corrupt regime to yield to reform.

 

From what I have been told, there is fear throughout the upper reaches of the Egyptian government that a serious investigation into corruption will burn them all.

That prospect could well drive them to hang on to power whatever the costs to the country.

For how does one even begin to unravel corruption on this scale? The truth and reconciliation commissions that worked so well in South Africa and Northern Ireland dealt with acts of past violence. Dealing with stolen mega-fortunes may not be so easy.

There was a time when wealthy dethroned leaders – such as Egypt’s playboy King Farouk in 1952 – could simply fly off into gilded exile on the Riviera or in Switzerland.

But today those in exile face posses of lawyers and investigators demanding prosecution and even extradition.

Determined to maintain the safety that power offers, the new government appointed by Mubarak has thrown a few sacrificial multi-millionaires over the side.

Even a close business associate of Mubarak’s son Gamal – the widely loathed Ahmed Ezz, a steel merchant and leading member of the governing party – has had his assets frozen.

But these token gestures have hardly appeased demonstrators who have run out of patience with a system that has cheated their lives at every turn.

Even as Egypt enjoyed economic growth in recent years, most citizens felt excluded.

The super rich grew ever more dominant and flashy while 30 per cent of the population remained illiterate – an astonishing non-achievement – and gross national income is a mere $2,000 per family.

While the world marvels at what is going on, an unjust system keeps those who lost out demonstrating in the streets, just as it keeps those who most benefited clinging desperately to power, lest the full truth come to light.

 

 

 

05 February, 2011

Guardian.co.uk

The nature of any regime USA backs in the Arab world is secondary to control. Subjects are ignored until they break their chains

‘The Arab world is on fire,” al-Jazeera reported last week, while throughout the region, western allies “are quickly losing their influence”. The shock wave was set in motion by the dramatic uprising in Tunisia that drove out a western-backed dictator, with reverberations especially in Egypt, where demonstrators overwhelmed a dictator’s brutal police.

Observers compared it to the toppling of Russian domains in 1989, but there are important differences. Crucially, no Mikhail Gorbachev exists among the great powers that support the Arab dictators. Rather, Washington and its allies keep to the well-established principle that democracy is acceptable only insofar as it conforms to strategic and economic objectives: fine in enemy territory (up to a point), but not in our backyard, please, unless properly tamed.

One 1989 comparison has some validity: Romania, where Washington maintained its support for Nicolae Ceausescu, the most vicious of the east European dictators, until the allegiance became untenable. Then Washington hailed his overthrow while the past was erased. That is a standard pattern: Ferdinand Marcos, Jean-Claude Duvalier, Chun Doo-hwan, Suharto and many other useful gangsters. It may be under way in the case of Hosni Mubarak, along with routine efforts to try to ensure a successor regime will not veer far from the approved path. The current hope appears to be Mubarak loyalist General Omar Suleiman, just named Egypt’s vice-president. Suleiman, the longtime head of the intelligence services, is despised by the rebelling public almost as much as the dictator himself.

A common refrain among pundits is that fear of radical Islam requires (reluctant) opposition to democracy on pragmatic grounds. While not without some merit, the formulation is misleading. The general threat has always been independence. The US and its allies have regularly supported radical Islamists, sometimes to prevent the threat of secular nationalism.

A familiar example is Saudi Arabia, the ideological centre of radical Islam (and of Islamic terror). Another in a long list is Zia ul-Haq, the most brutal of Pakistan’s dictators and President Reagan’s favorite, who carried out a programme of radical Islamisation (with Saudi funding).

“The traditional argument put forward in and out of the Arab world is that there is nothing wrong, everything is under control,” says Marwan Muasher, a former Jordanian official and now director of Middle East research for the Carnegie Endowment. “With this line of thinking, entrenched forces argue that opponents and outsiders calling for reform are exaggerating the conditions on the ground.”

Therefore the public can be dismissed. The doctrine traces far back and generalises worldwide, to US home territory as well. In the event of unrest, tactical shifts may be necessary, but always with an eye to reasserting control.

The vibrant democracy movement in Tunisia was directed against “a police state, with little freedom of expression or association, and serious human rights problems”, ruled by a dictator whose family was hated for their venality. So said US ambassador Robert Godec in a July 2009 cable released by WikiLeaks.

Therefore to some observers the WikiLeaks “documents should create a comforting feeling among the American public that officials aren’t asleep at the switch” – indeed, that the cables are so supportive of US policies that it is almost as if Obama is leaking them himself (or so Jacob Heilbrunn writes in The National Interest.)

“America should give Assange a medal,” says a headline in the Financial Times, where Gideon Rachman writes: “America’s foreign policy comes across as principled, intelligent and pragmatic … the public position taken by the US on any given issue is usually the private position as well.”

In this view, WikiLeaks undermines “conspiracy theorists” who question the noble motives Washington proclaims.

Godec’s cable supports these judgments – at least if we look no further. If we do,, as foreign policy analyst Stephen Zunes reports in Foreign Policy in Focus, we find that, with Godec’s information in hand, Washington provided $12m in military aid to Tunisia. As it happens, Tunisia was one of only five foreign beneficiaries: Israel (routinely); the two Middle East dictatorships Egypt and Jordan; and Colombia, which has long had the worst human-rights record and the most US military aid in the hemisphere.

Heilbrunn’s exhibit A is Arab support for US policies targeting Iran, revealed by leaked cables. Rachman too seizes on this example, as did the media generally, hailing these encouraging revelations. The reactions illustrate how profound is the contempt for democracy in the educated culture.

Unmentioned is what the population thinks – easily discovered. According to polls released by the Brookings Institution in August, some Arabs agree with Washington and western commentators that Iran is a threat: 10%. In contrast, they regard the US and Israel as the major threats (77%; 88%).

Arab opinion is so hostile to Washington’s policies that a majority (57%) think regional security would be enhanced if Iran had nuclear weapons. Still, “there is nothing wrong, everything is under control” (as Muasher describes the prevailing fantasy). The dictators support us. Their subjects can be ignored – unless they break their chains, and then policy must be adjusted.

Other leaks also appear to lend support to the enthusiastic judgments about Washington’s nobility. In July 2009, Hugo Llorens, U.S. ambassador to Honduras, informed Washington of an embassy investigation of “legal and constitutional issues surrounding the 28 June forced removal of President Manuel ‘Mel’ Zelaya.”

The embassy concluded that “there is no doubt that the military, supreme court and national congress conspired on 28 June in what constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup against the executive branch”. Very admirable, except that President Obama proceeded to break with almost all of Latin America and Europe by supporting the coup regime and dismissing subsequent atrocities.

Perhaps the most remarkable WikiLeaks revelations have to do with Pakistan, reviewed by foreign policy analyst Fred Branfman in Truthdig.

The cables reveal that the US embassy is well aware that Washington’s war in Afghanistan and Pakistan not only intensifies rampant anti-Americanism but also “risks destabilising the Pakistani state” and even raises a threat of the ultimate nightmare: that nuclear weapons might fall into the hands of Islamic terrorists.

Again, the revelations “should create a comforting feeling … that officials are not asleep at the switch” (Heilbrunn’s words) – while Washington marches stalwartly toward disaster.

© 2011 Noam Chomsky

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

05 February, 2011

The Independent

Caged yesterday inside a new army cordon of riot-visored troops and coils of barbed wire – the very protection which Washington had demanded for the protesters of Tahrir Square – the tens of thousands of young Egyptians demanding Hosni Mubarak’s overthrow have taken the first concrete political steps to create a new nation to replace the corrupt government which has ruled them for 30 years.

Sitting on filthy pavements, amid the garbage and broken stones of a week of street fighting, they have drawn up a list of 25 political personalities to negotiate for a new political leadership and a new constitution to replace Mubarak’s crumbling regime.

They include Amr Moussa, the secretary general of the Arab League – himself a trusted Egyptian; the Nobel prize-winner Ahmed Zuwail, an Egyptian-American who has advised President Barack Obama; Mohamed Selim Al-Awa, a professor and author of Islamic studies who is close to the Muslim Brotherhood; and the president of the Wafd party, Said al-Badawi.

Other nominees for the committee, which was supposed to meet the Egyptian Vice-President, Omar Suleiman, within 24 hours, are Nagib Suez, a prominent Cairo businessman (involved in the very mobile phone systems shut down by Mubarak last week); Nabil al-Arabi, an Egyptian UN delegate; and even the heart surgeon Magdi Yacoub, who now lives in Cairo.

The selection – and the makeshift committee of Tahrir Square demonstrators and Facebook and Twitter “electors” – has not been confirmed, but it marks the first serious attempt to turn the massive street protests of the past seven days into a political machine that provides for a future beyond the overthrow of the much-hated President. The committee’s first tasks would be to draw up a new Egyptian constitution and an electoral system that would prevent the president-for-life swindle which Mubarak’s fraudulent elections have created. Instead, Egyptian presidents would be limited to two consecutive terms of office, and the presidential term itself would be reduced from six to four years.

But no one involved in this initiative has any doubts of the grim future that awaits them if their brave foray into practical politics fails. There was more sniping into Tahrir Square during the night – an engineer, a lawyer and another young man were killed – and plain-clothes police were again discovered in the square. There were further minor stone-throwing battles during the day, despite the vastly increased military presence, and most of the protesters fear that if they leave the square they will immediately be arrested, along with their families, by Mubarak’s cruel state security apparatus.

Already, there are dark reports of demonstrators who dared to return home and disappeared. The Egyptian writer Mohamed Fadel Fahmy, who is involved in the committee discussions, is fearful for himself. “We’re safe as long as we have the square,” he said to me yesterday, urging me to publish his name as a symbol of the freedom he demands. “If we lose the square, Mubarak will arrest all the opposition groups – and there will be police rule as never before. That’s why we are fighting for our lives.”

The state security police now have long lists of names of protesters who have given television interviews or been quoted in newspapers, Facebook postings and tweets.

The protesters have identified growing divisions between the Egyptian army and the thugs of the interior ministry, whose guards exchanged fire with soldiers three days ago as they continued to occupy the building in which basement torture chambers remain undamaged by the street fighting. These were the same rooms of horror to which America’s “renditioned” prisoners were sent for “special” treatment at the hands of Mubarak’s more sadistic torturers – another favour which bound the Egyptian regime to the United States as a “trusted” ally.

Another young man involved in the committee selections admitted he didn’t trust Omar Suleiman, the former spy boss and Israeli-Palestinian negotiator whom Mubarak appointed this week. Suleiman it is, by the way, who has been trying to shuffle responsibility for the entire crisis on to the foreign press – a vicious as well as dishonest way of exercising his first days of power. Yet he has cleverly outmanoeuvred the demonstrators in Tahrir Square by affording them army protection.

Indeed, yesterday morning, to the shock of all of us standing on the western side of the square, a convoy of 4x4s with blackened windows suddenly emerged from the gardens of the neighbouring Egyptian Museum, slithered to a halt in front of us and was immediately surrounded by a praetorian guard of red-bereted soldiers and massive – truly gigantic – security guards in shades and holding rifles with telescopic sights. Then, from the middle vehicle emerged the diminutive, bespectacled figure of Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, the chief of staff of the Egyptian army and a lifelong friend of Mubarak, wearing a soft green military kepi and general’s cross-swords insignia on his shoulders.

Here was a visitor to take the breath away, waving briefly to the protesters who crowded the military cordon to witness this extraordinary arrival. The crowd roared. “The Egyptian army is our army,” they shouted in unison. “But Mubarak is not ours.” It was a message for Tantawi to take back to his friend Mubarak, but his visit was itself a powerful political symbol. However much Mubarak may rave about “foreign hands” behind the demands for his overthrow, and however many lies Suleiman may tell about foreign journalists, Tantawi was showing that the army took its mission to protect the demonstrators seriously. The recent military statement that it would never fire on those who wish to dethrone Mubarak, since their grievances were “legitimate”, was authorised by Tantawi. Hence the demonstrators’ belief – however naïve and dangerous – in the integrity of the military.

Crucially missing from the list of figures proposed for the committee are Mohamed ElBaradei, the former UN arms inspectors and Nobel laureate, and members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the “Islamist” spectre which Mubarak and the Israelis always dangled in front of the Americans to persuade them to keep old Mubarak in power. The Brotherhood’s insistence in not joining talks until Mubarak’s departure – and their support for ElBaradei, whose own faint presidential ambitions (of the “transitional” kind) have not commended themselves to the protesters – effectively excluded them. Suleiman has archly invited the Brotherhood to meet him, knowing that they will not do so until Mubarak has gone.

But al-Awa’s proposed presence on the committee – and that of the Islamist intellectual Ahmed Kamel Abu Magd – will ensure that their views are included in any discussions with Suleiman. These talks would also cover civil and constitutional rights and a special clause to allow Suleiman to rule Egypt temporarily because “the President is unable to perform his duties”.

Mubarak would be allowed to live privately in Egypt providing he played no part – publicly or covertly – in the political life of the country. He is regarded as a still-fierce opponent who will not hesitate to decapitate the opposition should he hang on to power.

“He is one of the old school, like Saddam and Arafat, who in the last two days has shown his true face,” another committee supporter said yesterday. “He is the man behind the attacks on us and the shooting deaths.” Mohamed Fahmy knows what this means. His own father has been in exile from Egypt for seven years – after proposing identical protests to those witnessed today to get rid of the Mubarak empire.

Egypt’s day in brief

Curfew shortened

Cairo’s curfew has been reduced by three hours. People must be off the streets between 7pm and 6am instead of 5pm and 7am.

Al Jazeera offices torched

The Cairo offices of Al Jazeera were stormed and set alight. The broadcaster blamed supporters of President Mubarak for trying to hinder its coverage, adding that its website was also hacked. Last week, authorities closed the office and revoked credentials of its reporters.

Egypt economy slumps

Egypt’s economy has lost at least $3.1bn due to the crisis, investment bank Crédit Agricole said yesterday. The unrest has closed businesses and banks, and thousands of tourists have fled. The bank said the crisis is costing Egypt at least $310m per day, and said the Egyptian pound could depreciate by 20 per cent.

Obama criticises intelligence

President Obama sent a note bemoaning failure of US intelligence to predict crises in Tunisia and Egypt, AP reported.

What happens next?

Mubarak flees

If the President decides that the voices calling for his arrest, trial and even execution are gaining sway at the highest levels, he could take advantage of the rumoured offers of asylum, and disappear. But this is the least likely possibility. If he was ready to go, he would most likely have done so already, when the seriousness of the protests first became clear. His speech this week showed he was determined to go on his own terms.

Negotiated departure

The preferred solution of the Western powers, in particular the US, which has been leading demands that “an orderly transition must begin now”. For Mr Mubarak to agree he would have to be convinced that he would be able to step down in a “dignified” fashion. The most likely catalyst will be the senior echelons of the army, especially now that Mr Mubarak has given the US short shrift. If he were to go, his Vice-President, Omar Suleiman, would take charge of a transitional government, including opposition elements, ahead of new elections.

Protests fizzle out

Some supporters of Mr Mubarak will be heartened that, for all the sound and fury of the protesters, they have so far failed to force the President’s hand. The longer the protests go on, the less likely it is that he will exit suddenly. Even some of Mr Mubarak’s worst enemies are arguing that he should be allowed to carry on until September. Those who want him out now will argue that a lot can change before his mooted departure – and may fear violent reprisals once they lose the protection of the army. Such a scenario could probably materialise only if the Egyptian military and the US conclude that it is the best case.

Crackdown

The clashes in Tahrir Square in central Cairo on Wednesday hinted at the bloodshed that could unfold if the regime decided it had a chance to cling on to power by crushing the opposition. But that possibility has probably diminished as the protests have widened. Any state-sponsored attack on citizens would meet with outrage and strong action from the West, probably including the withdrawal of the US aid on which Mr Mubarak relies.

©independent.co.uk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

05 February, 2011

Countercurrents.or

The dominoes are beginning to fall in the Arab world, and it all began in Tunisia.

A series of street protests in December 2010 and January 2011 led to the ouster of Tunisia’s former president, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, who fled to Saudi Arabia on January 14.

The events in Tunisia have set off a chain reaction across the entire Arab world as citizens of Arab countries have been inspired by the Tunisians’ people power movement.

Major demonstrations have been held in Yemen, Egypt, Algeria, and Jordan, and there have been smaller demonstrations and minor incidents in Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Oman, Sudan, and Libya.

A demonstration was held in Jordan on February 3 in which protesters demanded that newly installed Prime Minister Marouf al-Bakhit step down.

After demonstrations in Yemen, President Ali Abdullah Saleh announced that he would step down when his current term expires in 2013.

Over the past week, the demonstrations in Egypt have gained steam every day, and it appears that President Hosni Mubarak may have to step down.

The situation has been compared to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, which led to the collapse of communism in the Soviet satellite states of Eastern Europe.

But there are some major differences between the events of 1989 and the Arab world awakening of 2011 that make the comparison not completely accurate.

The current confrontation in the Arab world is not between authoritarian regimes and the forces of democracy.

The day of the authoritarian regimes is done. It may take a little longer for some of them to fall, but eventually they will all fall.

Even their patrons in the West are abandoning the dictators of the Arab world, as evidenced by Ben Ali’s hasty departure.

The powers that be who run the Western world have decided that it is no longer in their interests to support puppet rulers running authoritarian regimes in the Arab world.

So they are turning to Plan B, which may have been prepared decades ago and put on the shelf until needed.

In Plan B, the Western powers will allow the authoritarian regimes of the Arab world to collapse and attempt to replace them with fake democracies run by puppet rulers beholden to their masters in the West.

And thus the current confrontation in the Arab world is actually between the forces of true democracy, who want independent countries, and the forces of fake democracy, who are seeking to establish comprador regimes, which would be the same old neocolonialism with a new face.

The forces of true democracy in the Arab world must be very careful in choosing their new leaders since the global ruling class does not want them to have independent governments and will do everything in their power to prevent such a turn of events.

And the globalists are adept at setting up governments that have all the trappings of democracy but which are actually client states with their vassals in charge.

Everything is in flux in the Arab world, which is a good thing since it provides an opportunity for change and progress after so many years of stagnation.

But there is also a great danger, since the Machiavellian manipulators of the global ruling class are skillful chaos players who plan ahead for such eventualities for decades.

The dominoes are truly falling in the Arab world, but it is not clear in which direction they are falling.

The writer is a veteran journalist working with the Tehran Times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

08 February, 2011

Andyworthington.co.uk

I’m posting below an essay about Guantánamo, written as a school project by Sammie Killmer, a sixth-grade schoolgirl in Denver, Colorado, who understands more about Guantánamo and the men held there than most adults in a position of influence in the United States.

This is not coincidental, as her father is Darold Killmer, an attorney whose law firm represents five prisoners still in Guantánamo: Musa’ab Omar Al Madhwani (ISN 839), Abdul Rahman Al Qyati (ISN 461), Sa’ad Al Azani (ISN 575), Jalal Salim Bin Amer (ISN 564) and Suhail Abdu Anam (ISN 569) [see here, here and here for more information about these men]. However, as Darold explained to me in an email, “The teacher’s assignment asked the kids to write an opinion piece on an issue that interested them. Sammie chose Gitmo … All of the work is her own, from information that she and I have talked about over the years, from individual research she did, and from an interview she had with my law partner Mari Newman (Sammie was not allowed to interview me for the project).”

I hope you enjoy the perspective of this particular 11-year old girl as much as I did, and I was especially taken by the way in which, cutting through the usual nonsense about the nameless, faceless “terrorists” in Guantánamo, Sammie provided five thumbnail portraits of her father’s clients, as provided by Mari Newman, which do more to bring these particular men to life as individual human beings than anything the US media has managed to accomplish in nine years.

Guantánamo Bay: want to hear an 11 year old girl’s opinion?

By Sammie Killmer

Cuba/Washington DC: What is Guantánamo Bay (also known as Gitmo)? Though at the most Guantánamo Bay had over 775 prisoners, many have been released, but 173 prisoners still remain. This camp was open by the Bush administration since 2002 and President Obama said it would be closed in early 2009 but it still holds 173 prisoners and isn’t closed. It is very disappointing that President Obama said he would have it closed last year and he did not keep his promise. To me it seems that Guantánamo will never close. Many of the prisoners held were and are not terrorists. In fact, many of the prisoners still being held are innocent.

Another problem I have with Gitmo is that some prisoners are on hunger strike and that the guards have the nerve to force feed them. What they do to force food down another person’s throat is just sad. It’s awful.

There are three major camps and seven sub camps. Camp Delta is the biggest camp with seven sub camps. There is also Camp Iguana which use to hold prisoners 18 and younger, but now it holds some detainees set for release back to their home countries. On some websites it claims prisoners at Camp Iguana are allowed TV and to shower twice day, but on the Internet a lot of the articles and information is only the government’s side of the story and not the whole truth.

The number of prisoners left is very, very disappointing: 173 men left at the camp. Also their nationalities are all middle eastern. Over the years the camp has held detainees from Australia, England and other countries, but they have almost all been released. Now the main population is middle eastern men. Some have even been cleared for release. When you think about someone being cleared to leave camp you think of their last day, but some men have been waiting months and even years because they are set for clearance but the guards and government do not release them back to their home countries.

I had a wonderful opportunity to chat with a Guantánamo Bay Lawyer Mari Newman who has been recognized by the ACLU Civil Rights award for working on this case.

Here is a summary of my interview with her (I did ask for non-classified information):

“How many clients do your firm Killmer, Lane and Newman have?”

“Five”

“How long do you usually meet with them?”

“If their case is going on, all day, but if not half day”

“Are the guards harsh on what they are the permitted to say?”

“The guards are not in the room but there is a camera in the hut and the detainees are chained to the floor”

“Was it hard to get security clearance to go to Guantánamo?”

“Yes it took a long time”

“What briefly was the process to getting cleared?”

“You fill out a very long form with everything about you: where you have lived in the past, past jobs, places you have traveled, everything. A lot of people you know are interviewed”

“How many people are cleared at Killmer, Lane and Newman?”

“There are five of us, Darold, David, Sara, Siddhartha and myself”

“Do you think that all 173 prisoners will be released and Gitmo closed by the end of Obama’s term?”

“No I don’t”

“How would you explain each client?”

“Ok well –

Musa’ab — he was very funny before he was imprisioned in Gitmo. He is still very funny. He has been there since the end of October 2002. He also enjoys soccer.

Abdul Rahman — He is a poet. He is calm. He also loves cream puffs and all types of sweets.

Suhail — He is on hunger strike. He is force-fed. He also likes to read books about all different cultures.

Sa’ad — He is very religious and studies religion. He is shy and quiet.

And Jalal — He talks very fast and likes pictures of very beautiful animals.”

“How do you think Guantánamo affects America’s reputation internationally?”

“Terrible because historically America has been a symbol of freedom and known for our three unalienable rights life, liberty and property and it gives us a terrible reputation.”

We also talked about how only four Gitmo cases have made it to the supreme court and the supreme court ruled in favor of the detainees in all of them but in the court of appeals many detainees have been ruled against though some have won.

The Guantánamo Bay issue upsets me because it is hard to believe that the US government just thrown people in prison and do nothing with them. I am very disappointed and upset how America has treated many innocent men. I cannot believe it. It’s sad what we have done. I would like to end this with a Ben Franklin quote given to me by Mari Newman:

“Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”

– BEN FRANKLIN

Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK). To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to my RSS feed (and I can also be found on Facebook and Twitter). Also see my definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, updated in January 2010, details about the new documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (co-directed by Polly Nash and Andy Worthington, and currently on tour in the UK), and, if you appreciate my work, feel free to make a donation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

07 February, 2011

ASPO-USA

If I bake a batch of cookies and the recipe calls for two cups of flour but I have only one, it is pretty clear that I can’t bake a full batch of cookies. All I can make is half a batch. I will end up with half of the sugar, and half of the eggs, and half of the shortening that I originally planned to use left over.

Liebig’s Law of the Minimum applies in situations like this. In agriculture, it says that growth is controlled not by total resources available, but by the one in scarcest supply. If a baker does not have enough of one necessary ingredient, he will have to make a smaller batch. I wonder if it isn’t a little like this with oil and the economy.

Oil seems to me to be a necessary “ingredient” in our economy. If for some reason oil is not available (perhaps because the buyer cannot afford it), then to some extent other “ingredients” in the economy, like human labor and new houses and stores in shopping malls, are less needed as well. That is why as oil consumption decreases, there are so many layoffs, and the effect multiplies and affects all areas of the economy, even housing prices and demand for business property.

If worldwide oil price is on the high side (like it is now), customers are faced with a choice: should they buy the full amount of high-priced oil, or should they cut back in some way? For example, a state transportation department might find that asphalt (an oil product) is high priced. They might decide to buy less and fix fewer roads. If they do this, they won’t need as many workers to spread the asphalt, so they may lay off some workers. With less demand, refineries that make the asphalt won’t need to process as much oil, so some of the older refineries can be closed, and their workers laid off.

The laid-off workers will have less money to spend, so they will cut back: go out to restaurants less, take fewer trips, and wait longer between haircuts. And of course, there will be little need to build new refineries, or to buy new trucks for spreading asphalt, so these changes will impact workers in the construction business and in the manufacturing of trucks. A laid-off worker may miss mortgage payments, and this will trickle through the economy in other ways. Housing prices may drop from lack of demand because some workers have lost their jobs and because foreclosed houses are on the market at low prices.

Sometimes there may be the possibility of substitution: in this example, switching to concrete or gravel roads instead. But even in this case there may be layoffs: less need for refineries, for example. Also, spreading gravel may take fewer workers. Concrete roads may last longer and therefore affect employment in years to come.

Let’s take another example. If oil prices rise, airlines will need to raise their prices to cover the cost of fuel. Because of higher prices, businesses can be expected to cut back on travel, and less-wealthy vacation travelers may stay home. The reduction in travel can be expected to lead to layoffs in the airline industry. There will be less demand for new airplanes (unless an inventor can truly figure out a way to make a more fuel efficient airplane!), and less demand for workers who build the airplanes. Fewer travelers will pass through the airport, so airport restaurants and shops are likely to lay off workers.

As a third example, if oil prices rise, grocery stores will raise the price of the food they sell because oil is used in food production and transport, and stores will need to pass the higher costs through to the customer. While customers are likely to “trade down” to the less-expensive items offered, in total, they are still likely to spend more on groceries than in the past. To compensate, customers can be expected to cut back on their discretionary expenditures elsewhere. A few may even miss mortgage payments.

How can this problem of layoffs, debt defaults, and falling housing prices be avoided when oil prices rise? I am not sure that it can be.

If a government has a huge amount of money for oil subsidies, perhaps it can subsidize oil prices so the effect isn’t felt throughout the economy. Usually it is only the oil exporters who can afford such subsidies.

Or a government can make a rule that companies can’t lay off workers, no matter how much demand drops. Unfortunately, such a rule is likely to result in many bankrupt companies. If they continue making goods few can afford, they will end up with a lot of excess inventory as well.

Or governments can try to cap oil prices. But now we are running short of oil that can be extracted from the ground at low cost, so capping prices has the perverse effect of reducing supply. Governments can also raise taxes on oil companies, but to some extent this also has the effect of reducing supply. The fields that had marginal profitability before the tax hike are likely to be closed.

If the government wants to keep employment up, somehow it needs to find less expensive alternatives to oil, so as to stop this vicious cycle of higher oil prices sending the economy into a tailspin. Higher priced substitutes are not helpful — they just make the situation worse! That is why most of the alternatives now under consideration are dead ends, unless the costs can be brought way down, say to $50 or $60 a barrel. Even electric cars need to be inexpensive to really help the economy.

Too many people don’t really understand where the economy is running into trouble and are proposing solutions that can’t fix the problem. Our real problem is that the economy cannot afford high priced oil; it is not that there is too little (high priced) oil in the ground.

We have always assumed that we can have cheap and available ingredients for our societal “recipe” for how our current economy functions. Now this assumption is coming into question.

Gail Tverberg, actuary and writer, is an editor of The Oil Drum.