Archives: Articles

Although the Indian media collectively swooned on President Obama, and breathlessly informed its audience about how many rooms he had booked at various five-star hotels, there was surprisingly little discussion on two key questions. What is Obama’s foreign policy record? Moreover, what impact will his visit have on most Indians?

Supporters of the President tend to point out that he is better than his predecessor — George W. Bush. This is correct but misses an important fact. Obama’s policies differ significantly from the policies of the first Bush administration — when the U.S. ruling elite believed that it could control the world by brute force — but are eerily similar to those of the second Bush administration by which time the United States was in strategic retreat on several fronts.

Obama himself put it well in 2004: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” He has lived up to those words after coming to power; for example, he persisted with Bush’s secretary of defense — Robert Gates. The much vaunted withdrawal of “combat troops” from Iraq is not only specious, since it leaves behind about 50,000 “non-combat troops,” but also just a partial implementation of a “status of forces agreement” that the Iraqi government forced on a reluctant Bush administration in 2008.

At an anti-war rally in 2002, Obama explained that he opposed the Iraq war only on strategic grounds “I don’t oppose all wars … What I am opposed to is a dumb war.” On the other hand, he consistently supported the war in Afghanistan and, earlier this year, ordered a “surge” in the U.S. military presence there. This earned him the gratitude of his predecessor who, in a recently published memoir, explained that he was glad that “President Obama stood up to critics by deploying more troops.”

Contrary to what its supporters claim, the Afghanistan war has been deleterious for its people, and has done little to advance women’s rights. Nor is it supported by those who are genuinely concerned about these issues. Malalai Joya, a brave and independent woman, and also the youngest member of the Afghan parliament put this succinctly: “Stop the massacres in my country. Withdraw your foreign troops so we can stop Talibanization.” She also pointed out that “Obama is just like Bush, if not worse, because he is escalating the war and bringing it to Pakistan.”

These wars and the U.S. drone-attacks on Pakistan — which have escalated sharply under Obama — have had horrific human consequences. In 2006, a study published in the Lancet estimated that the Iraq war had led to more than 600,000 excess deaths — a figure that is likely to have risen substantially. The tragedy in Afghanistan is no less, except that no one has even bothered to estimate the devastation caused by the U.S. invasion.

“Passe!” exclaim India’s realist leaders. A government’s first responsibility is to its own people — so the theory goes — and if that requires us to look away from the human consequences of the U.S. policy in the middle-east, then so be it. However, this realism is just a veneer; the insensitivity that allows the Indian government to ignore the plight of the Iraqi people also leads it to aggressively promote the interests of a small elite at the expense of ordinary Indians.

Ten days before Obama’s arrival, the planning commission decided that it was in favour of allowing Foreign-Direct-Investment in multi-brand retail. Does the commission seriously expect us to believe that it reached this conclusion independently after carefully considering the welfare of the millions of workers whose livelihood depends on this sector? Just the timing of the decision confirms the role played by Obama’s impending visit and pressure from companies like Walmart.

The same concern for American profits, coupled with callous disregard for Indian life, was on display a few months ago when the Government tried to protect the interests of U.S. manufactures by repeatedly inserting insidious clauses in the nuclear liability bill. Soon after this failed, an unnamed “senior union minister” told the Business Standard that “private suppliers could still sign agreements …. stating that their responsibility ended with the handover of equipment” thereby evading responsibility for an accident.

Closer to Obama’s visit, the Government realized that it would be improper to publicly discuss means of subverting the law, and piously disavowed any such plans. However, the joint statement issued by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Obama declares that “India … is committed to ensuring a level playing field for U.S. companies seeking to enter the Indian nuclear energy sector.” This refers to the U.S. gripe that competitors from France and Russia have an unfair advantage over its nuclear manufacturers because access to state finances would help them avert bankruptcy in the event of a serious accident. Evidently — unless vigilant activists are able to thwart this through the use of Right to Information requests — the Government plans to contractually indemnify nuclear manufactures.

The “jobless recovery” that the United States has witnessed over the past year, was a major factor in the electoral drubbing that Democratic party received just before Obama commenced his Asian sojourn. So, in an article that he penned for the New York Times, Obama explained that his trip was aimed at opening up Asian markets — facilitating Walmart’s entry into India’s retail sector falls into this category — but emphasized that he was visiting India to also earn “billions of dollars in contracts that will support tens of thousands of American jobs.” The Indian government and private sector promptly obliged with contracts of almost USD 15 billion.

What is ironic is that the latest National Sample Survey estimates suggest that the period between 2005 – 2008 saw, as the Economic and Political Weekly pointed out, “the lowest rate of employment generation in the last three decades” in India. Under these circumstances is it acceptable for the Indian government to encourage the export of capital to the richest country in the world? Could these billions of dollars not have been used in productive sectors of the Indian economy to generate domestic employment?

Finally, what of Obama’s promise to support India’s entry into the UN security council (UNSC) as a permanent member? Whether or not permanent-membership will translate into tangible benefits for Indian citizens is debatable but, in any case, this is likely to take several years. What is important is that, in return, the joint-statement declares India’s immediate support for U.S. objectives in the Security Council: “as India serves on the Security Council over the next two years … [Indian and American] delegations in New York will intensify their engagement and work together.” This engagement will help ensure that “all states … comply with and implement UN Security Council Resolutions.” This, of course, does not refer to Israel that is in violation of dozens of UNSC resolutions but is meant to guarantee Indian compliance on Iran. Furthermore, the chimera of a permanent seat will probably stop the Indian government from participating even in modest multilateral actions, which do not meet with U.S. approval, like the Brazil-Turkey-Iran initiative.

Obama’s major foreign policy achievement has been to restore American soft-power. So he was not met with protests of the kind that greeted Bush. However, unless sustained public pressure forces the Manmohan Singh government to reverse course, it will go ahead with deals that not only advance U.S. hegemony but are also pernicious for the vast majority of Indians.

By Suvrat Raju

18 November, 2010

Countercurrents.org

(Suvrat Raju is a physicist at the Harish-Chandra Research Institute (Allahabad) and an activist. The views expressed are personal)

This article was first published in Kafila.org

 

 

With many results still being counted or too close to call, the US congressional elections have produced a sweeping victory for the Republican Party, which regained control of the House of Representatives, gaining as many as 60 seats, and cut into the Democratic margin in the Senate.

Incumbent Senate Democrats Russell Feingold of Wisconsin and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas were defeated, and Republicans took open Senate seats in Pennsylvania, North Dakota and Indiana. The Republican candidate was leading early Wednesday in the contest for Barack Obama’s former Senate seat in Illinois.

In the House of Representatives, Republicans took at least four seats from Democrats in New York, two in New Hampshire, one in New Jersey, five in Pennsylvania, five in Ohio, two in Michigan, two in Indiana, three in Illinois, and two in Wisconsin, for a net gain of 26 seats in the industrial Northeast and Midwest. The Republicans also captured at least 15 Democratic-held seats in the South, including three each in Florida, Virginia and Tennessee, and two in Georgia and Mississippi.

Some longstanding congressional Democrats lost their seats, including House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt in South Carolina, Appropriations subcommittee chairman Rick Boucher in the coal-mining region of Virginia, and Ike Skelton of Missouri, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Republican candidates won the lion’s share of the 39 state governorships, taking control of Democratic-held statehouses in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Tennessee and New Mexico, while retaining Republican-held statehouses in Florida, Texas and Georgia. The Democrats retained New York and Massachusetts and were leading in Illinois and California.

The electoral debacle is a devastating indictment of the Obama administration and the Democratic Party. Two years after an overwhelming victory in the presidential election, four years after the Republicans lost control of both the House and the Senate, the right-wing policies of the Democrats have created the conditions for a massive comeback by the Republicans.

The corporate-controlled media and the representatives of the two big business parties are already proclaiming that the outcome of the election demonstrates that the American people have shifted to the right, embracing the “free market” nostrums of the Republican Party and the right-wing Tea Party movement.

This contention is both stupid and ludicrous. According to these political “experts,” in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, with unemployment near double-digit levels, millions facing foreclosure, and the poverty rate skyrocketing, the American people have decided that they favor eliminating unemployment compensation, cutting Social Security, closing public schools and slashing taxes for the rich.

Exit polls demonstrate that, far from a surge of popular support for the Republicans, the outcome was determined by a collapse in the vote among those who voted most heavily for Obama and the Democrats in 2006 and 2008. While young voters, those 18 to 29, comprised 18 percent of the vote in 2008, they made up only 10 percent of those who turned out at the polls on Tuesday. Those over 65 comprised 15 percent of the vote in 2008, but 24 percent of the vote in 2010.

The elderly shifted sharply against the Democratic Party in large measure because of the reactionary character of the Obama health care “reform.” Far from being a progressive measure to extend health care to the uninsured, the Obama plan was primarily a cost-cutting measure that many of the elderly regarded, quite correctly, as a threat to Medicare benefits. While 48 percent of the elderly voted Republican in 2008, this figure jumped to 58 percent in 2010, one of the largest swings among any demographic group.

The collapse of support for the Democrats was the product of two years of betrayal of the illusions promoted in the 2008 campaign. The Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008 were fueled by popular hostility to the Bush administration’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama appealed to these sentiments in order to get elected, but once in office he continued the same militarist policies, even keeping on Pentagon chief Robert Gates and General David Petraeus, and pouring another 70,000 troops into Afghanistan.

From the beginning, Obama disavowed any effort to hold Bush officials responsible for the blatant illegality of the wars, for torture and other war crimes, or for the attacks on democratic rights undertaken as part of the “war on terror.” Obama intensified domestic spying, kept the Guantanamo Bay detention camp open, backed renewal of the Patriot Act, and declared that the commander-in-chief had the right to order assassination of American citizens.

On economic policy, Obama brought in figures identified with Wall Street like Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers to be his chief aides. He combined solicitude for the banks with scarcely concealed indifference to the plight of the working class. Obama moved heaven and earth to continue the bailout of Wall Street begun under Bush, while rejecting any job-creation measures by the federal government and describing unemployment as merely a “lagging economic indicator.”

In the month leading up to the midterm election, the White House seemed to go out of its way to alienate the youth and workers who turned out in 2008 to vote for Obama, who ran as the candidate for “change” and ‘hope.” The administration opposed a moratorium on foreclosures despite revelations about banks fabricating documentation, lifted the ban on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico imposed after the BP disaster, and promoted more tax breaks for business in the name of “job-creation.”

Tuesday’s electoral rout will be bemoaned by Obama’s liberal apologists, from the editorial board of the New York Times to the Nation, who will join in blaming the American people for having “moved to the right.” In reality, the election has exposed the Democratic Party for what it is: an alliance of a part of the financial aristocracy with a privileged and complacent section of the upper middle class, a social category that includes the trade union bureaucracy.

Establishment liberalism is concerned about lifestyle issues and identity politics, but is utterly distant from the needs of the working people who are the vast majority of the population. It has moved so far to the right that the economic program of Obama and that of the incoming House Speaker John Boehner and the Republicans differs only on minor details.

Coming out of the election, Obama will renew the drive towards bipartisanship with which he began his administration, going out of his way from the moment of his election to rehabilitate a completely discredited Republican Party. All the “compromises” that he proposes will amount to acceptance of Republican demands for deeper reductions in social spending as well as further tax cuts and other concessions to corporate interests.

Republican leader Boehner declared that his new majority in the House of Representatives constitutes the “voice of the American people.” The truth is that the Republican victory sets the stage for a direct confrontation between the working class and the most reactionary sections of the American ruling elite.

In this conflict, the working class will find a way forward only through a resolute and implacable break with bankrupt liberalism and the Democratic Party and the building of a new and independent mass political movement based on a socialist program.

By Patrick Martin

3 November, 2010
WSWS.org

 

 

A personal note.

It’s no way to begin a Sunday or any day. An email explained. My first thought was: damn, we lost another good one when we urgently need him and many others, given the state of today’s America – out-of-control militarism, imperial arrogance, and homeland repression at a time of economic crisis for millions. Johnson knew the threat, challenging it brilliantly in his important writings and outspokenness. Now he’s gone.

A former cold warrior, Chal, as friends called him, turned activist critic of US foreign policy, an imperial agenda doomed to fail. When the Cold War ended, he saw no further logic to US global bases, continued heightened militarism, and occupation of Japan, South Korea, Germany and elsewhere.

Peace breaking out was glorious. “Give Peace A Chance,” wrote John Lennon, his Rock and Roll Hall of Fame song predated it by two decades.

In a March 2006 Tom Engelhardt interview, Johnson said:

“I was a cold warrior. There’s no doubt about that. I believed the Soviet Union was a genuine menace. I still think so….As I saw it, the only justification for our monster military apparatus, its size, the amounts spent on it, the growth of the Military-Industrial Complex….was the existence of the Soviet Union and its determination to match us.”

After it imploded, he thought: “What an incredible vindication for the United States. Now it’s over, and the time has come for a real victory dividend, a genuine peace dividend. The question was: Would the US behave as it had in the past when big wars came to an end?” Instead, we “began to seek an alternative enemy. Our leaders simply could not contemplate dismantling the apparatus of the Cold War. That was, I thought, shocking….I was flabbergasted and felt the need to understand what had happened.”

Maintaining heightened militarism “suggest(ed) that the Cold War was, in fact, a cover for something else; that something else being an American empire intentionally created during World War II as the successor to the British Empire. The Cold War was not the clean-cut conflict between totalitarian and democratic values that we had claimed it to be.”

Most ominous about US imperialism is that “militarism is so central to ours….not (for) national defense….but as a way of life, as a way of getting rich or getting comfortable. (Yet it’s) bankrupting the country…This is not free enterprise. (It’s) state socialism,” heading us for ruin. “And the precedents for this should really terrify us.”

Johnson ended the interview quoting Pogo’s observation, saying: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

On November 21, Steve Clemens wrote about the man he knew, worked with, and admired, his article titled, “The Impact Today and Tomorrow of Chalmers Johnson.” Calling him “incorruptible and passionate about policy, theory and their practice,” he can’t “fathom him being gone….I just can’t imagine that this blustery, irreverent, completely brilliant force won’t be there to challenge Washington and academia.” He “defied society’s and life’s rules and commanded an enormous following of acolytes and enemies.”

His wife and lifelong intellectual partner, Sheila Johnson, a Ph.D in anthropology, a distinguished scholar in her own right, wrote this on her husband’s passing:

“At about 1PM on Saturday, November 20, Chal breathed his last. Chal was in hospice care here at home for ten weeks. We tried to keep him as comfortable as possible, and many evenings our cat Seiji slept on his bed to keep him company.”

Noting his last four books, she said “They paint a gloomy picture of a way of life grown old, and they perhaps cannot change the course of history, but they were written with the hope that readers would gain greater understanding as to what is happening to our Republic and the world.” More on his books below.

A Brief Profile

Distinguished scholar, author, Korean War veteran, and former CIA consultant turned anti-war activist, Johnson taught political science and Chinese studies for 30 years at the University of California’s Berkeley and San Diego campuses from 1962 – 1992, holding endowed chairs in Asian politics at both. At Berkeley, he also served as Chairman of the Center for Chinese Studies and its Department of Political Science.

From 1967 – 1973, he was a consultant for the CIA’S Office of National Estimates (NIEs), contributing analysis on China and Maoism.

In 1976, he was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. In 1994, he co-founded and served as president of the Japan Policy Research Institute (JPRI), “dedicated to policy-relevant research and public education on Japan and the entire Pacific Rim, with the aim of advancing inter-societal understanding, regional reconciliation, and global justice.”

Johnson was also a prolific writer of numerous articles and 18 books, his newest titled, “Dismantling the Empire – America’s Last Best Hope,” calling the country’s reliance on global imperialism and permanent wars a “suicide option” unless reversed, the topic his well-known trilogy addressed:

— “Blowback,” CIA terminology following its first foreign leader coup, ousting Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq, ushering in 26 years of dictatorship under Shah Reza Pahlavi;

— “The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic;” and

— “Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic.”

Combined, the three volumes show how imperial hubris and overreach undermined the republic, what Johnson called:

“arrogant and misguided American policies (that) headed us for a series of catastrophes comparable to our disgrace and defeat in Vietnam or even to the sort of extinction that befell….the Soviet Union (that he believes is) now unavoidable.”

Calling America’s condition dire, he said it’s “too late for mere scattered reforms of our government or bloated military to make much difference.” History is clear, he stressed. We can choose democracy and survive. Or continue as present and perish, saying America is plagued by the same dynamic that doomed past empires unwilling to change, what he called:

“isolation, overstretch, the uniting of local and global forces opposed to imperialism, and in the end bankruptcy,” combined with authoritarian rule and loss of personal freedom.

Hence, his title, Nemesis, the goddess of vengeance and punisher of hubris and arrogance in Greek mythology. She’s already among us, unseen and patiently stalking our way of life as a free nation, awaiting her moment to appear, our day of reckoning.

Johnson compared her to Wagner’s Brunnhilde in Der Ring des Nibelungen. Unlike Nemesis, she collects heros, not fools and hypocrites. But she and Nemesis announce themselves the same way: “Only the doomed see me,” even though her presence harms everyone.

Post-9/11, Johnson railed against destructive policies driving the country to tyranny and ruin, citing:

Summarizing the book, Johnson explained:

“In Nemesis, I have tried to present historical, political, economic, and philosophical evidence of where our current behavior is likely to lead. Specifically, I believe that to maintain our empire abroad requires resources and commitments that will inevitably undercut our domestic democracy and in the end produce a military dictatorship or its civilian equivalent.”

“The founders of our nation understood this well and tried to create a form of government – a republic – that would prevent this from occurring. But the combination of huge standing armies, almost continuous wars, military Keynesianism, and ruinous military expenses have destroyed our republican structure in favor of an imperial presidency. We are on the cusp of losing our democracy for the sake of keeping our empire. Once a nation is started down that path, the dynamics that apply to all empires come into play – isolation, overstretch, the uniting of forces opposed to imperialism, and bankruptcy. Nemesis stalks our life as a free nation.”

Johnson warned us, his powerful writings explaining the clear and ominous danger, one showing no sign of abating. Just the opposite, in fact, under a Democrat as neocon as Republicans, and a populace largely clueless of the threat.

By Stephen Lendman

23 November, 2010

Countercurrents.org

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

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

Nazareth: Watching the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians drag on year after year without conclusion, it is easy to overlook the enormous changes that have taken place on the ground since the Oslo Accords were signed 17 years ago.

Each has undermined the Palestinians’ primary goal of achieving viable statehood, whether it is the near-trebling of Jewish settlers on Palestinian land to the current numbers of half a million, Israel’s increasing stranglehold on East Jerusalem, the wall that has effectively annexed large slices of the West Bank to Israel, or the splitting of the Palestinian national movement into rival camps following Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005.

Another setback of similar magnitude may be unfolding as Barack Obama dangles a lavish package of incentives in the face of Benjamin Netanyahu in an attempt to lure the Israeli prime minister into renewing a three-month, partial freeze on Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank.

The generosity of the US president’s package, which includes 20 combat aircraft worth $3 billion and backing for Israel’s continued military presence in the Jordan Valley after the declaration of a Palestinian state, has prompted even Thomas Friedman of The New York Times to compare it to a “bribe”.

Israeli officials said yesterday they were still waiting to see a text of the deal worked out between Netanyahu and the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, in seven hours of negotiations.

In addition to the concession in the Jordan Valley and the offer of combat jets that would effectively double the annual aid from the US, the deal is said to include a promise by Washington to veto for the next year any UN resolutions Israel opposes and to refrain, after borders have been agreed, from demanding any future limits on settlement growth.

The signs are that Netanyahu will be able to secure the backing of his right-wing cabinet for a brief settlement freeze that this time, the US has indicated, will not include East Jerusalem.

So far, in attempting to resolve the conflict, Obama has nearly exhausted his political capital. There were intimations this week that the White House could not afford further humiliation and was going for broke.

The timetable for negotiations now calls for reaching an agreement on borders within three months — the duration of the settlement construction freeze — followed by a final resolution of the conflict within a year or so.

Washington’s hopeful logic is that a renewal of the freeze will be unnecessary in three months because an agreement on borders will already have established whether a settlement is to be considered included in Israel’s territory and therefore permitted to expand or inside Palestine and therefore slated for destruction.

In a similarly optimistic vein, the US apparently expects the problem of refugees simply to dissolve through the creation of a special international fund to compensate them. The right of return appears to be off the table.

If these obstacles can be surmounted this way – a very big “if” – only one significant point of contention, the future of East Jerusalem, remains to be resolved.

This is where things get more awkward. The US is not proposing that the three-month freeze apply to East Jerusalem, after settlement-building there caused friction between Israel and the US during the last moratorium.

This concession and the outlines of a previous US peace proposal under president Bill Clinton hint at Washington’s most likely strategy. East Jerusalem will be divided, with the large settlement blocs, home to at least 200,000 Jews, handed over to Israel while the Old City and its holy places fall under a complicated shared sovereignty.

In the face of this intense US-Israeli diplomacy, Palestinians are dismayed. They have described the agreement between the US and Netanyahu as “deeply disappointing” and are demanding from the White House similarly generous inducements to ease their path back to negotiations. The Arab League, which has taken a prominent role in overseeing the Palestinian negotiations, has also objected to the deal.

The Palestinians fear they will be left with a patchwork of disconnected areas – what Israel has previously termed “bubbles” – as their capital.

If the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, can be made to swallow all this, which seems highly improbable, he will then have to contend with Hamas, the rival Palestinian faction, which can be expected to do everything in its power to disrupt such an agreement.

And then there is Netanyahu. Few Israeli analysts think he has suddenly become more amenable to the US plans.

Neve Gordon, a politics professor at Ben Gurion University in the Negev and author of an important study of the occupation, believes the Israeli prime minister is simply playing the part demanded by Obama.

“He is taking the US ‘merchandise’ on offer, but will hold firm on key issues that guarantee the talks’ failure. That way he gets the credit for keeping the negotiations on track and lets the Palestinians take the blame for walking out.”

This sounds suspiciously like a re-run of the last proper peace talks, at Camp David in 2000. Then, Israeli intransigence stalled the negotiations, but Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, was blamed by the US and Israel for their collapse.

The Camp David failure led to the outbreak of Palestinian violence, the second intifada, and the demise of the Israeli peace camp. Mr Netanyahu may be prepared to risk a repeat of both such outcomes from these talks if it means he can avoid making any real concessions on Palestinian statehood.

By Jonathan Cook

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.

A version of this article originally appeared in The National (www.thenational.ae), published in Abu Dhabi.

 

Presented at llth Nobel Peace Summit, in Hiroshima, Japan.

‘CRIMALITY AND DELEGITIMAZATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS’.

Mina Sama,

We remember  that 65 years ago, Japan surrendered to the United States after 250,000 people were incinerated by U. S. Nuclear Weapons.  These   bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the carpet bombing of Tokyo, constituted war crimes and crimes against Humanity.  These bombs were not dropped to bring an end to the Second World War, as American propaganda would have us believe. We remember they were developed as the Americans believed the Nazis might get Nuclear weapons first.  These atomic bombs were used on the Japanese people to terrorize the rest of the world, and show the United States would indeed use them.

No American Government, has ever apologized to the Japanese people for these

War crimes. It is said if people do not admit to the wrong they have done, and say ‘sorry’ they are in danger of doing it again.

Tragically, I believe, the World is in danger of using Nuclear weapons again, if we  do not take seriously the message of the survivors  of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,  and move to abolish Nuclear Weapons, War, militarism, and force, as ways of solving our problems in International relations.   We can, and must, move from the threat and use of violence, from the  myth of military security, to human and environmental security, based on Nonkilling, Nonviolence,  Human Rights and International Laws.

No Government has dropped Nuclear weapons after Hiroshima and Nagasaki,but

the threat to use them has been used often.  Many Goverments have built their

National Security  Policies on threats of violence and militarism, and  since 1945 millions of people have been slaughtered in many countries, by both  State and Nonstate actors, in the name of progress and democracy.  Increasingly Governments  are using force against unarmed civilians.   We think of Russia in Chechnya, China in Tibet, Burma, etc.  The list is endless.  Also too in their alleged fight against Terrorism, the United States and their  Nato Allies,  have produced real terror, often disregarding  International Law, using torture, and the most advanced  weapons such as Predator drones, and air bombardments,  against unknown targets, including civilians.   The United States and their Nato allies,  have committed  acts of aggression in Pakistan, invaded and occupied Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.,The US have authorized, armed, equipped and supplied Israel to continue its military occupation of Palestine, its collective punishment of the people of Gaza, and military bombardment of Lebanon.  They have refused to insist Israel, now third largest nuclear power in the world,  sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and begin nuclear disarmament.

At the same time, the United States Government is threatening to attack Iran (or allowing Israel to do so) on the pretext that they have a nuclear weapons programme  and if indeed they do attack Iran, this would  set the whole region on fire.   When President Obama says he wants to see a World without nuclear weapons and then says, in respect of Iran, and their alleged nuclear Weapon ambitions, that ‘all options are on the table’this is clearly a threat to use nuclear weapons,clearly a criminal threat under the World Court Advisory Opinion, against Iran.

The Nuremberg Charter of August 8^th, l945 says the threat or use of nuclear weapons is criminal, so officials  in all nine nuclear weapons states who maintain and use Nuclear Deterrence as a threat, are breaking the Law.

In his book ‘The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence – Could the U.S.

War on terrorism go Nuclear?’ (l)  International Lawyer,  Prof. Boyle,

says  ‘In the Advisory Opinion by the International Court of Justice on nuclear weapons, the World Court ruled that the threat stands or falls on the same legal grounds as the actual use.  If mass extermination of human beings is a crime, the threat to commit mass extermination is also a crime.’

If any of us threatened to kill another person we would be prosecuted and yet the leaders of nuclear weapons States are holding the threat of nuclear extermination over us all.  Some Governments feel it is prestigious being in  the Nuclear Weapons Club as if it were a badge of ‘honour’, when in reality it should be a badge of ‘shame’ and ‘dishonour’ for any country to have such weapons, breaking not only the Nuremburg principals, but wasting their peoples precious resources so necessary  for their basic needs of food, education, health care.

We must delegitimize nuclear weapons, change our militarized mindsets of fear and violence, abolish force in International relations, replacing this with the  alternative of human and environmental security based on peace, sustainable development, Human Rights and International Laws.  Making arms and the use of force illegal, and criminal, dismantling not only nuclear weapons but the entire war machine will give hope to the Human Family.

Soyoonara,

Mairead Maguire   (Nobel Peace Laureate)

Hiroshima, Japan.   November, 2010  (www.peacepeople.com)

(l) ‘The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence.  Could the US War on Terrorism go Nuclear?’ published by Clarity Press, Inc.  Prof. Francis Boyle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last March, North Korea was falsely blamed for sinking a South Korean ship, a topic an earlier article addressed, accessed through the following link:

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2010/06/south-korean-ship-sinking-another-false.html

Seoul said there’s “no other plausible explanation….The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that (a) torpedo was fired by a North Korean submarine,” even though none was detected in the area.

At the time, evidence suggested a false flag, manufactured to blame the North. The incident occurred near Baengnyeong Island opposite North Korea. US Navy Seals and four US ships were conducting joint exercises in the area. The torpedo used was German, not North Korean as claimed. Germany sells none to Pyongyang. Yet it was blamed for what it didn’t do, what apparently was Pentagon-manufactured mischief.

What now? According to US media reports, North Korea incited the gravest incident since the Korean War armistice. For example, on November 23, New York Times writer Mark McDonald headlined, “Crisis Status in South Korea After North Shells Island,” saying:

“The South Korean military went to “crisis status” on Tuesday (11/23) and threatened military strikes after the North fired dozens of shells at a South Korean island, killing two of the South’s soldiers and setting off an exchange of fire in one the most serious clashes between the two sides in decades.”

America, Britain and Japan condemned the attack, the White House calling on North Korea to “halt its belligerent action and to fully abide by the terms of the Armistice Agreement.”

“Analysts,” said McDonald, “were quick to see the shelling as a deliberate North Korean provocation,” even though South Korean forces fired first, AP reporting:

“The skirmish began when Pyongyang warned the South to halt military drills in the area, according to South Korean officials. When Seoul refused and began firing artillery into disputed waters, albeit away from the North Korean shore, the North retaliated by bombarding the small island of Yeonpyeong, which houses South Korean military installations.”

A Pyongyang supreme military command statement read:

“The South Korean enemy, despite our repeated warnings, committed reckless military provocations of firing artillery shells into our maritime territory.”

A November 24 McDonald article headlined, “Nerves Are Rattled in Seoul by Attack on Island,” discussing the incident solely from a South Korean/Washington perspective, much like other Western media reports.

The BBC, for example, quoted a Seoul analyst, calling Pyongyang’s action “an act of war.” Other accounts were also inflammatory, Britain’s Foreign Secretary, William Hague, condemning the “unprovoked act.” Other comments were similar, citing various reasons for the incident (like internal North Korean tensions during a transition of leadership period), except for what, in fact, may be true, though at this point not everything is known.

However, the exchange occurred while South Korean forces were conducting “Hoguk” military exercises scheduled to end on November 30, including simulated landings. Pyongyang called them a rehearsal for invasion.

Now the aftermath, a David Sanger, Mark McDonald Times article headlined, “South Koreans and US to Stage a Joint Exercise,” saying:

Obama and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak “agreed Tuesday night to hold joint military exercises as a first response to North Korea’s deadly shelling (as) both countries struggled for the second time this year to keep a North Korean provocation from escalating into war.”

America’s USS George Washington, a nuclear armed aircraft carrier, and accompanying ships will participate, clear saber-rattling over diplomacy that all US administrations, to one degree or another, have emphasized in US-North Korean relations for decades. That despite Pyongyang wanting rapprochement with the West, only to have Washington rebuff them, choosing confrontation over stability and risking war, potentially with nuclear weapons.

On Russia Today, investigative journalist Wayne Madsen called South Korean President Myung-bak “very warlike,” in contrast to his predecessor, Kim Dae Jung’s “Sunshine Policy” to establish greater North-South political contact and better relations. South Korea’s current president “is very aggressive, very right-wing, very unpopular at home, and the only thing he has going for him is to get into a military showdown with the North.” In other words, incite fear and conflict for political advantage, the same Washington policy Bush, Obama, and past US presidents adopted to justify imperial adventurism.

What next? So far, Pentagon officials said no additional forces are planned for the region, and America’s 29,000 in South Korea haven’t been placed on high alert. For now, Washington ruled out resumed six-party talks, including both Koreas, China, Russia, Japan and America. China and Russia, however, disagree, saying the incident shows the importance of restarting them now.

China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Hong Lei, said it’s “imperative….to restart six-party talks as soon as possible. We hope the relevant parties do more to contribute to peace and stability on the Korean peninsula,” adding that Beijing needs to clarify events leading up to the clash. “The situation needs to be verified,” he said.

Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, stressed “a colossal danger which must be avoided. Tensions in the region are growing.” A cool response is needed. North Korea has no reason to want conflict. Washington and South Korea may have other ideas.

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/.

By Stephen Lendman

Palestine as America’s next Vietnam? Like all historical analogies, it’s far from perfect. We aren’t about to send the U.S. Army to the West Bank or Gaza to kill and die in a war that can’t be won. Where else in the world, though, is American weaponry and political power so obviously used to suppress a Viet Cong-like movement of national liberation (a bill the Taliban hardly fit)?

And what other conflict is as politically divisive as the Israeli-Palestinian one? More than the Afghan War, the struggle at the heart of the Middle East evokes the kind of powerful passions here that once marked the debate over Vietnam, pitting hawks against doves. Not that the progressive media are yet portraying it that way. They’re more likely to give us an increasingly outdated picture of an all-powerful Jewish “Israel lobby,” which supposedly has a lock on U.S. policy and dominates the rest of us.

In fact, when it comes to Israel and the Palestinians, the political landscape is far more complex, fluid, and unpredictable. Yes, the election day just past saw a wave of hawkish Republicans with a penchant for loving Israel to death swept into Congress, but the hawks’ amplified voice is also likely to energize a growing alliance of doves.

Religious Hawks vs. Religious Doves

This election was not a Jewish triumph. Most of the GOP congressional hawks (if they aren’t from Florida) come from constituencies with only a sprinkling of Jews. They seem eager to make Israel a symbolic test case, as if supporting the hard-line Israeli government against Obama administration “betrayal” proves their strength in protecting America.

In the wake of November 2nd, a prominent Israeli columnist wrote that Republicans believe in “patriotism, Judeo-Christian Values, national security… and associating Arabs and Muslims with terrorism… a worldview that is usually consistent with pro-Israel sentiments.” Those are certainly “pro-Israel sentiments” as defined by the old Israel lobby that John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt analyzed so sharply. That lobby still wields plenty of power with its loud media megaphone, and it will welcome the recent success of its flag-waving, fear-mongering GOP allies.

Here’s a new reality, however: The hawkish Israel lobby is no longer the true face of the Jewish community. According to midterm exit polls, most American Jews stuck with their traditional loyalty to the Democratic Party and, far more important, they are visibly developing a new idea of what it means to be pro-Israel. Today, three-quarters of American Jews want the U.S. to lead Israelis and Palestinians toward a two-state solution; nearly two-thirds say they’d accept Obama administration pressure on Israel to reach that goal.

Republicans entering Congress will learn what I recently heard a Jewish congressman explain. Few non-Jewish legislators pay close attention to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. When it comes up, they usually turn to their Jewish colleagues for advice. Once, the Jews they consulted were likely to simply parrot the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) line. Now they’re likely to say, “Well, AIPAC says this, but J Street says that. You decide.”

J Street is the most prominent player in the dovish, newly developing coalition that already represents the views of most Jews. When Barack Obama invited top Jewish leaders to the White House in the summer of 2009, the heads of two smaller organizations, Americans for Peace Now and the Israel Policy Forum, were at the table too. These are the most visible voices for American Jews who don’t want to see their own government enabling Israeli governmental policies that they oppose.

The Christian community is split into competing lobbies as well, with hawks led by Christians United for Israel (CUFI) and doves by Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP). CUFI makes more noise and gets more press attention. But CMEP is an impressive coalition of 22 national church groups, including some of the largest denominations and the nation’s largest umbrella organization of Protestants, the National Council of Churches.

Then there are doves, both Jewish and Christian, who promote direct action rather than political lobbying as the route to change. The movement to use boycotts, divestments, and sanctions to pressure Israel to change its policies on the Palestinians didn’t really take off until the Presbyterian Church endorsed the concept. More Christian groups have now joined this campaign, as has Jewish Voice for Peace, among other Jewish groups. Such direct protest also gets plenty of support from left-leaning doves not moved by any religious faith.

So far this alliance has not mounted the massive demonstrations that were a hallmark of Vietnam-era doves. The new strength of the hawks in Congress, however, might someday provoke the doves to take to the streets.

Elite Doves vs. Elite Hawks

As in the Vietnam era, today’s policy debate has not been restricted to groups of outsiders. It’s reaching deep into the foreign policy establishment. Top editors of the New York Times recently visited Israel, talked with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and came home to write an editorial putting most of the blame on the Israeli leader. They urged him to renew the moratorium on expanding settlements and immediately settle on the borders of a Palestinian state.

Just two days after election day, when everyone else was still talking domestic politics, the Times gave Bill Clinton op-ed space to say that “everyone knows what a final agreement would look like” — a coded message from the secretary of state’s husband to the Jewish state’s prime minister that it’s time to end the occupation, withdraw settlements, and share Jerusalem. Two former national security advisors, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, have publicly urged Barack Obama to “outline the basic parameters for a Palestinian state” — a coded message to the president that it’s time for a U.S.-imposed solution in the Middle East (assumedly based on Clinton’s parameters).

Of course, the elite hawks are fighting back. Neoconservatives (whose obituaries are always premature) have created an international alliance that calls itself “The Friends of Israel Initiative.” With friends like these, the doves claim, Israel doesn’t need enemies.

The elite debate extends into U.S. military and intelligence communities which have worked closely with Israel for decades. It’s a safe bet that there are powerful hawks in those circles who don’t want to put pressure on Israel because it might jeopardize those relationships. But top military leaders have been issuing warnings in private and in public about the dangerous consequences the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could have for U.S. interests in the region, and implying that the president should be pressuring Israel to bring the conflict to an end.

Both hawks and doves have found jobs in the Obama administration. “The question of how much the United States is offering [Israel], and what it is asking for in return, is being fiercely debated within the White House and the State Department,” the New York Times reported — which is undoubtedly one reason that the administration has been bobbing and weaving on Israel and Palestine with no clear policy direction in sight.

Another reason is the political risk involved. Though domestic issues dominated this year’s campaign season, the Republicans still stake their claim on being the party of tough guys, and they look for every opportunity to paint the Democrats as soft on national security. If Obama wavers on Israel, the GOP is ready to pounce and he knows it.

Republicans are always eager to run against “the ‘60s,” and efforts to move Israel to the peace table have become yet another symbol of “the ‘60s” in the GOP imagination. It’s no coincidence that, just after he won the Florida Senate race, the Tea Party’s rising star Marco Rubio announced that he was packing for a trip to Israel.

On the other hand, a president stymied in the domestic sphere is always tempted to make his historical mark with major foreign policy initiatives where he has more freedom. As Lara Friedman of Americans for Peace Now points out, this president will be criticized for abandoning his original demands on the Israelis just as much as for pursuing them, so he might as well “double down on his Middle East peace efforts.” If he does that, the doves will have Obama’s back. And a triumph at the peace table could shift attention away from the morass of Afghanistan in just the way Richard Nixon’s 1972 trip to China overshadowed the continuing slaughter in Vietnam.

An Unpredictable Complex System

There’s one more interesting analogy between the present Middle Eastern conflict and Vietnam. Both have triggered the passions of hawks and doves who otherwise would not pay much attention to foreign affairs. Every day, a few more doves start asking why the U.S. suppresses the Palestinian urge for national liberation and self-determination.

From there, it’s just a short step to asking other questions: Why does the Obama administration echo Israel’s frightening but unproven claims about “the Iranian threat” and leave so much room for talk of war? Why does the U.S. continue to demonize Hamas, rebuffing its efforts to moderate its stand and resume a truce with Israel? Why do government and media figures so regularly reduce the endless complexities of the Middle East to a simple morality tale of good guys against bad guys? And how can that enhance the security of the American people?

Just as during the Vietnam War years, such questions about U.S. policy in one region lead to even larger questions about the American stance in the world — and sooner or later, some of those questioners will dare call it imperialism. Any victory for the doves on the question of policy toward Israel will also be a victory in the ongoing struggle between competing visions of foreign policy, and no one can say where the growing movement of doves might lead.

In fact, no one can say anything with any degree of certainty about the future of this issue. It is now what the Vietnam debate once was: a complex, perhaps even chaotic, system, where every action provokes reaction.

Will a more Republican-leaning Congress change policy? Perhaps. But who knows exactly how? The more the hawks push, the bigger and more appealing the target they offer to the doves. As the issue only polarizes, ever more American Jews may feel pushed out of their tactful silence.

We could end up with a new media picture entirely: gentile hawks urging Israel to maintain its hard-line stance versus a Jewish community leaning toward compromise and peace. Under those circumstances, the average citizen, who figures that Jews know best about Israel, might be unlikely to sympathize with the hawks.

That’s not a prediction, just one among many possibilities in a complex system that’s inherently unstable and so unpredictable. In other words, there’s no reason for doves to feel powerless. Election Day 2010 may look like a victory for the hawks, but it could turn out to be a step toward their long-term defeat.

By Ira Chernus

10 November, 2010

Tomdispatch.com

Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Read more of his writing on Israel, Palestine, and the U.S. on his blog. Catch him discussing the American Jewish community and the struggle for peace in the Middle East in a Timothy MacBain TomCast audio interview by clicking here or, to download it to your iPod, here.

Copyright 2010 Ira Chernus

 

 

 

“I keep reading between the lies”

Rupert Murdoch’s recent speech before the ADL gathering at their dinner gala opened with this flattering observation, “You have championed equal treatment for all races and creeds.” What he omitted from that statement is the ADL’s treatment of the Palestinian people under Abraham Foxman, its national director, who “…uses high-mindedness and unfounded anti-Semitism hysteria as cover for backing Jewish supremacy and the right of Israelis over Arabs, including by occupation and belligerently enforced apartheid” (Steven Lendman, Socio-Economic History Blog). Murdoch omits a needed clause at the end of that statement: “except for the Palestinian people and their beliefs and their rights under international law.” Indeed, Lendman’s article refutes virtually every one of Murdoch’s claims, laying bare the truth behind Murdoch’s talk: see nothing, hear nothing, speak nothing against Israel or suffer the condemnation that comes with the label “Anti-Semite.”

“We live in a world where there is an ongoing war against the Jews,” intones Murdoch as he castigates all peoples as inherently discriminating against Jews everywhere. “Ongoing war against Jews” not “a rising tide of valid criticism against the Zionist controlled state of Israel with its current government’s defiance of the United Nations’ reports on crimes against humanity as published by the Goldstone Report, Amnesty International, the International Red Cross, the HRC report on the attack on the Marmara in May, and most recently the UNHRC by Dr. Richard Falk, the UN Representative for the Palestinian people.” No, Murdoch euphemistically conjures up a “war” against Jews, a suffering, weak, victimized people at the mercy of the world’s hate.

But there is no war; there is criticism, valid, righteous criticism that decries the wanton havoc inflicted on the Lebanese with Israel’s invasion of that nation in the fall of 2006; valid, righteous criticism that watched in horror the devastation of the defenseless people of Gaza at Christmastime in 2008/9 as their homes, schools, mosques, food, water, and gas supplies lay devastated under the bombs and missiles dropped upon them from the skies; valid, righteous, humane criticism that lamented the deaths of children and mothers and the old and infirm who had no place to run or hide encircled as they were by the Israeli war machine; valid, righteous, and incredulous criticism of the brutal attack against the humanitarian aid workers on board the Marmara as it made its way to help these very people yet found themselves guilty of interfering somehow with Israeli security as they brought a modicum of relief to a blasted people. None of these people hated the Jews; indeed, Jews joined those criticizing the government’s overbearing slaughter of the innocent including those who joined with me in the aborted ‘Boat Brigade” that was to follow the Marmara to Gaza in June. How convenient to stamp “hate” on all, that by that condemnation they must be silenced.

Not content with such slander against innocent people indignant at the unconscionable brutality of the Israeli war machine, Murdoch chooses to slide silently by the horrific massacres inflicted on the people of Palestine during the Nakba, insisting that Israel suffered decades of “straightforward” military force by those attempting to “overrun Israel.” He should read the reality of those days as described by Dr. Ilan Pappe in his work, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. This was the beginning of the genocide against the Palestinians as recorded in The Plight of the Palestinians recently published by Palgrave Macmillan that continues to this day.

“Then came phase two: terrorism. Terrorists targeted Israelis both home and abroad—from the massacre of Israeli athletes at Munich to the second intifada,” continues Murdoch, forgetting to mention Israel’s terrorism against its neighbor Jordan that elicited this response by the UN: “The United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 228 unanimously deploring “the loss of life and heavy damage to property resulting from the action of the Government of Israel on 13 November 1966”, censuring “Israel for this large-scale military action in violation of the United Nations Charter and of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan” and emphasizing “to Israel that actions of military reprisal cannot be tolerated and that, if they are repeated, the Security Council will have to consider further and more effective steps as envisaged in the Charter to ensure against the repetition of such acts”(Six Day War, Wikipedia); nor did he mention the terrorism Israel perpetrated against the Palestinians in Beirut in 1982 where they watched the unfolding massacre of 3000 as their personally equipped allies, the Phalanges, mauled and raped and killed the abandoned Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, enjoying the slaughter so much they kept the skies alight throughout the night so their savage friends might not interrupt their savage servility. Instead of providing actions taken by Israel against its neighbors that gave rise to retaliatory actions, Murdoch decries how the world has risen to attack innocent Israel as though none suffer at the hands of Israel’s ruthless war machine.

Listen to Murdoch’s rant against the world: “the war has entered a new phase…a soft war to delegitimize Israel…the battleground is everywhere…to make Israel a pariah.” All media, all multinational organizations, all NGOs have joined forces as armies of terrorists to inflict WW III on Israel that stands alone against the forces of evil. Why? To rid the middle east of Israel. How? By spreading anti-Semitism throughout the world. Who? Polite society in the form of “progressive intellectual communities.” Indeed, Murdoch bemoans “…anti-Semitism today enjoys support at both the highest and lowest reaches of European society—from its most elite politicians to its largely Muslim ghettoes.” Where is this obvious? In Norway where the government forbids a German shipbuilder from using its waters to test a submarine being built for Israel; In Britain and Spain who boycott an OECD tourism meeting in Jerusalem; In the Netherlands where there is a reported increase in anti-Semitic incidents; and in the European poll that listed Israel ahead of Iran and North Korea as the greatest threats to world peace.

Given the veto power of the United States in the UN, a veto that has prevented any action on any resolution that has condemned Israel’s illegal and/or inhumane policies and military actions against Palestinians and its neighbors over a period of 63 years, the actions listed by Murdoch by European nations are but modest reflections of the frustration that exists throughout the world about the impunity this rogue state enjoys precisely because America “stands united in full support of Israel” regardless of its merciless behavior toward its neighbors in the mid-east. Yet Murdoch is afraid that the United States might be weakening in that support, one of the prime reasons for giving this talk before the ADL. “Some believe that if America wants to gain credibility in the Muslim world and advance the cause of peace, Washington needs to put some distance between itself and Israel. My view is the opposite.” For some totally unexplainable reason, Murdoch seems to think that a continuation of 63 years of force—of land confiscation, of theft of Palestinian aquifers, of home demolitions, of imprisonment of thousands without due rights, of abolition of civil rights, of humiliation and disrespect that comes with hundreds of checkpoints, soldiers who mock and deride civilians, who are indifferent to the suffering of a mother about to give birth as she is prevented from getting to a hospital, of the psychological pain a child endures, a pain that lasts a lifetime, when the soldiers break down the door and force the father to the wall incapable of protecting his family from such ruthlessness, of life lived behind a wall, a wall that testifies to the fear that Murdoch expresses in his talk to the ADL, a pathological fear imbedded in his very soul, and a wall that imprisons the youth of Palestine who grow to manhood locked behind concrete and steel and watch towers and guns—such is the view that Murdoch brings to Americans if peace is to be achieved in Israel.

One cannot but think that something is amiss here. Murdoch sees only through his own eyes, and he sees fear, a fear that has infected his entire being, a toxic residue of hate against the world brought on by ingesting every day another dose of Abraham Foxman’s diatribes against the world. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to look through the eyes of the world that Murdoch condemns. Norman Finklestein makes the point in his book, This Time We’ve Gone too Far: he cites the yearly resolutions of the UNGA that have condemned Israel for not returning to a legal position regarding its neighbor, Palestine.

Yearly, the US and Israel stand alone against the world as the people of the world view the catastrophe that is the occupied territories; recently, the world condemned Israel for its wanton destruction of Lebanon, and again only the US and Israel saw this action as justified yet Israel suffered no consequences for this illegal invasion of its neighbor; following the Christmas invasion of Gaza, the world rose against Israel’s inhumane behavior and only Israel and the US stood in support of that merciless destruction condemning the Goldstone Report and preventing justice form being exercised; then came the flotilla of mercy to Gaza and Israel and the United States alone in all the world refused to comply with the UNHRC recommendations or permit international investigations from determining truth. And so it goes.

There must not and will not be criticism of Israel because that is by virtue of the name of the state, a Jewish state, damnation of the Jews. How convenient. Thus does Murdoch erect his own wall of fear around the people of the world should they dare to find fault with the government of Israel. He hides truth thereby behind slanders and lies, seeing all behavior through his own eyes instead of viewing truth as it is seen by his neighbors who suffer the wrath of Israel. Should he take that black veil off his eyes might he not see neighbors capable of love and joy, desiring to live in peace in a homeland large enough to accommodate them, and willing to share the resources of Palestine equitably that all might live a fruitful life.

 By William A. Cook

29 October, 2010

 

 

 

 

Appeal to the UN made on 3-11-2010 (full text below), by Father Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, former president of the UN General Assembly to free Mr. Tariq Aziz, Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq before 2003 invasion. The appeal was shown at the end of a joint NGO side-event which took place during the Universal Periodic Review of the United States at the United Nations in Geneva.

FULL TEXT:

I am, to put it merely, extremely sad and angry to see yet another great injustice perpetrated by the United States, who, in my country alone Nicaragua, recently promoted, directed, armed and financed an undeclared war of aggression that resulted in the death of 50000 people.

This time, the action that I am referring too was taken against a very dear friend of mine, a fellow Christian, with whom I often went to church, Tareq Aziz, former prime minister of Iraq.

By willfully insuring an unfair trial the US is responsible for the now planned summary and extrajudicial execution of Tareq Aziz. In so doing, the USA has committed a great breach of the 3rd and 4th Geneva Convention which cynically enough the United States claims to be committed to searching for, persecuting and punishing individuals who commit those serious international crimes.

In compliance with what the United Nations Working Group on arbitrary detention has noted concerning the illegal nature, lack of due process and fairness in the trial of Tareq Aziz, the US has the moral and legal obligation to see that Tareq Aziz is immediately set free.

We are sick and tired of cases where the butchers persecute and accuse their victims.

 

 

Despite all the hype and rhetoric, only one impact of the midterm elections is assured. Notwithstanding power shifts from Democrats to Republicans in Congress there will not be any deep, sorely needed true reforms of our corrupt, dysfunctional and inefficient government. The culture of corruption in Washington, DC will remain. Hundreds of millions of dollars from corporate and other special interests will assure that.

Voters who think otherwise are either delusional or stupid. It will not matter whether you voted for Republicans because you wanted to defeat Democrats (or vice-versa), or whether you voted for Tea Party candidates, or whether you voted against incumbents, or whether you voted for what you believe are lesser-evil candidates. Americans lost however they voted, but it may take time for most to comprehend that. That is a terribly painful reality, which is why many who chose to vote will resist facing the ugly truth

When it comes to politics in America, delusion and stupidity are rampant, like a terrible epidemic that has killed brain cells. Several billion dollars were spent selling candidates this year. Who profited? The many media outlets that received the advertising bonanza and companies that supplied mailings, posters and automatic phone calls. At least all that spending was kept domestic.

Yes, you are thinking that this is the most cynical view possible. Cynicism beats delusion. I recommend it.

This is what American history tells us. Americans have been brainwashed and tricked into thinking that elections are crucial for maintaining American democracy. That is exactly what the two-party plutocracy needs to maintain their self-serving political system and that is also what the rich and powerful Upper Class wants to preserve their status. But voting in a corrupt political system no longer sustains democracy. It only sustains the corrupt political system that makes a mockery of American democracy. Think about it.

In the months following this election, when unemployment and economic pain for all but the rich remain awful, anyone who pays attention and is able to face the truth will see that there is little chance of genuine government reforms. Nor will any of the nation’s severe fiscal and spending problems be smartly attacked. The Republicans will blame the Democrats, the Democrats will blame the Republicans, the Tea Party winners will blame the system, the radio and cable pundits will blabber endlessly, and Jon Stewart and other comics will have an abundance of material to take jabs at. The two-party plutocracy will triumph.

Every member of Congress will, as before, spend most of their time and energy doing what is necessary to win the next election. The army of lobbyists will be busier than ever legally bribing politicians to sustain the successful political strategy of the rich and business sector to make the rich and superrich still richer at the expense of the middle class. Anyone who thinks that winner Republicans will work to overturn economic inequality is stupid or delusional. A disproportionate and ludicrous fraction of the nation’s income and wealth will go to a tiny fraction of rich and superrich Americans. Nothing that President Obama or the Democrats have done or championed was aimed squarely at reversing economic inequality and the death of the middle class, which by itself justified defeating them.

President Obama, of course, will continue his self-serving rhetoric with the sole goal of winning reelection in 2012. The presidency just made him destructively delusional. Of course he will speak about working with Republicans. Wait and see.

Here is what non-delusional Americans can hope for: Maybe a decent third party presidential candidate will emerge. Maybe the Tea Party movement will wake up to the reality that electing Republicans is a terrible strategy for reforming the government and restoring the health of the nation and shift their interest to forming a third party. I doubt very much whether any of the Tea Party winners in Congress will stand up and aggressively work for and demand true reforms. The new Republican Speaker of the House is a classic establishment Republican. Maybe the greatly expanded calls for an Article V convention (mostly by Republicans and conservatives) as the constitutional path to reforms through constitutional amendments will gather more energy (especially from Tea Party people) and finally succeed.

Welcome to the good old USA where citizens, unlike those in Europe, do not riot in the streets demanding justice but keep believing in the nonsense that voting for either Republicans or Democrats will work for them and the nation.

Despair follows delusion. Despite the endless media hype, the political revolution of 2010 is like a badly made firecracker – a dud. President Obama, Republicans and Democrats will have learned nothing profound, not enough to dedicate themselves to real reforms. Along with economic pain, widespread anger will persist as nothing tangible results to make the lives of ordinary Americans a lot better. Will Americans demand smarter strategies than voting in regular elections with choices between Democrats and Republicans? What do you think?

By Joel S. Hirschhorn

03 November, 2010

Countercurrents.org

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through delusionaldemocracy.com.]