Archives: Articles

Unofficial estimates place the number of dead as high as 1,000 and the wounded in the many thousands. The New York Times reported Monday that Pierre-Emmanuel Ducruet, a spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross, said inspections of morgues “suggested that more than 700 people had been killed in Osh alone, and that ‘not less than 3,000’ people were in need of medical help, mostly for gunshot wounds.”

Tens of thousands of ethnic Uzbeks have flooded from the major towns of Osh and Jalalabad and their surrounding villages across the border into Uzbekistan, seeking refuge.

The Uzbek government says some 75,000 ethnic Uzbeks have fled from Kyrgyzstan—about 10 percent of the Uzbek population of the country. Refugee camps have sprung up on the Uzbek side of the border where, according to Red Cross spokesmen, conditions are horrific. There are reports of dysentery among refugee children.

There are also thousands of refugees struggling to get across the border, which the Uzbek government ordered closed Monday.

The center of the attacks reportedly shifted from Osh to Jalalabad on Sunday and Monday. Fighting reportedly broke out Thursday night in Osh, Kyrgyzstan’s second largest city, with a population of about 225,000.

Initially, it seems, both ethnic Kyrgyz and Uzbeks were victims of violence, but the fighting quickly turned into a wave of mob assaults on Uzbek neighborhoods. Entire Uzbek areas have been torched, according to reports, and those ethnic Uzbeks remaining have barricaded themselves in their homes.

While the violence receded in Osh on Sunday, arson and shooting of Uzbeks were reportedly increasing in Jalalabad on Monday.

The interim government headed by President Rosa Otunbayeva has been unable to restore order in the south. Police, security forces and troops were ordered to the region Friday, but they failed to curtail the attackers. Some Uzbeks reported that government forces aided the gangs that attacked their homes and businesses.

In a desperate bid to restore order and save her government, Otunbayeva on Saturday requested that Russia send in peacekeeping troops. That request intensified tensions in the region and between Washington and Moscow. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev rejected the request, at least for the present, but he did dispatch an additional 300 paratroopers to fortify the Russian military base near the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek.

An emergency meeting of the Russian-dominated Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) on Monday likewise refused to send troops, instead agreeing to send the embattled government in Bishkek military equipment and road transport. The CSTO consists of Russia and former Soviet republics Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

The US State Department on Monday called for a coordinated international response, involving the US, Russia, the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Washington does not want to see a unilateral Russian intervention, which would dramatically shift the balance of influence over Kyrgyzstan and potentially threaten the US air base outside of Bishkek.

Uzbeks make up 15 percent of the 5.5 million population of Kyrgyzstan, but in the southern regions that border Uzbekistan they are almost as numerous as the Kyrgyz.

The eruption of violence is the result of immense economic hardship and poverty, decades of corrupt and repressive governments, and a festering political crisis. All of these factors have been compounded by the destabilizing impact of the US war and occupation of Afghanistan, for which the Manas air base serves as a central hub for the movement of US and NATO troops and supplies.

The US has been seeking to increase its military/intelligence presence in Kyrgyzstan. Last month the Pentagon put out bids for companies to help construct an anti-terrorism training center in Osh.

China also has a huge interest in the fate of Kyrgyzstan, with which it shares an extended border. The Chinese have been expanding their trade with the country in recent years.

The disintegration of Kyrgyzstan could fuel ethnic tensions and separatist tendencies inside both Russia and China, as well as within the neighboring former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan.

Russia and the US, in particular, have been vying for dominance over Kyrgyzstan, especially since the US established the Manas base in the former Soviet Republic at the start of the Afghan war in 2001. The fall of the Kyrgyz government and breakup of the country could precipitate a major crisis between the two powers.

Zharikhin Vladimir, deputy director of the Commonwealth of Independent States Institute at the Russian Academy of Sciences, warned that the unrest would reverberate beyond Kyrgyzstan’s borders. “These events will have a negative influence on the stability of the region,” he said, adding, “The likelihood that Kyrgyzstan will disintegrate has grown considerably. South Kyrgyzstan borders Uzbekistan and the border of Afghanistan is nearby. The region is a knot of nerves for the whole of Central Asia.”

The eruption of ethnic violence occurs barely two months after the overthrow of the regime of President Kurmanbek Bakiyev, following mass protests in Bishkek against government corruption and a sharp rise in utility rates. Bakiyev was succeeded by the interim government headed by Otunbayeva.

The interim government has never fully consolidated control of the south of the country, a stronghold of ousted President Bakiyev. In that region, including Osh and Jalalabad, most Kyrgyz reportedly continue to support Bakiyev, while most Uzbeks support the new government.

Otunbayeva heads a fragile and fractious coalition that lacks deep-going popular support. She and her cohorts came to power April 7 promising to usher in a new period of democracy and progress. However, she is a longtime political operative, having served in the 1990s as ambassador to both the US and Britain in the despotic regime of Askar Akayev, and then backed Bakiyev in the so-called “Tulip Revolution” of 2005 which overthrew Akayev.

Her coalition partners are similarly veterans of the previous corrupt and authoritarian regimes.

The interim government, which initially promised to hold elections in October, has put them back to the end of 2011. It has called a national referendum for June 27 to endorse Otunbayeva’s presidency until then and to adopt a new constitution.

Otunbayeva accuses Bakiyev, who is in exile in Belarus, of instigating the rioting in the south in order to block the referendum and topple her government. The deposed president denies the charge, but his family members and supporters have reportedly been active in leading attacks on ethnic Uzbeks since last Thursday.

Last month, ethnic fighting erupted, on a far smaller scale, in Jalalabad, Bakiyev’s home region. Two were killed and dozens wounded when ethnic Kyrgyz attacked a private university attended mostly by Uzbeks. Days earlier, Bakiyev supporters had seized government buildings in Osh and Jalalabad, expelling local leaders loyal to the interim government before being overrun by government forces.

The tragic events in Kyrgyzstan are a product both of the US colonial aggression in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, which was engineered by the Stalinist bureaucracy itself with the support of Western imperialism.

In the dying days of the USSR, as nationalist elements within the Stalinist apparatus in Kyrgyzstan were preparing to break away and establish independence (which came in 1991), ethnic violence erupted in Osh. Hundreds were killed until order was restored by Soviet troops.

The breakup of the Soviet Union and capitalist restoration has produced an unmitigated disaster in Kyrgyzstan. The economy of the former Soviet republic, which had exported 98 percent of its goods to the rest of the USSR, collapsed. Kyrgyzstan is now desperately poor, having a gross domestic product one-ninth that of Kazakhstan. The average daily wage for those fortunate enough to have a job is $5.

WSWS.org

By Barry Grey

 

 

 

 

On Saturday 5th June, 2010, 35 heavily armed Israeli Navy Seals commandeered our boat, MV Rachel Corrie, one of the Freedom Flotilla, in International waters (30 miles off the coast of Gaza). As they did so, we 19 humanitarian activists and crew, sat on the deck.

We were quietly anxious, aware of the solitary figure in the wheelhouse with his hands held high against the window, in full view of the three Israeli warships, 4 approaching zodiacs and 2 commando carriers, whose guns were pointing in his direction. I personally wondered if the courageous Derek Graham would live to tell the tale, conscious of what happened on the Turkish ship, Mavi Marmara, earlier in the week.

On Monday 3lst May, 2010, we heard via satellite phone that the Israeli Commandoes had boarded in International waters, from helicopter and zodiacs, the Turkish Ship, MV Mavi Marmara, killing and injuring many people. It was later confirmed that 8 Turkish people, l Turkish/USA, unarmed civilians had been shot (2 in the head and several in the back). All 6 boats on the Freedom Flotilla had been commandeered by Israeli Navy and taken to Israel and during this attack by Israel over 40 people were injured.

These killings of unarmed civilians was devasting news to us all and something we never expected to happen. All those participating in the Freedom Flotilla participated because they were moved by the suffering of the people of Gaza.

They were not Terrorists, they were human beings, who cared for other human beings in their suffering. Gaza, cut off by land crossing, sea (its port had been closed for over 40 years since Israeli occupation and had the Free Gaza Rachel CorrieCargo boat been able to enter Gaza, it would have been the first Cargo boat ever to do so). Gaza has rightly been been described as the largest open air prison in the world. With Israel holding all the keys for its one and a half million people living under a policy of collective punishment by Israeli.

Under siege for over 3 years now, with a shortagee of medicine, basic materials to rebuild their homes, after the 22 day bombardment by Israeli in Dec/Jan.2009 has left Gaza and its people, a place of suffering and isolation.

The flotilla was not only to bring humanitarian aid, books for children, toys, writing material, but to help break the siege of Gaza, which is slowly strangling its people.

The violations of international law committed by Israel are well documented by the UN, and many independent human rights bodies. All of these violations of International laws and norms are committed under the guise of ‘national security’ and A policy of isolating Gaza to weaken Hamas.

It is a policy that is clearly not working. As we have learned in N.Ireland, violence never works, so why not try talking to Hamas, as the British Government had to talk to rep. of IRA and Loyalist paramilitaries, in order to move to peace.

The brutal and illegal attack of aid ships in International waters on May 3lst and the subsequent boarding of the MV Rachel Corrie, also in international Waters, is a symptom of the culture of impunity under which Israel operates.

The Israeli Government was quick to blame the activists on board the MV Mavi Marmara, claiming that they attacked first and were members of terrorist groups.

They also claimed that the HLL the Turkish Humanitarian Group who organized the Mavi Marmara had terrorist links. The HLL is not a banned organization in Turkey and has no links to terrorist organizations. It was disappointing to see how many International governments and media outlets immediately accepted Israel’s version of events without further investigation.

Sure, there have been calls for a ‘prompt, Impartial, credible and transparent’ investigation into the events of May 3lst by the United Nations Security Council.

Yet the United States and others seem to think that Israel can conduct such an investigation on its own.

In the words of my colleague, Nobel Jody Williams, this is like “the fox accounting for the number of chickens left in the henhouse” such a response cannot stand, and nothing less than An Independent investigation will be acceptable to the international community.

This attack on the Freedom Flotilla is a tipping point. It is time for the International Community to finally stop allowing Israel to act with blatant disregard for Human Life, Human rights and International Law.

The partial lifting of the siege shows what International pressure can achieve, but it is not enough and only a full lifting of the siege can bring re freedom to the people of Gaza.

It is time for Israel to choose peace. It is time for world leaders and the international Community to join together and call on Israel to lift the siege of Gaza completely, End the occupation of Palestine and allow the Palestinian people their right to Self-determination.

To help bring closer that day we can all do something. Not everyone can go with The Freegaza boat people, but supporting the BDS campaign, calling for an end to EU special trading status with Israel insisting that USA end its economic/military assistance to Israel until it upholds it International commitments. Palestine is a key to peace in the Middle East so by us all refusing to be ‘silent’ in the face of Israel’s continued apartheid policies we can all bring closer an end to all violence in the Middle East.

19th June, 2010

EMAIL: mairead.home@btinternet.com

 

 

As everyone knows, Helen Thomas, the doyenne of the Washington Press Corps, has gone into retirement after making some heretical remarks about Israel and Israelis. The current Wikipedia entry reads in part as follows:

“On May 27, 2010, outside a White House Jewish heritage event, Rabbi David Nesenoff asked if Thomas had any comments on Israel. Thomas replied, “Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine… Remember, these people are occupied, and it’s their land.” She was then asked where the Israelis should go, to which she replied: “they should go home” to “Poland, Germany… America and everywhere else.” Thomas subsequently issued an apology on her personal web site: “I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.”

She was perhaps the last representative of a proud tradition of American journalism, of calling it like you see it and damn the torpedoes – in a word, of telling the truth. Presidents have either trusted or feared her, depending on their own proclivities for truth telling, hardly a hallmark of politicians of whatever rank. There she always was, up front and center due to her rank as America’s premier representative of the press, ready to ask that one piercing question directed at whatever cover-up, hypocrisy or skullduggery the DC suits were up to at the moment. The most recent example was her pointed question to President Obama, asking President Obama to name all the countries in the Middle East that have nuclear weapons, which was avoided by the President, who claimed to not want to “speculate”. Thomas claims that knowledge of Israeli nukes is very public in DC and Obama’s answer shows a lack of credibility. She explains the importance of this question for U.S. policy in the region. Finally, she confides that she has not been called on by the President since that day, but that if she does, she will ask him whether or not he has found any more information about nukes in the Middle East since their last encounter.

In preparation for my bar-mitzvah I attended Hebrew School at a place called Temple Emeth in Brookline, MA. Emeth is Hebrew for truth, and I was young enough, 11-12, to be curious what that meant. What I mostly discovered was an ancient cult dedicated to telling old wives tales meant to frighten and cajole its adherents into becoming and remaining loyal members of the tribe. The “truth” indeed. But I do remember that some of the old texts frequently mentioned something called “righteousness,” which was somehow supposed to be the bedrock of the whole thing. Of course, no one actually believed in God. The “enlightened” Jews of Europe threw out that retro concept generations ago. Their new faith was Zionism, which can be summed up with the words, “God does not exist, but he gave us the Land.” In replacing the old faith with the new, that old notion of “righteousness” conveniently disappeared – the baby got thrown out with the bathwater. What did remain was the actual faith of the Pharisees going back to biblical times, the worship of the Golden Calf, the belief in and absolute devotion to money and power.

She has seen it all, and if there’s anyone who knows what the truth is, it is Helen Thomas. She saw the pressure and treachery applied by the Zionist mafia that led to the birth of Israel as an American protectorate in the Middle East. She saw her country that she so loved fall prey to a ruthless fifth column that has turned America into an obedient puppet of what a French diplomat once called “that shitty little state.” She watched as the Chicago Jewish political mafia picked out and groomed a nobody for the Presidency, the perfect Uncle Tom with a silken tongue who would smoothly carry out Massa’s orders

Who knows what the “rabbi” said to set her off, but whatever it was, she could no longer contain what she (and hundreds of millions of others who have not been duped or seduced by the Zionist) have felt all along, so she said what is so obvious – a bunch of genocidal settler-colonialist Eastern European fascists have no business being in Palestine in any other capacity than as tourists and should just get the hell out.

http://onestate.info

 

 

Organized attack on most revered member of White House Press Corp

Like a cat ready to pounce, the Israel Above All clique has been waiting for its chance to snare America’s most senior journalist, the redoubtable Helen Thomas. One false move and she is trapped. The attackers only exposed themselves; the extent to which they will go to stifle opposition to Israel’s policies, the extent to which they are able to quickly organize their attacks, the extent to which they are able to publish false information, the extent to which they are capable of controlling media, and the extent of their self-immolation.

A careful analysis of the incident reveals a backfire and, as the truth of the incident emerges, hopefully a fair and honest America will plead for the return of one of the White House press corps most revered journalist; an 89 year old and ever brave woman who cemented the highway for other women into the higher echelons of journalism and serves as an encouragement for senior citizens by showing them that life is not over until capitulation. As her return is urged, those who initiated this injustice (imagine attacking an 89 year old woman) should be politely asked to depart from public life so they no longer misuse public trust to damage others.

(1) Helen Thomas did not relate the statements as they were reported by the media.

(2) Helen Thomas didn’t say anything more than something to generate a spontaneous tête á tête with a reporter.

(3) Many major Americans: presidents, congressmen, media commentators and reporters have made worse statements by several magnitudes and have not generated similar vehemence, abuse and result; except when the remarks accused Israel, as did Helen’s remarks.

(4) Helen Thomas only made a few remarks, which others interpreted for their convenience as recommending ‘ethnic cleansing.’ Israel has had consistent policies of ‘ethnic cleansing.’ Those who attacked the few words from Helen have never contradicted Israel leaders’ words recommending expulsion of Palestinians nor Israel’s policies of ethnic cleansing.

Start with Helen Thomas’ statements and the reporting of them.

Although media headlines quoted MS. Thomas as having said “The Jews should get the hell out of Palestine,” and “go home to Germany and Poland,” the dean of White House correspondents never used the word Jews nor uttered the quotes as they were presented.

The complete video of the verbal exchange between Ms. Thomas and the reporter shows that she was asked her thoughts on Israel. “Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine,” she answered in a jocular manner. “Remember, these people are occupied. It’s their land. It’s not Germany, not Poland.” She was subsequently asked: “What should they do?” and not “What should the Jews do?” She answered, “They should go back to their land.” To the next question: “Where is their land?” Helen replied, “Germany, Poland.” It is the interviewer who then says provocatively, “So you say the Jews should go back to Germany and Poland.” Helen adds. “And to America.”

Before examining how the dean of White House correspondents is being singled out for censure and why the censors are suspect, let’s examine the statements.

First of all, an antagonistic expression towards Israel does not merit the usual attempt to attach the anti-Semitic label. Israel contains only Israelis, many of whom happen to be Jews. Some Jews are Israelis. Most Jews are not Israelis. It is obvious that Ms. Thomas was not referring to Jews specifically (an interlocutor assumption), but to those who had come from afar to occupy a land. Are Helen Thomas’ statements that Israel should “get the hell out of Palestine,” and “these people are occupied,” unique? Probably many of the world’s citizens have similar sentiments. Actually, many of Israeli and Russian Jews have been going to Germany. The Federal Republic of Germany contains a large immigration of Jews during the last decade.

Due to one expression, must the dean of White House correspondents be pilloried? Maybe Ms. Thomas was thinking of Israel the oppressor, which has already thrown most of the early Palestinians out of the area and daily tries to get rid of more – not by words, but by actual deeds. Maybe she was thinking of meritocracy Israeli laws that throw its Palestinian citizens aside – few college scholarships, unable to purchase land, no public housing, no mortgages, no legal marriages performed on Israeli territory between a Jew and non-Jew.

Ari Fleischer, former press secretary to President George H.W. Bush during an administration that featured the most outrageous prevarications and deceptions, which led the nation to catastrophe, and Lanny Davis, advisor for sheltering President Bill Clinton’s somewhat immoral conduct, adjudicated Helen Thomas’ inquisition.

On CNN, after an introduction by CNN interviewer, who showed how fair he was by characterizing Ms. Thomas’ statement as anti-Semitic, Fleischer, overflowing with rage, said: “Helen’s statement calling for the religious cleansing of Israel is reprehensible. If this isn’t bigotry, what is? What she said is as bad as someone saying all blacks should leave America and go back to Africa. Hearst Newspapers should do the right thing and let Helen go.”

Note that Fleischer used the term “blacks” and not African Americans. Note also that African Americans were brought here against their will, have been citizens for generations and have not taken anyone else’s land or expelled them. Is Ari’s comparison sensible, and doesn’t it defeat what he is trying to say?

Lanny Davis quickly entered the air waves with almost identical remarks: “Helen Thomas, who I used to consider a close friend and who I used to respect, has showed herself to be an anti-Semitic bigot. She has a right to criticize Israel …. However, her statement that Jews in Israel should leave Israel and go back to Poland or Germany is an ancient and well-known anti-Semitic stereotype of the alien Jew not belonging in the land of Israel that began 2,600 years with the first tragic and violent Diaspora caused by the Romans. If she had asked all blacks to go back to Africa, what would the White House Correspondents Association’s position be as to whether she deserved White House press room credentials – much less a privileged honorary seat?”

The two men proposed similar charges of anti-Semitism, compared Helen’s words to all “blacks” to go back to Africa, and repeated words that the media used, but Helen never said. Davis added a controversial story; violent Diaspora caused by the Romans. Who issues these vituperative macros and repeats controversial history?

Are these legitimate rebuttals or a continuous and concerted abuse by scheming attackers?

Here is the introduction to a Letter to the Editor that appeared, during March 2010, in The Beacon, a Montgomery County, Maryland, senior oriented newspaper.

Tony Snow, former White House press secretary, commented after one of her set-up anti-Israel questions that we have “heard from Hezbollah.”…

 

For sure these same persons have never replied to much more serious statements by either Israeli officials or American public figures. Please send the statements to them and ask, “Why haven’t you responded to these repulsive statements?” Here are only some of the thousands of bigoted expressions.

Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.

“It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands.”

Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

How about U.S. Commentators? Just a random few of millions of bigoted comments.

“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”

“Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.”

“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.”

Ann Coulter

What would happen if any U.S. politician or media commentator uttered similar expressions about African Americans?

Given that Helen Thomas spoke inappropriate words. That is an issue, but not the only issue. Demeaning and humiliating a person who has contributed much to American society, and attempting to control what people say and what others should listen to are not the American way. The American public should eloquently forgive Ms. Thomas for what seems to be an overheated exchange and politely request that she be returned to her admired position as dean of the White House press Corp, and then complete the redemption by showing disapproval for the despicable, mendacious and obviously arranged assault on an eighty- nine year old treasure of the United States of America.

By Dan Lieberman

Countercurrents.org

Dan Lieberman is editor of Alternative Insight, a monthly web based newsletter. He can be reached at:  alternativeinsight@earthlink.net

 

Reports from the Gulf of Mexico just keep getting worse. Estimates of the rate of oil spillage from the Deepwater Horizon wellhead just keep gushing (the latest official number: up to 60,000 barrels per day). Forecasts for how long it will take before the leak is finally plugged continue pluming toward August—maybe even December. In addition to the oil itself, BP has (in this case deliberately) spilled a million gallons of toxic Corexit dispersant. Biologists’ accounts of the devastation being wreaked on fish, birds, amphibians, turtles, coral reefs, and marshes grow more apocalyptic by the day—especially in view of the fact that the vast majority of animal victims die alone and uncounted. Warnings are now being raised that the natural gas being vented along with the oil will significantly extend the giant dead zones in the Gulf. And guesses as to the ultimate economic toll of this still-unfolding tragedy—on everything from the tourism and fishing industries of at least five coastal states to the pensioners in Britain whose futures are at risk if BP files for bankruptcy or is taken over by a Chinese oil company—surge every time an analyst steps back to consider the situation from another angle.

We all want the least-bad outcome here. But what if events continue on the current trajectory—that is, what if the situation keeps deteriorating? Just how awful could this get?

For weeks various petroleum engineers and geologists working on the sidelines have speculated that the problems with the Deepwater Horizon may go deep—that the steel well casing, and the cement that seals and supports that casing against the surrounding rock, may have been seriously breached far beneath the seabed. If that is true, then escaping oil mixed with sand could be eroding what’s left of the well casing and cement, pushing out through the cracks and destabilizing the ground around the casing. According to Lisa Margonelli in The Atlantic.

There is the possibility that as the ground and the casing shift, the whole thing collapses inward, the giant Blow Out Preventer falls over, the drill pipe shoots out of the remains of the well, or any number of other scenarios,” that could making it virtually impossible ever to cap the well or even to plug it at depth via relief wells.

Read, for example, this comment at TheOilDrum.com, a site frequented by oil industry technical insiders who often post anonymously. The author of the comment, “dougr,” argues fairly persuasively that disintegration of the sub-surface casing and cement is the best explanation for the recent failure of “top kill” efforts to stop the oil flow by forcibly injecting mud into the wellhead.

Concerns about the integrity of the sub-seabed well casing appear also to be motivating some seriously doomerish recent public statements from Matt Simmons, the energy investment banker who decided to go rogue a couple of years ago following the publication of his controversial Peak Oil book Twilight in the Desert. Simmons says, for example, that “it could be 24 years before the deepwater gusher ends,” a forecast that makes little sense if one accepts the conventional view of what’s wrong with the Deepwater Horizon well and how long it will take to plug it with relief wells.

Are these concerns credible? From a technical standpoint, it is clear that improperly cemented wells can and do rupture and cause blowouts. It’s fairly clear that this is part of what happened with Deepwater Horizon. But is the well casing further disintegrating, and is oil escaping the well bore horizontally as well as vertically? We just don’t know. And that is largely due to the fact that BP is as opaque on this score as it has been with regard to nearly every sensitive technical issue (including the rate of leakage) since its drilling rig exploded two months ago.

So far, up to 3.6 million barrels of oil have spilled into the Gulf. The size of the Macondo oilfield has been estimated as being anywhere from 25 to 100 million barrels. It is unclear how much of that oil-in-place would escape upward into Gulf waters if its flow remained completely unchecked, but it is safe to assume that at least half, and probably a much greater proportion, would eventually drain upward. That means many times as much oil would enter the Gulf waters as has done so until now.

Already Deepwater Horizon is the not only the worst oil spill, but the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. Multiplying the scale of this existing catastrophe multiple times sends us into truly uncharted territory.

Already, coastal ecosystems are being shredded; for a sense of how bad it is for wildlife in the Gulf now, just read “Biologists fear Gulf wildlife will suffer for generations.”In a truly worst case, oil — and perhaps dissolved methane as well — would hitch a ride on ocean currents out to the deep Atlantic, spreading ecological destruction far and wide.

For the economies of coastal states, a worst-case leakage scenario would be utterly devastating. Not only the fishing industry, but the oil industry as well would be fatally crippled, due to the disruption of operations at refineries. Shipping via the Mississippi River, which handles 60 percent of all U.S. grain exports, could be imperiled, since the Port of South Louisiana, the largest bulk cargo port in the world, might have to be closed if ships are unable to operate in oil-drenched waters. Unemployment in the region would soar and economic refugees would scatter in all directions.

The consequences for BP would almost certainly be fatal: it is questionable whether the corporation can survive even in the best case (that is, if “bottom kill” efforts succeed in August); if the spill goes on past the end of the year, then claims against the company and investor flight will probably push it into bankruptcy. Americans may shed few tears over this prospect, but BP happens to be Great Britain’s largest corporation, so the impact to the British economy could be substantial.

The consequences for the oil industry as a whole would also be dire. More regulations, soaring insurance rates, and drilling moratoria would lead to oil price spikes and shortages. Foreign national oil companies could of course continue to operate much as before, but the big independent companies, even if they shifted operations elsewhere, would be hit hard.

For President Obama, an environmental disaster of the scale we are discussing could have political consequences at least equivalent to those of the Iranian hostage crisis during the Carter presidency. Obama’s only chance at survival would be an FDR-like show of leadership backed by bold energy and economic plans and ruthless disregard for partisan bickering and monied interests.

For the U.S. economy, already weakened by a still-unfolding financial crisis, a worst-case scenario in the Gulf could be the last straw. The cumulative impacts—falling grain exports, soaring unemployment in southeastern coastal states, higher oil prices—would almost certainly spell the end to any hope of recovery and might push the nation into the worst Depression in its history.

We would all prefer not even to contemplate such a scenario, much less live with it. It is irresponsible to inflict needless worry on readers on the basis of entirely speculative and extremely unlikely events. But the more I learn about the technical issues, and the worse news gets, the more likely this scenario seems. We all hope that a relief well will succeed in stopping the oil flow sometime around August, and that until then BP will be able to siphon off most of the oil escaping through the riser and damaged blowout preventer. But one has to wonder: is anyone at the White House seriously considering the worst-case scenario? And what should citizens be doing to prepare, just in case?

By Richard Heinberg

 

The G-20 Toronto party is over. The leaders have gone home. The world has now to pick up the broom and sweep the floor. Perhaps learn to live amidst the economic dirt they have left behind.

Screams a newspaper intro: “With the global economy on its way to recovery amid debt crisis in some European countries, the G-20 on Monday called a striking balance between stimulus measures to sustain economic expansion and reducing fiscal deficit to tackle the mess of government finance.” If you try to read the G-20 declaration, although it reads like a page from any text book that the economics and management students are forced to read nowadays, the leaders conclude that they can do much better.

“The IMF and World Bank estimate that if we choose a more ambitious path of reforms, over the medium term, we could:

• raise global output by up to $4 trillion;

• create an estimated 52 million jobs;

• lift up to 90 million people out of poverty; and

• significantly reduce global current account balances.

If we act in a coordinated manner, all regions are better off, now and in the future. Moreover, increasing global growth on a sustainable basis is the most important step we can take in improving the lives of all, including those in the poorest countries.”

Now we know. Why these leaders have made a mess of the global economy. They continue to follow the economic prescription being doled out by the IMF and the World Bank, who were primarily responsible for putting the world into an unforeseen crisis in the first hand. I have always been saying, more so in the Indian context and which holds true globally, how can you ask those who are responsible for the crisis to suggest solutions?

Only an idiot can seek advise from IMF and World Bank to put back the global economy on the path to recovery.

Let us not go into the outlandish figures of creating jobs and reducing hunger, but let us look at the IMF and World Bank estimates of raising global output. The G-20 expects that speeding the reforms (and cutting on fiscal deficit) will raise global output by $ 4 trillion. Ha ! Isn’t it amusing? The world has pumped in more than $ 20 trillion to bail out banks and the financial systems in 2008-09 alone, and you expect a recovery in terms of global output by a mere $ 4 trillion!

In other words, the tax payers globally have already provided an economic stimulus of $ 20 trillion and that without battling an eyelid. Which means they have shelled out what the world expects by way of output for the next five years !!

If only this stimulus had gone to provide the real stimulus to the economy (rather than writing off the losses of the banks, and providing bonuses to corrupt bankers), the $ 20 trillion would have wiped out poverty and hunger from the face of the Earth (not only pull out 90 million from hunger, as the G-20 projects) and also provided for jobs to all and sundry.

The problem is that the G-20 does not represent the people. The G-20 represents the corporations. They will therefore continue to make fool of us by throwing these magical figures. This is the only way they can fill the pockets of business and trade.

“The truth is that the entire world economic system is broken. It is built on a fraudulent pyramid of debt, derivatives, central banking and paper money that is doomed to fail. But world leaders will continue to keep it alive for as long as they can.” (Budget Cuts? in The Economic Collapse). I agree with this analysis. In fact, as a commentator wrote: “the fact remains that GDP is a false metric for the health of an economy; GDP includes government spending. Measured without federal government spending, the economy has been contracting at some -2.5% per quarter for the last six quarters. All that government spending has done is to mask the true state of the economy, provided congress with slush funds, and push the social(ist) agenda of those in power. It has temporarily delayed (and made worse by an order of magnitude) the inevitable crash that is coming, and lengthened the recovery time to decades instead of 2-

3 years, if any recovery is indeed possible.

Benron, Federal government, and the Big Six on Wall Street have learned nothing from their ’study’ of the Great Depression – they’re using the same playbook consisting of a single maneuver. And we can count on Obama to do exactly the opposite of what he says he’ll do, as he has proven every time he opens his mouth. Get ready for QEII, more of the Extend and Pretend economy, and more fed.gov statistics that are totally divorced from reality.”

The path to ‘economic recovery’ that is being suggested is through increasing FDI in agriculture. The G-20 declaration talks about it very clearly, and also promises to update the leaders with the progress in the forthcoming Seoul Summit in November. I will analyse it later as to what it means for the future of farming and the farming communities.

Meanwhile, read this excellent analysis Budget Cuts? on The Economic Collapse site. http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/budget-cuts

 By Devinder Sharma

 

By the time you read this, we will be on the high seas of the Mediterranean (we hope the seas will not be too high).

Our two U.S. flagged Free Gaza boats, will join two other passenger ships, a 600 passenger ship from Turkey sponsored by the Turkish humanitarian organization, Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH) and a 50 passenger ship from Athens sponsored by the European Campaign Against the Siege and the Greek/Swedish Ships to Gaza campaign, to sail to the shores of Gaza to break the Israeli naval blockade of the 1.5 million citizens in Gaza.

Four cargo ships from Ireland, Greece, Algeria and Turkey, will carry a total of 10,000 tons or 2 million pounds of construction materials for the housing of 50,000 made homeless during the 22 day Israeli attack on Gaza that killed 1440 Palestinians and wounded 5,000.

Many of us would like to see our boat renamed “The Audacity of Hope” as that is what we want to see from the Obama administration– courage to challenge the Israeli government on the siege of Gaza. It would be a really brave, bold move as every U.S. presidential administration since the formation of the State of Israeli in 1948 has blindly given free-rein to Israel in whatever actions it wishes to undertake no matter if the actions are a violation of international law. The carte blanche given to Israel by the United States has been dangerous for Israel’s national security as well as for the national security of the United States.

Probable reaction of Israeli Navy Ships-Bow shots, ramming or boarding

In less than 48 hours, the Israeli Navy will probably fire U.S. made ammunition and rockets in international waters over the bows of two U.S. flagged boats and one Greek boat with U.S. citizens aboard as well as citizens from 13 other countries and over the bows of the Turkish 600 passenger ship.

According to Israeli media (http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=176491), the Israeli military is preparing for our arrival off the shores of Gaza. The Israeli navy has been practicing its plan for preventing us from docking in Gaza, a plan that probably includes demanding by radio that the ships change course away from Gaza, firing weapons in front of the ships, ramming the ships and sending well-armed boarding parties onto the ships.

Israelis prepare a detention camp

As our 8 ship flotilla prepares to depart Greece and Turkey to break the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza, the Israeli military is preparing a detention camp for the flotilla’s 700 delegates from 20 countries who are passengers on four of the ships.

Those passengers include Hedy Epstein, an 85 year old holocaust survivor, Parliamentarians from Germany and Ireland, two former diplomats from the United States, a retired U.S. Army Colonel, authors, journalists, activists, businesspersons and clergy.

Additionally, the military has identified a warehouse in the Ashelod area, just over Gaza’s northern border that will be used to detain the 700 passengers on the 8 ships.

Taking a page from the New York City police who put over 1500 persons into a filthy, unclean warehouse on a pier in New York City during the 2004 Republican convention, the Israeli government no doubt will make the surroundings as difficult as possible for us.

The Israeli government has extensive experience in warehousing dissent, as over 10,000 Palestinians are in Israeli jails and prisons, including juveniles who are arrested regularly in nighttime raids in villages of the West Bank.

20 passengers on the May, 2009 Free Gaza boat trying to break the siege were imprisoned for 10 days before they were deported from Israel. They included Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire and former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney.

Wish us luck as we challenge the Israeli, Egyptian, European Union and United State’s unlawful siege and collective punishment of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza!

What will you do to help break the siege of Gaza?

About the Author:

Ann Wright is a 29 year US Army/Army Reserves veteran who retired as a Colonel and a former US diplomat who resigned in March, 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq. She served in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Mongolia. Wright made three trips to Gaza in 2009 and helped organize the Gaza Freedom March that in December, 2009 brought 1350 persons from 44 countries to Cairo, Egypt in an attempt to break the siege of Gaza. She is the co-author of the book “Dissent: Voices of Conscience.” (www.voicesofconscience.com)

By Ann Wright

 

BP is using federal agencies to shield itself from public accountability and is actually disappearing oiled wildlife. 

Orange Beach, Alabama — While President Obama insists that the federal government is firmly in control of the response to BP’s spill in the Gulf, people in coastal communities where I visited last week in Louisiana and Alabama know an inconvenient truth: BP — not our president — controls the response. In fact, people on the ground say things are out of control in the gulf.

Even worse, as my latest week of adventures illustrate, BP is using federal agencies to shield itself from public accountability.

For example, while flying on a small plane from New Orleans to Orange Beach, the pilot suddenly exclaimed, “Look at that!” The thin red line marking the federal flight restrictions of 3,000 feet over the oiled Gulf region had just jumped to include the coastal barrier islands off Alabama.

“There’s only one reason for that,” the pilot said. “BP doesn’t want the media taking pictures of oil on the beaches. You should see the oil that’s about six miles off the coast,” he said grimly. We looked down at the wavy orange boom surrounding the islands below us. The pilot shook his head. “There’s no way those booms are going to stop what’s offshore from hitting those beaches.”

BP knows this as well — boom can only deflect oil under the calmest of sea conditions, not barricade it — so they have stepped up their already aggressive effort to control what the public sees.

At the same time I was en route to Orange Beach, Clint Guidry with the Louisiana Shrimp Association and Dean Blanchard, who owns the largest shrimp processor in Louisiana, were in Grand Isle taking Anderson Cooper out in a small boat to see the oiled beaches. The U.S. Coast Guard held up the boat for 20 minutes – an intimidation tactic intended to stop the cameras from recording BP’s damage. Luckily for Cooper and the viewing public, Dean Blanchard is not easily intimidated.

A few days later, the jig was up with the booms. Oil was making landfall in four states and even BP can’t be everywhere at once. CBS 60 Minutes Australia found entire sections of boom hung up in marsh grasses two feet above the water off Venice. On the same day on the other side of Barataria Bay, Louisiana Bayoukeeper documented pools of oil and oiled pelicans inside the boom – on the supposedly protected landward side – of Queen Bess Island off Grand Isle.

With oil undisputedly hitting the beaches and the number of dead wildlife mounting, BP is switching tactics. In Orange Beach, people told me BP wouldn’t let them collect carcasses. Instead, the company was raking up carcasses of oiled seabirds. “The heads separate from the bodies,” one upset resident told me. “There’s no way those birds are going to be autopsied. BP is destroying evidence!”

The body count of affected wildlife is crucial to prove the harm caused by the spill, and also serves as an invaluable tool to evaluate damages to public property – the dolphins, sea turtles, whales, sea birds, fish, and more, that are owned by the American public. Disappeared body counts mean disappeared damages – and disappeared liability for BP. BP should not be collecting carcasses. The job should be given to NOAA, a federal agency, and volunteers, as was done during the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska.

NOAA should also be conducting carcass drift studies. Only one percent of the dead sea birds made landfall in the Gulf of Alaska, for example. That means for every one bird that was found, another 99 were carried out to sea by currents. Further, NOAA should be conducting aerial surveys to look for carcasses in the offshore rips where the currents converge. That’s where the carcasses will pile up–a fact we learned during the Exxon Valdez spill. Maybe that’s another reason for BP’s “no camera” policy and the flight restrictions.

On Saturday June 12, people across America will stand up and speak out with one voice to protest BP’s treatment of the Gulf, neglect for the response workers, and their response to government authority. President Obama needs to hear and see the people waving cameras and respirators. Until the media is allowed unrestricted access to the Gulf and impacted beaches, BP – not the President of United States – will remain in charge of the Gulf response.

Riki Ott, PhD, is a community activist, a former fisherm’am, and has a degree in marine toxicology with a specialty in oil pollution. She is also the author of Sound Truth and Corporate Myth$: The Legacy of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.

The news from Thailand is bad.  The Associated Press spoke of Bangkok “in flames“; 18 provincial capitals and have been placed under curfew and government buildings have been attacked in the cities of Udon Thani and Khon Kaen.  An estimated 65 people have been killed in the last two months of on-again, off-again violence and a political solution seems no closer today than it did at the start of the latest round of “Red Shirt” protests. This is not, yet, a worst case scenario.  Potentially, violence in Thailand could spread throughout the country and the army could split.  China and the United States could back different sides in what could spiral into a serious civil conflict.  Violence in Thailand could disrupt and destabilize life in neighbouring countries, especially Cambodia and northern Malaysia. The death of the current king, Bhumibol Adulyadej, would make matters worse as the monarchy, the most important stabilizing institution in modern Thailand, could itself be paralyzed or divided in the midst of the worst national crisis since the Japanese invasion in World War Two. Red-Shirts Thailand But if the worst is not yet with us, the outlook is grim.  What we are seeing in Thailand is not just a hiccup, a momentary spasm of protest.  It is the sign of a deep revolution in the nature of Thai society which the country’s political and legal systems cannot manage.  Thailand will not settle down for some time, and when (and if) it does, the country will have made major changes. The old Thai system was flexible and subtle, and thanks to their gifts for compromise and evasion, and to the deep loyalty which the Thai people felt toward their kings, Thailand was the only Asian country except Japan to avoid the fate of European conquest in the colonial era.  “Give the foreigner lots of face, and send him away happy,” is how one Thai described the country’s traditional approach to outside powers; the key phrase was “send him away.”  Thais were and are fiercely independent and a sense of national solidarity remains a key to understanding where Thailand is and where it is going. Thailand has a parliament, a prime minister, and one of the world’s most complex constitutions; the Thai state, however, is not a modern bureaucratic and institutional state.  To a very large extent, it is a latter day version of the traditional Thai way of doing things.  Politics is more about personal loyalties, blood relations and factions among the country’s elite than about ideologies or mass politics.  Under the rule of the current king, justly considered a master of Thai politics and a man who has had the welfare of the country as he understands it close to his heart through decades of public service, the monarchy acted as the ultimate arbiter in the feuds and rivalries of the elites.  Now favouring this faction and now the other, imposing limits on the winners and safeguarding the interests of losing factions, the king kept the system in balance.  Additionally, his religious and personal prestige legitimized the system as a whole in the eyes of the rural peasants.  The king and queen have been associated with the country’s high profile efforts to enhance rural standards of living and bring development to the countryside since the current king came to the throne in the aftermath of World War Two. PAD- Yellow- Shirt Protest The basic problem in Thailand today is that this elegant and delicately balanced system cans no longer work.  Thaksin Shinawatra, the controversial and charismatic billionaire who is still seen as the leader of the Red Shirts fighting the government, outflanked his elite rivals by building his own independent bond with the rural masses.  For the first time, a Thai public figure other than the king established nation-wide ties of patronage and loyalty with the farmers and rural people as a whole.  Thaksin introduced basic health care and micro-credit programs to villages across the country, demonstrating the practical superiority of modern mass politics and state initiatives over old style feudal benevolence when it came to meeting the needs of the people.  In that sense, Thaksin was functioning in Thai politics a bit like FDR did in the United States; he built a strong base of support among the poor who saw him as their savoir and protector against entrenched elites, and as someone through whom they could exercise more direct influence over government policy.  A wave of rural support made Thaksin the strongest political figure in the history of modern Thailand; with an absolute majority in parliament, his Thai Rak Thai (Thai Love Thai) party was, before it was banned in 2007, a new and disturbing force in the delicate world of Thai elite politics.  (Of course, he was also functioning a bit like Huey Long, who reportedly once told a group of voters “If you’re not getting something for nothing, you’re not getting your fair share.”) Worse, from the standpoint of the traditional elites, Thaksin is an extremely successful businessman who, whatever the facts behind the allegations of corruption against him, well understands the ways in which political and economic power can buttress and support one another.  As the Berlosconi of Thailand, Thaksin looks to his enemies like a dictator in the making. Add to that the question of monarchical succession.  The untested Crown Prince lacks his father’s popularity and experience.  Some people in Thailand seemed to fear that the Crown Prince was ready to lean on Thaksin for advice and support, making Thaksin the unrivalled master of Thai politics, business and even the monarchy itself. For all their horror at the prospect of rule by Thaksin, the old elites must face another painful truth: they cannot go on in the old way, Thaksin or not.  Thailand is no longer willing to be ruled by elite factions in Bangkok; political arrangements that satisfy the elites cannot be made to stick in the country at large. The royal succession will underline the change; if even the revered King Bhumibol was unable to settle Thailand’s current round of political unrest, how can his successor manage the country in the old way? There is another element in the Thai mix that foreign observers miss: ethnicity.  In the nineteenth and early twentieth century, Thailand, like many of its neighbours, received a large migration from China.  Today ‘Sino-Thais’ account for something like ten to fifteen percent of the total population, and a much higher proportion of the urban population, especially in Bangkok.  The royal family played an important role in helping these outsiders win greater acceptance from a sometimes xenophobic and resentful Thai public at large.  The descendants of Chinese immigrants are heavily represented among the Bangkok intellectual, professional and economic elite.  The press coverage has been rather silent on this score, but one would guess many more “Yellow Shirts“, the anti-Thaksin demonstrators, are Sino-Thais than the “Red Shirts.”  As in many countries where populist movements rooted in the peasant majorities were hostile to ‘alien’ minorities in the urban economy, so in Thailand.  Politics in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam have all been affected, sometimes profoundly, by ethnic politics; Thailand seems to be experiencing some of this in a characteristically indirect way.  Rural support for Thaksin and suspicion of Bangkok elites reflects some powerful ethnic resentment that could become all the more explosive as the crisis continues. What Thailand is going through is something much deeper than a conflict between two parties.  This is not a dispute over offices or policy, but a struggle to define the Thai people and the Thai state. Whoever prevails in this phase of the struggle will have a hard time going forward.  Neither the old system nor Thaksin’s government were ever able to build the kind of functioning national institutions that a rapidly developing country like Thailand needs.  Once on a visit to Khon Kaen province in north-eastern Thailand (a hotbed of Red Shirt activism today), I met a group of farmers whose traditional livelihoods were damaged when pollution from a nearby paper mill reduced water quality and fish catches in a local river. What was clear is that neither the administrative nor the judicial officers of the government had the kind of authority and prestige that could settle the dispute between farmers and mill owners with any legitimacy.  The farmers were convinced (for all I know correctly) that bribes were paid to the officials involved.  The government at that point (pre-Thaksin) had lost the confidence of the local people. A rapidly developing country generates huge numbers of disputes like this.  Land claims, pollution, zoning, power supply: governments have to become more competent and more honest as economies grow and life becomes more complex.  In Thailand, many of the Red Shirt protesters now seem to feel that they live in a country where the government has broken down, and in which wealthy elites can and do manage everything just as they like, from naming the prime minister down to adjudicating village disputes. The old Thai people — uneducated, socialized into a hierarchical culture based on deference and stressing harmony — may not have liked the inequality of Thai life, but they (mostly) accepted their fate.  That is changing as more Thais are educated, as they move to the city, and as they are exposed to all the cultural and political influences of an industrial society that is wired into global culture and information networks. The early stirrings of mass democracy are often not very accomplished.  I have written about Napoleon III as the kind of figure who is able to use democratic methods like universal suffrage to impose an illiberal political system.  There are many places around the world where movements of national political awakening have led away from democracy as well as from ethnic and religious toleration. The Yellow Shirts who worry that Red Shirt rule could make Thailand more corrupt and even authoritarian without solving the country’s urgent problems have a point.  So to do the Red Shirts, who argue that the Yellow Shirts are more interested in their own privileges than in the modernization of the country as a whole. I am not Thai, so it is not my role to choose sides.  The questions Thais are grappling with today are the kinds of questions that each people needs to work through in its own way; struggling over these issues is part of the process of political education that, when things work well, can ultimately give a mass electorate the wisdom and judgment needed to elect good leaders.  Making mistakes is part of the educational process; there is no easy way for a people to learn the art of self-government. While watching Thailand, it’s worth thinking about how many other countries are going through the rapid changes churning their way through Thai life.  From China through India and Bangladesh , East, South and Southeast Asian countries face many of the pressures now ripping at Thailand’s social fabric. We outsiders will be profoundly affected by what the Asian countries do as they encounter the challenges of Thailand.  But Asia will change and change profoundly as urbanization, industrialization and rising expectations and levels of education challenge the cultural values and political structures of all the big Asian countries.  In some places, change will come more easily than in Thailand; in others, the violence and the cost of transition will likely be far greater than anything we now see. For now, watch Thailand.  What is happening there is in one sense unique and very Thai; in another it is a glimpse into Asia’s future that we will all do well to study. © The American Interest LLC & Walter Russell Mead 2009-2010 May 20th, 2010.

 

When President Barrack Obama was declared the winner of the Noble Prize for Peace 2009, there were mixed responses from the International and US communities. The black were ecstatic, the whites sighed, and the browns like me only hoped that the Nobel laureate Obama would usher in change in a world where his country is seen more of a tormentor than anything else.    Unfortunately nothing changed. More American soldiers were commissioned in Afghanistan; more drones killed innocent civilians than Al Qaida members in the tribal areas of Pakistan; more “development” work was sanctioned to American companies in Iraq and even more hysteria was generated against the weapons of mass destruction with Iran. It appeared that the Noble Prize for Peace to Barrack Obama was as much a waste as it was a hoax in those six years when the real champion of peace, Mahatma Gandhi was denied its bestowment (We were told that Gandhi was nominated six times for the prize). The Israeli attack on the Turkish boats carrying humanitarian aid to the caged people of Gaza is an opportunity thrown by history towards President Barrack Obama to earn his Noble Peace Prize. The merciless killing of nineteen innocent humanitarian aid victims by Israeli forces aboard the Freedom Flotilla is not new. Israel is known for similar brutalities in the past. Who can forget the killing of innocent Muhhamad Al Durrah, the little boy who hid behind his father to avoid the Israeli bullets at a sleepy Gaza junction? Or for that matter can we ever forget the thousands murdered at the Sabra-Shatila camps in Beirut? So what is so big if Israel has committed murder again? To an ordinary citizen of the world like me, it is the audacity with which Israeli authorities perpetrated these crimes, right in front of world attention, knowing the consequences! It was murder planned and executed in broad daylight, right in our drawing rooms. The iron cold savagery of Israeli authorities has even taken its allies by surprise. Never have we seen such a global outcry over an Israeli atrocity. In the opening remarks of his Noble lecture, President Obama had said, “It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations – that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice”. Undoubtedly strong, soul stirring words. But actions to bend history in the direction of justice never come easy.  We know President Barrack Obama is an excellent orator. He weaves his words to make the listener believe in him. His popular Cairo University speech to Muslims is an epitome of rhetoric manufactured to the tune of popular Muslim sentiments. But for how long? Words sound good only if they are followed by firm actions. Actions are fortunately impervious to rhetoric. They have the accuracy to hit where it hurts. We know what Martin Luther King meant in his I Have a Dream speech because his actions and subsequently his sacrifice were proof enough to nurture the meaning of each and every word- truthful and heavy with purpose. It’s interesting that President Obama’s second book Audacity of Hope derives its inspiration from the famous painting Hope by G.F. Watts.  Obama had attended a sermon by his mentor, Jeremiah White who had then described the painting – “with her clothes in rags, her body scarred and bruised and bleeding, her harp all but destroyed and with only one string left, she had the audacity to make music and praise God … To take the one string you have left and to have the audacity to hope … that’s the real word God will have us hear from this passage and from Watt’s painting.” How much more will President Barrack Obama wait? Palestine as a geopolitical entity is in rags. Its landmass divided by unjustified borders and fences. Its body scarred, bruised and bleeding. Every day brings new wounds and fresh death. The harp of hope for millions of Palestinians is long broken. The identity of Palestine has been untimely aborted by cruel hands of the Israeli establishment. There are moments in history which demand change in our perceptions and attitudes to what looks routine. We have become immune to the siege and violence of Gaza. We have become deaf to the cries of mothers and lamenting of daughters. The complex power equations of the Middle East have muddled the cost of human suffering which is an inevitable part of the package. With each day the darkness around Gaza deepens. Peace talks, war crimes and peace talks again. The cycle goes on with a status quo which suites the perpetrators more than the victims. The attack on Freedom Flotilla is one such moment which has thrown a chance not towards Barak Obama, the President of the most powerful country in the world, but towards Barak Obama, the Noble Laureate for Peace 2009. There is no paucity of options on Barak Obama’s platter. Israeli economic blockage, redefining biased territorial divisions, UN sanctions, maybe use of force or even freedom for the people of Palestine in general and Gaza in particular. President Obama was criticized by many for being given the Noble Prize prematurely. This is the opportunity to justify the award and to reaffirm the faith of people in hope and humanity. We know the cost of standing up against Israel and the Zionist agenda can be exorbitant and pure dangerous, but then the cost to maintain status quo is already deadly. We hope Barrack Obama, the first black President of the United States of America stands up to what he writes and thinks. We hope that his actions, not rhetoric, will manufacture global consent against any further Israeli oppression. We hope that he frees the prisoners of Gaza not only from their brutal masters but from their fates as well. President Barak Obama, we will wait to see if you are just one of them or are you a rare breed. By Dr Shah Alam Khan 02 June 2010 AIIMS, New Delhi