Archives: Articles

I have been arguing with some friends in the Middle East. Some wonder about my decision to go against Arab opposition groups even before they have a chance to reach power. I remind people that the Baath Party was an opposition group, and it too promised freedom and justice and even the liberation of Palestine.

We should not wait for the gallows to be mounted in order to express fierce opposition to opposition groups that have exhibited various signs of intolerance, deception, and subservience to reactionary forces. This applies to different opposition groups throughout the region.

It should be stated at the outset that no Arab regime deserves support – all of them lack electoral legitimacy, and all have violated the rights of their people. And all have failed in the larger issue of standing up to Israel and its occupation and war crimes. Furthermore, not a single Arab regime is free of corruption. But opposition to all Arab regimes without exception, should not lead one to endorse all Arab opposition groups without exception.

Many Arab opposition groups have been nothing but tools for some Arab governments. The Syrian Baathist regime, for example, used to sponsor its own version of Iraqi opposition groups, while Iraq did the same with some Syrian opposition groups.

Moreover, Gulf money has tainted more than one Arab opposition group. The case of the NATO-backed transitional council in Libya, the NTC, is now too fresh in our mind: the massacres and war crimes that have already been committed by the NTC justify opposition to it, even before it seized power.

It has proven itself to be unqualified to fit into the paradigm of new Arab governments based on the rule of law and freedom. This tool of NATO has even inexplicably requested the extension of the NATO mandate, when the latter justified its mission by reference to a UN Security Council resolution that spoke about defending civilians from the Gaddafi regime.

The Gaddafi regime fell, and Gaddafi was sodomized, tortured, and killed, but the Council that promised to bring democracy to Libya still wanted NATO to defend it – from its critics presumably.

Many opposition groups in the present-day Arab world are mere tools of tyrannical Arab governments. The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood has been close to Saudi Arabia for more than a decade, while the Libyan Transitional Council has been supported and armed by Qatar. An-Nahda’s leader, Rashid Ghannoushi, inaugurated his electoral victory with a visit to Qatar.

In other words, some Arab opposition groups may promise democracy and rule of law, while they carry the agenda of a sponsoring tyrannical government. The role of Saudi Arabia and Qatar is not hidden from the formation of the Syrian National Council. And the “president” of the Syrian Monitor of Human Rights – based in London and probably the most cited source on news on Syria in the world – Rami Abdul-Rahman, told the mouthpiece of Prince Salman, Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat: “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques is the most influential Arab leader in the Syrian street, more than any other Arab leader, for he enjoys the love and appreciation from sections of the Syrian street.”

That a president of a human rights council could be a fan of the Saudi King and its propaganda sheets, tells volumes about the political orientations of this group.

No, we should not wait until several Arab opposition groups reach power before we go after them. The writings on the wall are clear: some of those groups are intolerant, sectarian and carry reactionary agendas. It is our duty, if we truly care about the welfare of the Syrian or Libyan or Tunisian people, to speak out against those opposition groups who promise to take the people from one form of tyranny to another.

There are worrisome signs on Arab horizons – the Arab counter-revolutionary forces are regrouping and trying to hijack what began as genuinely popular movements. There is a danger that the Arab counter-revolution replaces one tyrannical regime with one that is both tyrannical and subservient to its own agenda. We can’t afford to stay silent: not about the tyranny of the current regimes, nor the tyrannies that are being prepared by the GCC to prevail in the Arab world.

By As’ad AbuKhalil

3 November 2011

@ alakhbar english

Not yet 30, Evan Knappenberger has already lived several lives.  His story destroys the U.S. government’s case against whistleblower Bradley Manning, exposes the toxic mix of fraud and incompetence that creates U.S. war policies, and highlights the damage so often done to soldiers who come home without visible injuries.

Knappenberger, seen in this video , was trained as an “intelligence analyst” at the U.S. Army’s Intelligence Training Center at Fort Huachuca, Arizona in 2003 and 2004, the same school attended by Bradley Manning.  In April of this year, the PBS show Frontline , responding to an article Knappenberger had published, flew him to Los Angeles on a private jet, and interviewed him for four hours.

Knappenberger told Frontline that he, like Manning, had had access to the U.S. government’s SIPRNet database when he had been in Iraq.  Knappenberger told Frontline that 1,400 U.S. government agencies put their information on SIPRNet, and that 2 million employees were given access to it.  SIPRNet has secret blogs, secret discussions, and its own secret Google search engine.  At one point, the Pentagon encouraged gambling on SIPRNet on the likelihood of future terrorist attacks.  Knappenberger also pointed out that the United States had given the Iraqi Army access to the database, knowing full well that many members of the Iraqi Army were also on the U.S. target list as enemies fighting U.S. troops.

Knappenberger was in Iraq in 2006, but said he believes the practice of sharing SIPRNet with the Iraqi Army began in 2005.  The U.S. Army ran cables to laptops in Iraqi command posts, and gave each post a CPOF (command post of the future) super computer.  Each Iraqi command post had access to everything Bradley Manning allegedly leaked to Wikileaks.  At some point in 2006, the U.S. Army decided to get serious about security by assigning two U.S. soldiers with security clearances to guard each site.  Each soldier was on guard for 12 hours and off for 12.  Another step taken to boost security was the creation of passwords to access SIPRNet, but because no one could remember the passwords they were written on sticky notes and stuck to the backs of the computers.  Knappenberger says he had the password on the back of his computer and has read that every computer in Manning’s unit had it too.

So, Knappenberger related this kind of information to Frontline for four hours and says that for three or four months afterwards he expected to go to prison for violating nondisclosure aggreements. He popped a lot of PTSD pills and gained a huge amount of weight as a result of nervousness, he says.  Then, the day before he expected the Frontline story to air, he says, the show told him it would not be airing.  Frontline was afraid of being held liable for inducing Knappenberger to violate his nondisclosure aggreements.

Knappenberger has made the same information public without any charges being brought against him.  Frontline would simply have made it more public.  Like Bradley Manning, Frontline would not have provided enemies of the United States with tools to be used against us.  Rather, like Bradley Manning, Frontline would have informed more of us what our government was doing in our name.  And some of what it has been doing is extremely hard to look at without turning away.

This past January, Knappenberger says he testified on the record, via telephone, to the office of the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner on the topic of torture.  Knappenberger was not qualified to “interrogate” people, but Donald Rumsfeld’s reorganization of the Army found ways to put non-combat troops into combat roles.  Used to test this model was Knappenberger’s First Special Troops Battalion.  These cooks, military police, signals and chemical specialists, clerks, and analysts were called on to fight terror and spread freedom.  Knappenberger says his platoon sergeant was a payroll specialist who “got his legs blown off in combat he was never trained for,” while a first sergeant “got his head blown off, and he was an intel geek.”  Knappenberger says his roommate was a specialist in fixing radios who lost his hearing and suffered traumatic brain injury on an IED squad.

Knappenberger says that recruiters had told him he’d do desk work.  But he also says that when he joined up he was ready to kill people.  He ended up doing double duty.  There would be 10 or 12 hours at your normal job, he says, followed by 8 hours on a combat job.  Knappenberger’s combat job was not a shooting one.  It was his duty to tell others where to shoot, what to blow up, whom to kill.  Knappenberger at age 20 was one of three “intel” people in his unit at Camp Taji north of Baghdad, the other two being women aged 25 and 26.  None of the three had experience, but they took over for eight well-trained veterans who had been there for two years, and some of whom even spoke Arabic.  The 26-year-old woman in charge was a drone pilot now placed in charge of a combat area with 100,000 people around Camp Taji.  Many FREs (former regime elements) lived right outside the base.

As the only male, Knappenberger says he was assigned to do the questioning of suspects brought in.  Lacking any census, the only database of individuals Knappenberger possessed came from the oil-for-food program.  A friend had found the information in Baghdad and typed it in.  When someone was pulled over, soldiers would radio to Knappenberger who would search for them in the database.  Usually they’d be released.  If someone was caught “with a bloody knife or a tube of mortars” Knappenberger says, “they’d be brought in.”  But without really good evidence they could not be booked for lack of space.  So, good evidence had to be obtained within 24 hours.  The method of choice was coerced confession.

Knappenberger told me they used sensory deprivation on these suspects.  They blindfolded them, put bags on their heads, handcuffed them, sat them on the cold ground in their underwear, etc.  In one case that he described to me, they drove a man in circles around the base blindfolded in a truck, put him on the ground, and gave him a cigarette.  The man “freaked out because he thought he’d been driven to the middle of nowhere to be executed.  But we never told him that, so it was legal.”  The more common approach, Knappenberger said, was to tell someone you would drop him off in the middle of the market and give him $100.  This would amount to framing someone with turning in others, and the penalty would likely be death . . . for the individual and for his family.  “We’d show them pictures of dead bodies and say ‘This is what’s going to happen to you,’ and we’d talk about their wives and girlfriends.”  Knappenberger says he did not engage in physical abuse, but that others did while he literally turned his back.  Iraqi interpreters, wearing masks, hit, slapped, grabbed hair, etc.  Turning your back was understood by the U.S. Army as making you a non-witness, Knappenberger says.

This went on from January to March, 2006, until “I finally got into trouble.”  Afraid that a prisoner would file a complaint after being booked, Knappenberger’s boss promoted him from the tactical to the operational command staff.  Knappenberger’s new job, too, provides a window into the madness of war.

Knappenberger came up with an analysis of likely weapons caches.  Some were in junk yards and other random sites.  But the largest was in a munitions depot supposedly guarded by the Iraqi Army.  The further one moved away from this depot, Knappenberger found, the fewer weapons caches were found.  Similarly, Knappenberger identified likely locations of ethnic killings as Iraqi Army checkpoints.

The Oil Protection Force, a special unit of the Iraqi Army, was headquartered in one of the hottest spots for IEDs in all of Iraq, Knappenberger says.  “We were paying them and they were stealing oil out of the pipeline they were supposedly guarding.”  When Knappenberger’s unit arrested the head of the Oil Protection Force for leading a Sunni militia against U.S. troops, within an hour, he says, a DIA helicopter arrived and “the guys in suits took him and put him back out on the streets.”  Shortly afterwards the pipeline blew up and burned for 30 days.

Another Iraqi whom Knappenberger had an interesting encounter with is Ali Latif Ibrahim Hamad el Falahi.  “I spent eight months trying to find that guy,” he says.  Knappenberger met Falahi at a civil affairs dinner at a sheik’s house his first week in Iraq and spoke with him for about an hour.  Three days later, Christian Science Monitor reporter Jill Carroll was kidnapped .  Knappenberger says Falahi was “the suspect” and was “our number two target for a year and a half” as he engaged in ethnic cleansing, decapitation, and ambushing Shiite units in the Iraqi Army.  “I spent 8 months trying to have him killed.  We killed dozens of people trying to find him.  We had a gunship fly around his orchard because of heat signals there.  Thirteen people died there, none him.”  Falahi was reportedly later killed in the same sheik’s house after failing to set off a suicide vest beside a U.S. soldier.

“I think about that guy every day,” says Knappenberger.  “We raided his house.  I had his diary translated.  I had a whole file on this guy.”  Remarkably, Knappenberger recognizes humanity in Falahi, saying “I don’t think he was a bad person because I didn’t get that vibe from him when I talked to him.”  Knappenberger uses the example of Hitler to suggest that there is good in the worst of people.  Of Falahi he says, “He did very bad things.  He killed a lot of people.  There were even allegations that he was raping women.  But before the Americans came he was just a hardworking farmer taking care of his aunt.”  Falahi had gone to his Imam and argued over how to get Americans to leave without violence, says Knappenberger.  “Falahi and his nephews went through Camp Taji and took a bunch of weapons the day Saddam disappeared.  And it was supposed to be for protection.  They set up a militia to guard the village.  They had check points on the road in and out.”  Then the United States armed the Shiites as the new Iraqi Army, and Paul Bremer cut out the Baath Party and banned possession of over 30 rounds of ammunition per family.  “That’s when he got radicalized.”

Evan Knappenberger says he began as an Ayn Rand fan, an atheist and a Republican (and you thought Karl Rove was the only atheist Republican!).  Knappenberger has since turned against Ayn Rand and rightwing politics including war, and gone religious .

Evan says that he found the Army to be “a pretty socialist institution,” in which people are encouraged to protect their friends as a way to motivate them to kill.  But, he says, “I was willing to kill without that.”  Why?  As revenge for 9-11, he says, and as an expression of hatred that Evan says he harbored even before 9-11.  He remembers reading Readers Digest as a kid and learning about “terrorists who want to kill us.”  In the end, Evan says he did not shoot anyone.  But he prepared packets of information on targets, including maps to their homes, photos of them, the reasons they were targets, and what was to be done to them (kill/capture, exploit, source, etc.)  Artillery officers, who Evan says are “notoriously stupid,” became a targeting cell, and whatever he told them (“This guy is bad.  This is where he lives.”) they would work from to plan bombings and raids.

My impression from speaking with Evan Knappenberger is that what turned him against war and militarism, even more than the SNAFU experience in Iraq, even more than the gradual exposure of the lies that launched the war, and more than the “socialism” within the military, was coming into contact with radical inequality of wealth and power within the Army, mirroring our society at large.

On a two-week leave, completely exhausted, in the middle of his year in Iraq, Evan flew back to Charlottesville, Virginia.  On the last leg from Atlanta, he was one of two people in uniform on the plane.  The other was a JAG general with a gold watch and a leather briefcase but no combat patch.  Evan, in contrast, hadn’t had a shower in a week, and it showed.  Apparently the two of them regarded each other with mutual contempt.  While on leave, Evan attended a jobs fair in Crystal City for people with security clearances like his.  At lunch time, he says, lots of officers came over from the Pentagon looking for high-paying jobs.  “I was the lowest ranking person in the room.  And the thing that really shocked the hell out of me: You go six months in Iraq and the highest ranking person you see is a colonel.  And I’m in a room full of generals and sergeant majors of the army and chief warrant officer fives, and not one of them had a combat job in the whole big ball room — not one of those m—– f—— had been in a combat zone for 30 days to get a combat patch — or if they did they weren’t proud of it.  And these were the people making the decisions and making my life hell — and that had a lot to do with turning me against the war.”

Another factor was the unfairness of the policy of stop-loss.  The Army had messed up Evan’s paperwork when he had shipped out, delaying him, and as a result his date for completing his contract just barely made it into the group the Army chose to hold over for additional “service.”  To avoid being stop-lossed, Evan cut a deal with his commanders that would allow him to be honorably discharged for minor misbehavior.  However, a brand new division commander gave Evan a general discharge, eliminating his GI Bill and other benefits.  Evan says it took him three years to get any disability coverage from the V.A.

Evan still has PTSD, as well as a skin problem he attributes to toxic chemicals and garbage burned in open pits in Iraq by the U.S. Army.  On tower guard duty adjacent to such a pit, Evan says he lost his sense of smell and coughed up a black substance.  “That whole year was like a nightmare,” he says.  “Getting mortared every night.  Rockets coming in.  The first couple of times I got shot at on guard duty I had no idea what was going on. . . .  I thought it was bats. . . .  I got so used to getting mortared.  I was at the airport getting ready to leave and was in the portapotty when a siren went off.  Then there were booms and after the last boom dirt clods falling on the portapotty.  I walked out, doing up my belt, and there was a major and a sergeant major under a truck face down in the mud.  And the guy screams at me: ‘Get to the bunker!'”  Evan’s response was a casual “Whatever.  It’s over now.”

In April of 2007, Evan Knappenberger came back to Charlottesville.  He says he’d been dating long distance and had a bad break up on the phone while driving.  He just kept driving for three months, living out of his car and spending his Army money.  He ended up in Bellingham, Washington, where he met a woman at a peace vigil and married her in October.  The marriage has “almost been ruined a few times by PTSD.”

Evan has done a lot of antiwar activism in Bellingham, including helping AWOL soldiers make it to Canada.  He built and did guard duty on a tower in Bellingham and then in Washington, D.C., to protest the stop loss policy.  I organized a press conference for his mother in Charlottesville.

Evan was nothing if not outspoken.  This included informing an Ohio couple that their son was dead, despite a government coverup and propaganda campaign.  In 2004 Iraqis produced a video of a U.S. soldier, Matt Maupin, held hostage, and then another of him being killed.  According to Knappenberger, the DIA used facial pattern recognition and a study of the blotches on his uniform and was 100% certain that Maupin had been executed.  But the military told the media to suppress the video, and the U.S. media complied.  Maupin’s parents campaigned for Bush’s “reelection” in the swing state of Ohio in ’04 because “John Kerry wants to leave Matt behind,” even though Knappenberger says the government knew that Matt was dead.  As part of the public relations push, Maupin was repeatedly promoted in rank, and his pay was placed in an account for when he was found.

Evan saw the video in 2006.  In 2007 he told a Washington Post reporter who filed a FOIA and was told the information was classified.  So, in September 2007, Evan says he told Maupin’s parents, who were reluctant to believe him.  An hour later, an Army intelligence officer called Evan and threatened him with jail.  According to Knappenberger, he replied, “If you tell the parents I won’t have to.  If you don’t I will.”  Meanwhile, says Knappenberger, “the poor dad was putting together a team to go find Matt.”  Maupin’s dad, Evan says, told him “I’ve got Andrew Card’s number.  I’m calling him right now.”  Two weeks later he was allowed to watch the video at the Pentagon.

One’s heart breaks for those parents and so many others like them, and for the vastly greater number of Iraqis whose loved ones have been killed by U.S. loved ones.  One’s heart breaks for Evan Knappenberger as well.  He says he is committed to nonviolence, but it is a process he is working at.  He grew up in a violent culture and was trained to use and value violence.  Since getting out of the Army, he has repeatedly been accused of threatening violence.  He recounted to me an incident in which he threatened President Bush with violence.  He has threatened rightwing war supporters with violence in blog posts.  Evan’s been hospitalized twice for PTSD.  He’s had an on-again off-again relationship with antiwar groups like IVAW (Iraq Veterans Against the War).

During what Evan describes as a “really bad breakdown” in January 2009, he showed up at the V.A. hospital in Seattle.  It was full, and he was told to come back Monday.  He called a senator, and had an appointment within an hour.  Within another hour, he says, he was loaded up with antidepressants and on the street.  Four weeks of antidepressants later, he had a worse breakdown that landed him in jail following an attempted suicide and what he says was an unfounded charge of “unlawful imprisonment” of his wife, which he pled to a misdemeanor.

Despite everything our society places in the way of it, Evan Knappenberger has obtained an associate’s degree and is working on a bachelor’s.  After a troubled but useful contribution to Occupy Charlottesville (he says he quit, others say they evicted him), Evan is headed back to Bellingham to work on his marriage and his mortgage payments.  I wish him well and thank him for speaking out.

By David Swanson

David Swanson is the author of ” When the World Outlawed War ,” ” War Is A Lie ” and ” Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union “

November 18-20, 2011: Thousands of social justice activists from across the Americas will occupy the main gates of Fort Benning, Georgia to call for an end to U.S. militarization and for the closure of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, formerly the School of Americas, 

By SOA Watch

SOA Watch is a nonviolent grassroots movement that works for the closing the School of the Americas and a change in U.S. foreign policy – www.SOAW.org

[This is an expanded version of remarks at an Occupy Austin teach-in, October 30, 2011.]

There’s one question that pundits and politicians keep posing to the Occupy gatherings around the country: What are your demands?

I have a suggestion for a response: We demand that you stop demanding a list of demands.

The demand for demands is an attempt to shoehorn the Occupy gatherings into conventional politics, to force the energy of these gatherings into a form that people in power recognize, so that they can roll out strategies to divert, co-opt, buy off, or — if those tactics fail — squash any challenge to business as usual.

Rather than listing demands, we critics of concentrated wealth and power in the United States can dig in and deepen our analysis of the systems that produce that unjust distribution of wealth and power. This is a time for action, but there also is a need for analysis. Rallying around a common concern about economic injustice is a beginning; understanding the structures and institutions of illegitimate authority is the next step. We need to recognize that the crises we face are not the result simply of greedy corporate executives or corrupt politicians, but rather of failed systems. The problem is not the specific people who control most of the wealth of the country, or those in government who serve them, but the systems that create those roles. If we could get rid of the current gang of thieves and thugs but left the systems in place, we will find that the new boss is going to be the same as the old boss.

My contribution to this process of sharpening analysis comes in lists of three, with lots of alliteration. Whether you find my analysis of the key questions compelling, at least it will be easy to remember: empire, economics, ecology.

Empire: Immoral, Illegal, Ineffective

The United States is the current (though fading) imperial power in the world, and empires are bad things. We have to let go of self-indulgent notions of American exceptionalism — the idea that the United States is a unique engine of freedom and democracy in the world and therefore a responsible and benevolent empire. Empires throughout history have used coercion and violence to acquire a disproportionate share of the world’s resources, and the U.S. empire is no different.

Although the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are particularly grotesque examples of U.S. imperial destruction, none of this is new; the United States was founded by men with imperial visions who conquered the continent and then turned to the world. Most chart the beginning of the external U.S. empire-building phase with the 1898 Spanish-American War and the conquest of the Philippines that continued for some years after. That project went forward in the early 20 th century, most notably in Central America, where regular U.S. military incursions made countries safe for investment.

The empire emerged in full force after World War II, as the United States assumed the role of the dominant power in the world and intensified the project of subordinating the developing world to the U.S. system. Those efforts went forward under the banner of “anti-communism” until the early 1990s, but continued after the demise of the Soviet Union under various other guises, most notably the so-called “war on terrorism.” Whether it was Latin America, southern Africa, the Middle East, or Southeast Asia, the central goal of U.S. foreign policy has been consistent: to make sure that an independent course of development did not succeed anywhere. The “virus” of independent development could not be allowed to take root in any country out of a fear that it might infect the rest of the developing world.

The victims of this policy — the vast majority of them non-white — can be counted in the millions. In the Western Hemisphere, U.S. policy was carried out mostly through proxy armies, such as the Contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s, or support for dictatorships and military regimes that brutally repressed their own people, such as El Salvador. The result throughout the region was hundreds of thousands of dead — millions across Latin America over the course of the 20 th century — and whole countries ruined.

Direct U.S. military intervention was another tool of U.S. policymakers, with the most grotesque example being the attack on Southeast Asia. After supporting the failed French effort to recolonize Vietnam after World War II, the United States invaded South Vietnam and also intervened in Laos and Cambodia, at a cost of 3-4 million Southeast Asians dead and a region destabilized. To prevent the spread of the “virus” there, we dropped 6.5 million tons of bombs and 400,000 tons of napalm on the people of Southeast Asia. Saturation bombing of civilian areas, counterterrorism programs and political assassination, routine killings of civilians, and 11.2 million gallons of Agent Orange to destroy crops and ground cover — all were part of the U.S. terror war.

On 9/11, the vague terrorism justification became tangible for everyone. With the U.S. economy no longer the source of dominance, policymakers used the terrorist attacks to justify an expansion of military operations in Central Asia and the Middle East. Though non-military approaches to terrorism were more viable, the rationale for ever-larger defense spending was set.

A decade later, the failures of this imperial policy are clearer than ever. U.S. foreign and military policy has always been immoral, based not on principle but on power. That policy routinely has been illegal, violating the basic tenets of international law and the constitutional system. Now, more than ever, we can see that this approach to world affairs is ineffective, no matter what criteria for effectiveness we use. An immoral and criminal policy has lost even its craven justification: It will not guarantee American dominance.

That failure is the light at the end of the tunnel. As the elite bipartisan commitment to U.S. dominance fails, we the people have a chance to demand that the United States shift to policies designed not to allow us to run the world but to help us become part of the world.

Economics: Inhuman, Anti-Democratic, Unsustainable

The economic system underlying empire-building today has a name: capitalism. Or, more precisely, a predatory corporate capitalism that is inconsistent with basic human values. This description sounds odd in the United States, where so many assume that capitalism is not simply the best among competing economic systems but the only sane and rational way to organize an economy in the contemporary world. Although the financial crisis that began in 2008 has scared many people, it has not always led to questioning the nature of the system.

That means the first task is to define capitalism: that economic system in which (1) property, including capital assets, is owned and controlled by private persons; (2) most people must rent their labor power for money wages to survive, and (3) the prices of most goods and services are allocated by markets. “Industrial capitalism,” made possible by sweeping technological changes and imperial concentrations of capital, was marked by the development of the factory system and greater labor specialization. The term “finance capitalism” is often used to mark a shift to a system in which the accumulation of profits in a financial system becomes dominant over the production processes. Today in the United States, most people understand capitalism in the context of mass consumption — access to unprecedented levels of goods and services. In such a world, everything and everyone is a commodity in the market.

In the dominant ideology of market fundamentalism, it’s assumed that the most extensive use of markets possible, along with privatization of many publicly owned assets and the shrinking of public services, will unleash maximal competition and result in the greatest good — and all this is inherently just, no matter what the results. If such a system creates a world in which most people live in poverty, that is taken not as evidence of a problem with market fundamentalism but evidence that fundamentalist principles have not been imposed with sufficient vigor; it is an article of faith that the “invisible hand” of the market always provides the preferred result, no matter how awful the consequences may be for real people.

How to critique capitalism in such a society? We can start by pointing out that capitalism is fundamentally inhuman, anti-democratic, and unsustainable.

Inhuman: The theory behind contemporary capitalism explains that because we are greedy, self-interested animals, a viable economic system must reward greedy, self-interested behavior. That’s certainly part of human nature, but we also just as obviously are capable of compassion and selflessness. We can act competitively and aggressively, but we also have the capacity to act out of solidarity and cooperation. In short, human nature is wide-ranging.  In situations where compassion and solidarity are the norm, we tend to act that way. In situations where competitiveness and aggression are rewarded, most people tend toward such behavior.

Why is it that we must accept an economic system that undermines the most decent aspects of our nature and strengthens the cruelest? Because, we’re told, that’s just the way people are. What evidence is there of that? Look around, we’re told, at how people behave. Everywhere we look, we see greed and the pursuit of self-interest. So the proof that these greedy, self-interested aspects of our nature are dominant is that, when forced into a system that rewards greed and self-interested behavior, people often act that way. Doesn’t that seem just a bit circular? A bit perverse?

Anti-democratic: In the real world — not in the textbooks or fantasies of economics professors — capitalism has always been, and will always be, a wealth-concentrating system. If you concentrate wealth in a society, you concentrate power. I know of no historical example to the contrary.

For all the trappings of formal democracy in the contemporary United States, everyone understands that for the most part, the wealthy dictate the basic outlines of the public policies that are put into practice by elected o fficials. This is cogently explained by political scientist Thomas Ferguson’s “investment theory of political parties,” which identifies powerful investors rather than unorganized voters as the dominant force in campaigns and elections. Ferguson describes political parties in the United States as “blocs of major investors who coalesce to advance candidates representing their interests” and that “political parties dominated by large investors try to assemble the votes they need by making very limited appeals to particular segments of the potential electorate.” There can be competition between these blocs, but “on all issues affecting the vital interests that major investors have in common, no party competition will take place.” Whatever we might call such a system, it’s not democracy in any meaningful sense of the term.

People can and do resist the system’s attempt to sideline them, and an occasional politician joins the fight, but such resistance takes extraordinary effort. Those who resist sometimes win victories, some of them inspiring, but to date concentrated wealth continues to dominate. If we define democracy as a system that gives ordinary people a meaningful way to participate in the formation of public policy, rather than just a role in ratifying decisions made by the powerful, then it’s clear that capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive.

Unsustainable: Capitalism is a system based on an assumption of continuing, unlimited growth — on a finite planet. There are only two ways out of this problem. We can hold out hope that we might hop to a new planet soon, or we can embrace technological fundamentalism and believe that evermore complex technologies will allow us to transcend those physical limits here. Both those positions are equally delusional. Delusions may bring temporary comfort, but they don’t solve problems; in fact, they tend to cause more problems, and in this world those problems keep piling up.

Critics now compare capitalism to cancer. The inhuman and antidemocratic features of capitalism mean that, like a cancer, the death system will eventually destroy the living host. Both the human communities and non-human living world that play host to capitalism eventually will be destroyed by capitalism. Capitalism is not, of course, the only unsustainable system that humans have devised, but it is the most obviously unsustainable system, and it’s the one in which we are stuck. It’s the one that we are told is inevitable and natural, like the air we breathe. But the air that we are breathing is choking the most vulnerable in the world, choking us, choking the planet.

Ecology: Out of Gas, Derailed, Over the Waterfall

In addition to inequality within the human family, we face even greater threats in the human assault on the living world that come with industrial society. High-energy/high-technology societies pose a serious threat to the ability of the ecosphere to sustain human life as we know it. Grasping that reality is a challenge, and coping with the implications is an even greater challenge. We likely have a chance to stave off the most catastrophic consequences if we act dramatically and quickly. If we continue to drag our feet, it’s “game over.”

While public awareness of the depth of the ecological crisis is growing, our knowledge of the basics of the problem is hardly new. Here is a “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” issued by 1,700 of the planet’s leading scientists:

That statement was issued in 1992, and since then we have fallen further behind in the struggle for sustainability. Look at any crucial measure of the health of the ecosphere in which we live — groundwater depletion, topsoil loss, chemical contamination, increased toxicity in our own bodies, the number and size of “dead zones” in the oceans, accelerating extinction of species and reduction of bio-diversity — and the news is bad. Remember also that we live in an oil-based world that is fast running out of easily accessible oil, which means we face a huge reconfiguration of the infrastructure that undergirds our lives. And, of course, there is the undeniable trajectory of climate disruption.

Add all that up, and ask a simple question: Where we are heading? Pick a metaphor. Are we a car running out of gas? A train about to derail? A raft going over the waterfall? Whatever the choice, it’s not a pretty picture. It’s crucial we realize that there are no technological fixes that will rescue us. We have to acknowledge that human attempts to dominate the non-human world have failed. We are destroying the planet and in the process destroying ourselves.

Facing a Harsh Future with a Stubborn Hope

The people who run this world are eager to contain the Occupy energy not because they believe the critics of concentrated wealth and power are wrong, but because somewhere deep down in their souls (or what is left of a soul), the powerful know we are right. People in power are insulated by wealth and privilege, but they can see the systems falling apart. The United States’ military power can no longer guarantee world domination. The financial corporations can no longer pretend to provide order in the economy. The industrial system is incompatible with life.

We face new threats today, but we are not the first humans to live in dangerous times. In 1957 the Nobel writer Albert Camus described the world in ways that resonate:

“Tomorrow the world may burst into fragments. In that threat hanging over our heads there is a lesson of truth. As we face such a future, hierarchies, titles, honors are reduced to what they are in reality: a passing puff of smoke. And the only certainty left to us is that of naked suffering, common to all, intermingling its roots with those of a stubborn hope.”

A stubborn hope is more necessary than ever. As political, economic, and ecological systems spiral down, it’s likely we will see levels of human suffering that dwarf even the horrors of the 20 th century. Even more challenging is the harsh realization that we don’t have at hand simple solutions — and maybe no solutions at all — to some of the most vexing problems. We may be past the point of no return in ecological damage, and the question is not how to prevent crises but how to mitigate the worst effects. No one can predict the rate of collapse if we stay on this trajectory, and we don’t know if we can change the trajectory in time.

There is much we don’t know, but everything I see suggests that the world in which we will pursue political goals will change dramatically in the next decade or two, almost certainly for the worse. Organizing has to adapt not only to changes in societies but to these fundamental changes in the ecosphere. In short: We are organizing in a period of contraction, not expansion. We have to acknowledge that human attempts to dominate the non-human world have failed. We are destroying the planet and in the process destroying ourselves. Here, just as in human relationships, we either abandon the dominance/subordination dynamic or we don’t survive.

In 1948, Camus urged people to “give up empty quarrels” and “pay attention to what unites rather that to what separates us” in the struggle to recover from the horrors of Europe’s barbarism. I take from Camus a sense of how to live the tension between facing honestly the horror and yet remaining engaged. In that same talk, he spoke of “the forces of terror” (forces which exist on “our” side as much as on “theirs”) and the “forces of dialogue” (which also exist everywhere in the world). Where do we place our hopes?

“Between the forces of terror and the forces of dialogue, a great unequal battle has begun,” he wrote. “I have nothing but reasonable illusions as to the outcome of that battle. But I believe it must be fought.”

The Occupy gatherings do not yet constitute a coherent movement with demands, but they are wellsprings of reasonable illusions . Rejecting the political babble around us in election campaigns and on mass media, these gatherings are an experiment in a different kind of public dialogue about our common life, one that can reject the forces of terror deployed by concentrated wealth and power.

With that understanding, the central task is to keep the experiment going, to remember the latent power in people who do not accept the legitimacy of a system. Singer/songwriter John Gorka, writing about what appears to be impossible, offers the perfect reminder:

By Robert Jensen

Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center in Austin, one of the partners in the community center “5604 Manor,” http://5604manor.org/ .

He is the author of All My Bones Shake: Seeking a Progressive Path to the Prophetic Voice, (Soft Skull Press, 2009); Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity (South End Press, 2007); The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism and White Privilege (City Lights, 2005); Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity (City Lights, 2004); and Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream (Peter Lang, 2002).

Jensen is also co-producer of the documentary film “Abe Osheroff: One Foot in the Grave, the Other Still Dancing,” which chronicles the life and philosophy of the longtime radical activist. Information about the film, distributed by the Media Education Foundation, and an extended interview Jensen conducted with Osheroff are online at http://thirdcoastactivist.org/osheroff.html .

Jensen can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu and his articles can be found online at http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/index.html . To join an email list to receive articles by Jensen, go to http://www.thirdcoastactivist.org/jensenupdates-info.html .

President Barack Obama has pledged that planned cuts in defence spending will not affect America’s military presence in east Asia, as the US seeks to play a larger role in shaping the region’s future.

Speaking to the Australian parliament in Canberra, Mr Obama said Washington hoped to improve co-operation with Beijing, but stressed that the US was “here to stay” as a Pacific power despite China’s dramatic economic and military advances. The Asia Pacific region, he added, was now a “top priority”.

The speech, one of the most significant foreign policy statements of Mr Obama’s presidency, brought together several important shifts in US strategy that have been taking shape over the past two years and are aimed at addressing the rise of China. These include the winding down of the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and increased attention on south-east Asia and the South China Sea.

The president also emphasised Washington’s desire for India to play a larger role in regional issues.

“Here is what the region must know. As we end today’s wars, I have directed my national security team to make our presence and missions in the Asia Pacific a top priority,” said Mr Obama. “The United States is a Pacific power and we are here to stay.”

He was speaking a day after he formally announced 2,500 US marines would be based in northern Australia next year, along with more aircraft and naval vessels, providing the American military with a new platform for intervening in the region. “We are deepening our alliance and this is the perfect place to do it,” he said later in the day in Darwin.

While the Pentagon is planning at least $450bn of spending cuts over the next decade, Mr Obama said Asia would be exempt from such pressures: “Reductions in US defence spending will not – I repeat, will not – come at the expense of the Asia Pacific. We will preserve our unique ability to project power and preserve peace.”

The new agreement with Australia was criticised by Chinese officials, who fear that the US is bent on trying to contain their country’s rise.

“It may not be quite appropriate to intensify and expand military alliances and may not be in the interest of countries within this region,” Liu Weimin, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, said.

Mr Obama used a regional summit last weekend in Hawaii to promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade pact that at the moment does not include China. It is expected that he will use another regional summit this weekend in Indonesia to raise the issue of maritime security in the South China Sea, despite Beijing’s opposition.

During his first year in office, Mr Obama sought to avoid confrontation with China and even appeared to offer a strong partnership with Beijing to manage a host of global issues.

However, over the past year his administration has appeared increasingly sceptical about China’s ambitions. Unnerved by what some see as more aggressive behaviour by China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Vietnam and several other countries have encouraged the US to increase its engagement with the region.

Mr Obama said Washington was not looking to contain China and hoped to improve collaboration with the People’s Liberation Army.

“We’ll seek more opportunities for co-operation with Beijing, including greater communication between our militaries to promote understanding and avoid miscalculation,” he said. “All our nations have a profound interest in the rise of a peaceful and prosperous China.”

By Geoff Dyer

18 November 2011

@ Financial Times

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who previously objected to attacking Iran, was recently persuaded by Netanyahu and Barak to support such a move.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are trying to muster a majority in the cabinet in favor of military action against Iran, a senior Israeli official has said. According to the official, there is a “small advantage” in the cabinet for the opponents of such an attack.

Netanyahu and Barak recently persuaded Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who previously objected to attacking Iran, to support such a move.

Although more than a million Israelis have had to seek shelter during a week of rockets raining down on the south, political leaders have diverted their attention to arguing over a possible war with Iran. Leading ministers were publicly dropping hints on Tuesday that Israeli could attack Iran, although a member of the forum of eight senior ministers said no such decision had been taken.

Senior ministers and diplomats said the International Atomic Energy Agency’s report, due to be released on November 8, will have a decisive effect on the decisions Israel makes.

The commotion regarding Iran was sparked by journalist Nahum Barnea’s column in Yedioth Ahronoth last Friday. Barnea’s concerned tone and his editors’ decision to run the column under the main headline (“Atomic Pressure” ) repositioned the debate on Iran from closed rooms to the media’s front pages.

Reporters could suddenly ask the prime minister and defense minister whether they intend to attack Iran in the near future and the political scene went haywire.

Western intelligence officials agree that Iran is forging ahead with its nuclear program. Intelligence services now say it will take Iran two or three years to get the bomb once it decides to (it hasn’t made the decision yet ).

According to Western experts’ analyses, an attack on Iran in winter is almost impossible, because the thick clouds would obstruct the Israel Air Force’s performance.

Netanyahu did not rule out the possibility of the need for a military action on Iran this week. During his Knesset address on Monday, Netanyahu warned of Iran’s increased power and influence. “One of those regional powers is Iran, which is continuing its efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran would constitute a grave threat to the Middle East and the entire world, and of course it is a direct and grave threat on us,” he said.

Barak said Israel should not be intimidated but did not rule out the possibility that Israel would launch a military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. “I object to intimidation and saying Israel could be destroyed by Iran,” he said.

“We’re not hiding our thoughts. However there are issues we don’t discuss in public … We have to act in every way possible and no options should be taken off the table … I believe diplomatic pressure and sanctions must be brought to bear against Iran,” he said.

Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya’alon said he preferred an American military attack on Iran to an Israeli one. “A military move is the last resort,” he said.

Interior Minister Eli Yishai has not made his mind up yet on the issue. In a speech to Shas activists in the north on Monday Yishai said “this is a complicated time and it’s better not to talk about how complicated it is. This possible action is keeping me awake at night. Imagine we’re [attacked] from the north, south and center. They have short-range and long-range missiles – we believe they have about 100,000 rockets and missiles.”

Intelligence and Atomic Energy Minister Dan Meridor said he supports an American move against Iran. In an interview to the Walla! website some two weeks ago Meridor said “It’s clear to all that a nuclear Iran is a grave danger and the whole world, led by the United States, must make constant efforts to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The Iranians already have more than four tons of 3-4 percent enriched uranium and 70 kgs. of 20 percent enriched uranium. It’s clear to us they are continuing to make missiles. Iran’s nuclearization is not only a threat to Israel but to several other Western states, and the international interest must unite here.”

Former Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer said he feared a “horror scenario” in which Netanyahu and Barak decide to attack Iran. He warned of a “rash act” and said he hoped “common sense will prevail.”

On Tuesday, Barak said at the Knesset’s Finance Committee that the state budget must be increased by NIS 7-8 a year for five years to fulfill Israel’s security needs and answer the social protest. “The situation requires expanding the budget to enable us to act in a responsible way regarding the defense budget considering the challenges, as well as fulfill some of the demands coming from the Trajtenberg committee,” he said.

By Barak Ravid, Amos Harel, Zvi Zrahiya and Jonathan Lis

2 November 2011

@ Haaretz.com

Clashes continued yesterday in cities across Egypt, on the fifth day of mass protests demanding the overthrow of the US-backed Egyptian military junta. The protests started Saturday, when police used live ammunition and rubber bullets against a sit-in by a few hundred protesters in Tahrir Square, in Cairo.

Demonstrations have spread across the country, with hundreds of thousands filling Tahrir Square and clashing with police outside the Interior Ministry, which oversees Egypt’s hated police forces. Demonstrations also shook Alexandria, Port-Said, Qena, Aswan, Assiut, and other cities. There are calls for a million-man march in Cairo tomorrow.

These are the most powerful demonstrations since mass strikes and protests in February forced out pro-US dictator President Hosni Mubarak. The masses are turning against the military, whose leaders control much of the wealth of the country and formed the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) junta led by Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi to replace Mubarak. Protesters rejected Tantawi’s proposals on Tuesday to erect a civilian caretaker government next year, correctly fearing that this would only be a façade for continuing military rule.

The army and security forces have responded with an orgy of violence, trying to smash the protests. Significantly, Egyptian state media have cited police repression of Occupy Wall Street protests in the United States as a justification for the army’s deadly violence against the Egyptian people.

As of yesterday morning, at least 35 protesters had been killed and an estimated 2,000 wounded by Egyptian security forces over the five days of protests. Three more protesters were reported shot and killed in Cairo yesterday morning, as protesters took the wounded to hospitals in ambulances or on scooters. Security forces also shot a 10-year-old boy in the head with a bullet; he was not expected to survive.

Protesters in Cairo chanted “The people want the removal of the Field Marshal” and “Shame, shame, shame, the Army kills revolutionaries.”

The state-owned daily Al Ahram reported that police broke a two-hour truce negotiated by Muslim clerics yesterday evening on Mohamed Mahmoud Street, near the Interior Ministry. They fired intense volleys of tear gas against protesters who shouted, “We will not leave, SCAF should leave” and “Muslims and Christians are one hand.”

Protesters in the port city of Alexandria set up barricades outside police headquarters and were attacked by security forces. One protester was reportedly shot dead.

Al Jazeera wrote that there was an element of “self-preservation” in police attacks in Alexandria, as police fear that protesters might raid their weapon stockpiles and arm themselves for defense against the junta. Police headquarters, reporter Rawya Rageh noted, “is not only a place of law and order, but also a place where there is a large stockpile of weapons. [The police] cannot let the protesters take over.”

Questions are emerging about the massive use of tear gas by police forces, especially after several people reportedly died due to asphyxiation by gas. Khalid Hamdi, working at a field clinic in Tahrir Square, told Al Jazeera: “We’ve seen many faintings and we’d never seen that before. About 70 percent of the injuries are fainting. People are coming in with asthma, convulsions sometimes—this wasn’t often [the case] before.”

Many protesters have taken to wearing gas masks when going to demonstrations.

In a press conference yesterday, Health Minister Amr Helmy acknowledged the use of live ammunition against protesters since Saturday—which had previously been denied by police. He denied reports, however, that Egyptian police have put nerve agents in tear gas, noting that the tear gas canisters came from the United States. Helmy claimed that “seizures and fainting symptoms were from the tear gas.”

The two main companies exporting tear gas to Egypt are Combined Systems Inc. and NonLethal Technologies Inc., both based in the US state of Pennsylvania.

Renewed mass protests against the US-backed junta have exploded the lies the Western powers used against revolutionary struggles that broke out in the Middle East this year. Washington, which funds the Egyptian military to the tune of $1.3 billion per year, postured as supporting a SCAF-led “democratic transition” in Egypt—while continuing to back the junta’s dictatorial rule against the working class. The US government and its European allies are again desperately trying to disarm and suppress revolutionary struggles against a Western-backed puppet regime.

For the time being, the US government is still backing Tantawi’s plans. On Wednesday US State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland endorsed a July 2012 deadline Tantawi set for handing over power to an elected government.

The Western press is increasingly backing proposals, first made by official “opposition” politician Mohamed ElBaradei, for a formal transfer of power to a “national salvation” government, presided by a politician chosen by the junta. There are calls to scrap the SCAF-controlled elections and immediately install a civilian government.

German government spokesman Steffen Seibert said : “The demonstrators’ demands … for a quick transition to a civilian government are understandable from the German government’s point of view.”

These plans are increasingly driven by a fear that the SCAF regime may collapse. In a comment titled “Egypt’s Doomed Elections” in yesterday’s New York Times, Andrew Reynolds argued that Egypt “is careening toward a disastrous parliamentary election that begins on November 28 and could bring the country to the brink of civil war.” Reynolds cited Egyptian Coptic Christians’ fear of a government dominated by the right-wing Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, and evidence that election rules still favored incumbents in parliamentary elections.

In the British Guardian, Ahdaf Soueif wrote: “The crucial thing now is to stand firm until SCAF hands over power. To whom? To a government headed by any one or more of our potential presidential candidates—and this government would run for elections.”

These comments evade the critical point: such a government would be reactionary and correctly rejected as illegitimate by the Egyptian population, precisely because it would emerge not from the revolutionary struggles of the Egyptian working class, but the plots of the SCAF. Its goal would be to protect the wealth and power of the Egyptian ruling class and their ties to the major imperialist powers.

The objective logic of the mass struggles underway against the Egyptian military dictatorship demands that the working class overthrow the junta and take power, instead of accepting another regime vetted by the Egyptian generals, NATO, and Washington. A new, socialist perspective is required. The working class must form its own organizations to overthrow the junta and take state power, based on a struggle to place the economic resources of Egypt and the world under its democratic control.

The most dangerous opponents of this perspective have been Egypt’s “left” opposition parties, who have promoted a bankrupt perspective of working with the Islamists and pushing for “democratic space” under the aegis of the junta’s dictatorship. Such politics, which have allowed the Islamist parties to posture as the leading opposition to the regime, are increasingly despised by the working class.

On Tuesday night Abou El-Ghar of Egypt’s Social-Democratic Party felt compelled to distance himself from his party’s decision to participate in meetings with SCAF vice-president Sami Anan. Claiming that he had believed the junta’s claims that “violence would stop immediately,” he said he was “truly sorry for participating in the meeting with the SCAF.”

By Alex Lantier

On the edge of the Sahel, Niger: “Sahel” in Arabic means “coast” or “shoreline.” Unless one was present 5000 years ago when, according to anthropologists, our planets first cultivation of crops began in this then plush, but now semiarid region where temperatures reach 125 degrees F, and only camels and an assortment of creatures can sniff out water sources, it seems an odd geographical name place for this up 450 miles wide swatch of baked sand that runs from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea.

Yet, when standing along its edge, the Sahel does have the appearance of a sort of dividing shoreline between the endless sands of the Sahara and the Savanna grasses to the south. Parts of Mali, Algeria, Niger, Chad, and Sudan, all along the Libyan border fall within this supposed no man’s land.

Today the Sahel is providing protection, weapons gathering and storage facilities, sites for training camps, and hideouts as well as a generally formidable base for those working to organize the growing Libyan Liberation Front (LLF). The aim of the LLF is to liberate Libya from what it considers NATO installed colonial puppets. The Sahel region is only one of multiple locations which are becoming active as the Libyan counter revolution, led by members of the Gaddafi and Wafalla, make preparations for the next phase of resistance.

When I entered an office conference room in Niger recently to meet with some recent evacuees from Libya who I was advised were preparing to launch a “people’s struggle employing the Maoist tactic of 1000 cuts “against the current group claiming to represent Libya,” two facts struck me.

One was how many were present and did not appear to be scruffy, intensely zealous or desperate but who were obviously rested, calm, organized and methodical in their demeanor.

My colleague, a member of the Gadhafi tribe from Sirte explained “More than 800 organizers have arrived from Libya just to Niger and more come every day”. An officer in uniform added, “It is not like your western media presents the situation, of desperate Gadhafi loyalists frantically handing out bundles of cash and gold bars to buy their safety from the NATO death squads now swarming around the northern areas of our motherland. Our brothers have controlled the borderless routes in this region for thousands of years and they know how not to be detected even by NATO satellites and drones.”

The other subject I thought about as I sat in an initial meeting was what a difference three decades can make. As I sat there I recalled my visit with former Fatah youth leader Salah Tamari, who did good work at the Israeli prison camp at Ansar, south Lebanon during the 1982 aggression, as the elected negotiator for his fellow inmates.

Tamari insisted on joining some of them at a new PLO base at Tabessa, Algeria and invited me for a visit.

This was shortly after the PLO leadership, wrongly in my judgment agreed to evacuate Lebanon in August of 1982 rather than wage a Stalingrad defense (admittedly minus the nonexistent expected Red Army) and the PLO leadership apparently credited Reagan administration promises of “an American guaranteed Palestinian state within a year. You can take that to the bank” in the words of US envoy Philip Habib.

Seemingly ever trustful of Ronald Reagan for some reason, PLO leader Arafat kept Habib’s written promise in his shirt pocket to show doubters, including his Deputy, Khalil al Wazir (Abu Jihad) and the womenfolk among others in Shatila Camp who had grave misgivings about their loved ones and protectors leaving them.

At Tabessa, somewhere in the vast Algerian desert, the formerly proud PLO defenders were essentially idle and caged inside their camp and apart from some physical training sessions appeared to spend their days drinking coffee and smoking and worrying about their loved ones in Lebanon as news of the September 1982 Israeli organized massacre at Sabra-Shatila fell on Tabessa Camp like a huge bomb and many fighters rejected Tamari’s orders and left for Shatila Camp.

This is not the case with Libyan evacuees in Niger. They have the latest model satellite phones, laptops and better equipment than most of the rich news outlets that showed up with fancy equipment at Tripoli’s media hotels over the past nine months.

This observers, “how did you all get here and where did you secure all this new electronic equipment so fast?” question was answered with a mute smile and wink” from a hijabed young lady who I last saw in August handing out press releases at Tripoli’s Rixos Hotel for Libyan spokesman Dr. Musa Ibrahim late last august. On that particular day, Musa was telling the media as he stood next to Deputy Foreign Minister Khalid Kaim, a friend to many Americans and human rights activists, that Tripoli would not fall to NATO rebels and “we have 6,500 well trained soldiers who are waiting for them.” As it turned out, the commander of the 6,500 was owned by NATO and he instructed his men not to oppose the entering rebel forces. Tripoli fell the next day and the day after Khalid was arrested and is still inside one of dozens of rebel jails petitioning his unresponsive captors for family visits while an international, American organized, legal team is negotiating to visit him.

The LLF has military and political projects in the works. One of the latter is to compete for every vote in next summers promised election. One staffer I met with has the job of studying the elections in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere in the region for possible applications to Libya.

Another LLF committee is putting together a Nationalist campaign electoral theme plus specific campaign planks for their candidates to run on and vetting lists of recommendations for specific candidates. Nothing is firmly decided yet, but one Libyan professor told me “for sure Women’s rights will be a major plank. Women are horrified by what NTC Chairman Jalil said while seeking support from Al Qaeda supporters who threaten to control Libya, about polygamy being the future in Libya and the fact that women will no longer be given the home when divorced. Under Gadhafi Libya has been very progressive with women’s rights as with Palestinian rights.” Aisha Gadhafi, the only daughter of Muammar who is now living next door in Algeria with family members including her two month old baby, was a major force behind the 2010 enactment by the Peoples Congresses of more rights for women. She has been asked to write a pamphlet on the need to retain women’s rights in Libya which will be distributed if the 2012 elections actually materialize.

While their beloved country lay in substantial NATO bombed ruin, the pro-Gadhafi LLF has some major pluses on its side. One is the tribes who during last summer were starting to stand up against NATO just as Tripoli fell before they launched their efforts which included a new Constitution. The LLF believes the tribes can be crucial in getting out the vote.

Perhaps an even a more powerful arrow in the LLF’s quiver as it launches its insurgency is the 35 years of political experience gained by the hundreds of Libyan People’s Congresses long established in every village in Libya along with the Secretariats of the People’s Conferences. While currently inactive (outlawed by NATO–truth be told) they are quickly regrouping and are expected to be able to dominate any forthcoming election in terms of getting out the vote.

Libya’s Peoples Congresses have sometimes been the objects of ridicule by some under informed self-styled Libya “experts, “the People’s Congresses, based on the Green book series written By “Baba” Moammar.” In fact they are actually quite democratic and a study of their work makes clear that they have increasingly functioned not as mere rubber stamps for ideas that were floated from over the walls of Bab al Azziza barracks.

A secretary general of one of the Congresses, now working in Niger, repeated what one western delegation was told during a fascinating late June three hour briefing at the Tripoli HQ of the national PC Secretariat. Participants were shown attendance and voting records as well of each item voted on, for the past decade and the minutes of the most recent People’s Congress debates. They illustrate the similarities between the People’s Congresses and New England Town Meeting in terms of the local population making decisions that affect their community and an open agenda where complaints and new proposals can be made and debated. Libyan leaders, including Muammar Gadhafi lost plenty of votes on items they favored or had originally proposed. In the last few years the Guide declined to take public positions on the items to be voted on in the PC’s because he preferred not to influence or interfere with what he called “the decisions of the masses.”

This observer particularly enjoyed his 4 years term representing Ward 2A in the Brookline, Massachusetts Town Meeting while in college in Boston, sometimes sitting next neighbors Kitty and Michael Dukakis who I am told still live on Perry Street. While we both won a seat in the election, I received 42 votes more than Mike in our Irish and Jewish neighborhood ( actually winning my seat wasn’t all that complicated, I simply took my friend Rachel Cohen with me door to door at Jewish homes seeking votes and Mary O’Malley with me to Irish homes) but Michael rose politically while it should be said that I sort of sank, following my joining Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the ACLU and the Black Panthers all in one semester as an undergraduate Boston University. My quick political evolution in politics followed an inspiring meeting with Professor Noam Chomsky and Professor Howard Zinn in Chomski’s office at MIT. An admittedly simple fellow from a small Oregon town, I left our 90 minute meeting with a book bag full of political epiphanies and have not been the same since.

The Brookline Town Meeting debates were interesting and productive and “Mustafa”, the National Secretary of the Libyan People’s Congress, who studied at George Washington University in WDC and wrote a graduate thesis on New England Town Meetings, claimed his country patterned their People’s Congresses on the New England model. Unfortunately, “Mustafa” is also now incarcerated by the NTC according to mutual friends.

Who LLF candidates will be if an election is actually held is unknown but some are suggesting that Dr. Abu Zeid Dorda, now recovering from his “guilt driven suicide attempt” according to an NTC spokesmen (the former Libyan UN Ambassador was thrown out of a second floor window during interrogations last month by NATO agents but he survived in front of witnesses so is now recovering in prison medical ward) as the credibility of yet another NTC media release crumbles.

Contrary to media stories, Saif al Islam is not about to surrender to the International Criminal Court and, like Musa Ibrahim, is well. Both are being urged to lay low for now, rest, and try to heal a bit from NATO’s killing of family members and many close friends.

Some legal and political analysts think the ICC will not proceed with any trials relating to Libya for reasons of the ICC convoluted rules and structure and uncertainly of securing convictions of the “right” suspects. Whatever happens on this subject, if a case goes forward, researchers are preparing to fill the ICC courtroom with documentation of NATO crimes during its 9 month, 23,000 sorties and 10,000 bombing attacks on the five million population country.

Some International Criminal Court observers are encouraged by the ICC Prosecutor’s office pledge this week and as reported by the BCC: “to investigate and prosecute any crimes committed both by rebel and pro-Gadhafi forces including any committed by NATO.”

As one victim of NATO crimes, who on June 20, 2011 lost four of his family members including three infant children, as five NATO American MK-83 1,000 lb. bombs were dropped and two missiles fired on the Tripoli suburb family compound in a failed assassination attempt against his father, a former aide to Colonel Gadhafi, wrote this observer yesterday from his secret sanctuary, “This is very good news if it is true..”

As NATO moves its focus and recalibrates its drones to the Seral, it is possible that its nearly 300 days and nights of carnage against this gentle country and people will not in the end achieve its goals. The Libyan people may yet defeat NATO’s neo-colonial project both by armed resistance and at the ballot box.

A rejuvenated national resistance has begun on Libya’s borders.

By Franklin Lamb

Franklin Lamb is doing research in Libya.

Thousands of people, including women and children, are being illegally detained by rebel militias in Libya, according to a report by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Many of the prisoners are suffering torture and systematic mistreatment while being held in private jails outside the control of the country’s new government.

The document, seen by The Independent, states that while political prisoners being held by the Gaddafi regime have been released, their places have been taken by up to 7,000 new “enemies of the state”, “disappeared” in a dysfunctional system, with no recourse to the law.

The report will come as uncomfortable reading for the Western governments, including Britain, which backed the campaign to oust Gaddafi. A UN resolution was secured in March in order to protect civilians from abuses by the regime, which was at the time mercilessly suppressing the uprising against the Gaddafi regime.

There was evidence, says the report by Ban Ki-moon, due to be presented to the Security Council, that both sides committed acts amounting war crimes in the bitter battle for Colonel Gaddafi’s hometown, Sirte. The Secretary-General who recently visited Libya, echoes the concern expressed by many world leaders over the killing of the former dictator by rebel fighters pointing out that Gaddafi was captured alive before being put to death.

The report also stresses that it is a matter of great praise that the country has been liberated after 42 years of totalitarian rule. The victorious opposition – which formed a new interim government this week – fully intends to follow a democratic path and introduce a functioning legal system, he says. The report is due to be circulated among members of the UN Security Council, and discussed next week.

However, Ban Ki-moon also presents a grim scenario of the growing power of the armed militias that control of the streets of many towns, including those of the capital, Tripoli, and the settling of internecine feuds through gun battles resulting in deaths and injuries.

Meanwhile the lawlessness has resulted in the vast majority of the police force not being able to return to work. In the few places where they have been back on duty under experienced officers, such as Tripoli, their role has been restricted largely to directing traffic.

Libya is the only Arab uprising to have attracted direct Western military support, despite the closer links forged with the West in recent years by the Gaddafi regime. The resistance in London, Washington and elsewhere to Nato-led intervention in other Arab countries has centred largely on a lack of coherent opposition. Political backers of the air strikes in Libya had cited the National Transitional Council (NTC) as a credible alternative to the Gaddafi regime.

The scope of escalating strife, inside the country as well as the wider region, is highlighted by the caches of weapons abandoned by the regime and subsequently looted. These include shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles, known as Manpads, capable of bringing down commercial airliners.

The Report of the Secretary-General on United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) states that: “Libya had accumulated the largest known stockpile of Manpads, of any non-Manpad-producing country. Although thousands were destroyed during the seven-month Nato operations, there are increasing concerns over the looting and likely proliferation of these portable defence systems, as well as munitions and mines, highlighting the potential risk to local and regional stability.”

But the continuing human rights abuses, says the Secretary-General’s report, are the most pressing concern. The report says that “while political prisoners held by the Gaddafi regime have been released, an estimated 7,000 detainees are currently held in prisons and makeshift detention centres, most of which are under the control of revolutionary brigades, with no access to due process in the absence of a functioning police and judiciary.”

Of particular worry was the fate of women being held for alleged links with the regime, often due to family connections, sometimes with their children locked up alongside them.

“There have also been reports of women held in detention in the absence of female guards and under male supervision, and of children detained alongside adults,” says the report.

A number of black Africans were lynched following the revolution following claims, often false, that they were hired guns for the Gaddafi regime. The city of Tawerga, mainly comprised of residents originally from sub-Saharan countries, was largely destroyed by rebel fighters from neighbouring Misrata. The port city had withstood a prolonged and brutal siege in the hands of the regime forces during which, it is claimed, fighters from Tawerga were particularly aggressive and brutal.

The report says that ”sub-Saharan Africans, in some cases accused or suspected of being mercenaries, constitute a large number of the detainees. Some detainees have reportedly been subjected to torture and ill treatment. Cases have been reported of individuals being targeted because of the colour of their skin.”

The document continues: “Tawergas are reported to have been targeted in revenge killings, or taken by armed men from their homes, checkpoints and hospitals, and some allegedly later abused or executed in detention. Members of the community have fled to various cities across Libya.”

The UN findings chart the vicious abuse carried out by the regime until the final days of the civil war. In a personal note in the document, Ban Ki-Moon said: “I was deeply shocked by my visit to an agricultural warehouse in the Khallital-Ferjan neighbourhood of Tripoli where elements of the Gaddafi regime had detained civilians in inhuman conditions, had subjected some to torture and had massacred as many as they could and burned their bodies.

“The international community must support the efforts to establish the fate of missing persons and to bring to justice perpetrators with the greatest responsibility for such crimes.”

By Kim Sengupta

24 November 2011

The Armenian Genocide (1915-1923) followed the Namibian Genocide (1904-1907) in which the Germans murdered 0.1 million Namas and Hereros in South West Africa . 1.5 million Armenians  perished in the Turkish-imposed Armenian Genocide (1915-1923). However Turkey denies the Armenian Genocide and the US , US Zionists and Apartheid Israel refuse to acknowledge the genocidal nature of the atrocity. British and Australian invasion of Turkey in 1915 contributed to the deadly and catastrophic Turkish xenophobia but British and Australian historians have largely deleted this atrocity from their national histories. While Armenian American celebrity  Kim Kardashian has demanded recognition of the 1.5 million-victim Armenian Genocide, arguing that genocide ignored will  yield more genocide, even the most progressive of  Australia ‘s major  newspapers evidently does not want its readers to read, know or think about this.

The Armenian Genocide.

The Armenian Genocide commenced on 24 April 1915, the day before the Allied invasion Turkey at Gallipoli and 24 April is commemorated as Armenian Genocide Day. The 25 April is commemorated as  Anzac Day by   Australia and New Zealand after the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) that was involved in the invasion that occurred after months of Allied shelling in the Dardanelles . The Turks were being attacked in the West by the British, French, Australian and New Zealand invaders and in the East by the Russians and this greatly exacerbated xenophobia to a deadly and disastrous level. The Armenian Genocide began with the rounding up of Armenian community leaders and thence butchery of the Armenian population  with millions being driven into the Syrian desert to die. It is estimated that 1.5 million Armenians died in the Armenian Genocide (1915-1923) (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide ).

Armenian Genocide denial by Turkey, the US, racist Zionists and genocidal Apartheid Israel .

Turkey has consistently denied the reality of the Armenian Genocide and indeed has made assertion of an Armenian Genocide a criminal offence. The US , the pro-Zionists, the  US B’nai B’rith (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League ), the racist Zionists and the race-based, genocidal, Anglo-American racist Zionist colony of  Apartheid Israel all refuse to recognize the atrocity as an Armenian Genocide.

Armenian American Kim Kardashian urges recognition of Armenian Genocide.

Kim Kardashian and her sisters are famous as lifestyle entrepreneurs. Kimberly Noel “Kim” Kardashian (born October 21, 1980 ) is an American businesswoman, socialite, television personality, model, and actress. She is known for the TV  reality series that she shares with her family called “Keeping Up with the Kardashians”. Her paternal great-grandparents emigrated from Armenia to Los Angeles . “Kardashian” in Armenian means “stonemason”. Kim Kardashian has two sisters, Kourtney and Khloé, and one brother, Robert. She has stepbrothers Burton Jenner, Brandon Jenner, and reality TV star Brody Jenner, step-sister Casey Jenner, and half-sisters Kendall Jenner and Kylie Jenner (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Kardashian ).

Kim Kardashian has spoken thus about the Armenian Genocide (2011): “My family and I are incredibly proud of our heritage. My dad taught me a lot about Armenian culture, and I have a strong connection with my roots.  Every year, I honor the memory of the martyrs who were killed during the 1915 Armenian Genocide. Even though so many countries around the world recognize the Genocide, the government of Turkey still denies it.

It happened before Rwanda , Darfur , and the Holocaust. Maybe none of those other genocides would have happened if more nations had condemned the Armenian Genocide, when 1.5 million Armenians were massacred.

Some people might wonder why I’m talking about history on my blog. And that’s what I’m trying to show…it’s not history. Until this crime is resolved truthfully and fairly, the Armenian people will live with the pain of what happened to their families and the fear of what might happen again to their homeland. So out of respect for all those innocent people that died, I’m putting a spotlight on it today.

Today, thousands of Armenians will come together in Los Angeles to protest against the denial of the genocide and urge the United States government to recognize the Armenian Genocide. I hope that I can bring some attention to this today.

And, this year, April 24 falls on Easter Sunday. Armenians are the first Christian Nation in the world, and almost everyone will be in church to celebrate Easter. Even on this really happy day, we’re going to be remembering the Genocide.

There’s going to be a National Day of Prayer in churches across America to celebrate Easter and commemorate the Genocide.

My thoughts and prayers are with all my fellow Armenians on this really important day. I stand proud with you always” (see Kim Kardashian, “Time to recognize the Armenian Genocide”, Celebuzz, 21 April 2011: http://kimkardashian.celebuzz.com/2011/04/21/kim-kardashian-armenian-genocide-protest-recognize/ ).

Australian Armenian Genocide ignoring and genocide ignoring in general.

Australia was intimately connected with the Armenian Genocide because its invasion of Turkey helped precipitate the genocidal destruction of the first Christian nation in the World. While Australia ‘s invasion of Turkey at Gallipoli is regarded by historians as a key event in Australia ‘s history and nation building, the linked Armenian Genocide is scrupulously ignored by Australian historians writing histories of Australia . Indeed Australia has been involved in 24 genocidal atrocities, 10 of them ongoing, but these are utterly ignored by Australian media, academics, politicians and people. Politically correct racist (PC racist) White Australia declares itself to be non-racist but has been  involved  in  – and continues to be involved in – appalling genocidal atrocities, noting that genocide represents the  ultimate in racism (see Gideon Polya, “Australian Anzac, Armenian Genocide. Australia ‘s secret genocide history”, MWC News, 25 April 2011: http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/10256-australian-anzac-a-armenian-genocide.html).

Australian genocide ignoring, and ignoring of the Armenian Genocide in particular, is well illustrated by recent censorship by The Age newspaper, arguably Australia’s most progressive Mainstream medium but pro-Zionist like the rest of the Australian Mainstream media. On 2 November 2011, The Age On-line National Times published an article by  lawyer and writer Emma McDonald about the Kardashian celebrities and entitled , “Why do so many of us keep up with the vacuous Kardashians”:http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/why-do-so-many-keep-up-with-the-vacuous-kardashians-20111101-1mt2m.html . Key quotes: “ the reality is that millions of people follow the lives of the Kardashians. I take my hat (and fascinator) off to them for successfully and ruthlessly feeding the insatiable appetite of an audience hungry for news and information about a bunch of fabulous nobodies. ” Kim Kardashian was visiting Australia in early November 2011 but left very upset after only a few days.

I sent the following 2 carefully researched comments on the article to The Age but both were completely censored, evidently as containing material that the Age does not want its readers to read, know or think about (for details of the article and the censorship see: http://gpolya.newsvine.com/_news/2011/11/01/8584472-australian-writer-slams-armenian-us-celebrities-as-vacuous-kardashians ).

Censored comments #1: “Kim Kardashian is not just a “fabulous nobody” as asserted by the article but a person whose serious commitment to human rights should be urgently emulated by presently genocide-ignoring  academics, journalists, politicians and Mainstream “celebrities” around the world, not least in look-the-other-way Australia.

Thus this is Kim Karadashian on the Armenian Genocide: “My family and I are incredibly proud of our heritage. My dad taught me a lot about Armenian culture, and I have a strong connection with my roots.  Every year, I honor the memory of the martyrs who were killed during the 1915 Armenian Genocide. Even though so many countries around the world recognize the Genocide, the government of Turkey still denies it. It happened before Rwanda , Darfur , and the Holocaust. Maybe none of those other genocides would have happened if more nations had condemned the Armenian Genocide, when 1.5 million Armenians were massacred.”

Kim Kardashian is saying what the Mainstream steadfastly refuses to say.  Thus  the US refuses to acknowledge the genocidal reality of  the Armenian Genocide  and is  complicit in an ongoing Palestinian Genocide, Iraqi Genocide, Somali Genocide, Afghan Genocide and Climate Genocide (Google  these terms describing ongoing genocides recognized by non-racist scholars but essentially unknown to the taxpayer-funded ABC, “Muslim Holocaust, Muslim Genocide” and “Climate Genocide”).”

Censored comments #2: “My previously-submitted, carefully researched comments having not been published, I feel morally compelled to re-state their essence in another way.

Kim Kardashian is not a “vacuous Kardashian” or “fabulous nobody” – she has spoken out about the Armenian Genocide (1.5 million murdered, 1915-1923) and the vital,  core message (remorselessly ignored by Mainstream media, academics and politicians in the Western Murdochracies and Lobbyocracies) that ignoring genocide helps lead to new genocides.

Thus the following US Alliance-imposed genocides ignored by the mainstream (war-and occupation-related deaths/ refugees  in parentheses): Palestinian Genocide (0.3 million/7 million), Iraqi Genocide (4.6 million/5-6 million), Afghan Genocide (5.6 million/3-4 million), Somali Genocide (2.2 million/2.0 million), Pakistani Pashtun Genocide (0.1 million?/2 million), Libyan Genocide (0.04 million/0.1 million) and the worsening Climate Genocide (about 10 billion people, overwhelmingly non-European,  are predicted by top climate scientists to perish this century due to unaddressed man-made global warming).

To discover what Australian and Western mainstream academics , politicians and media (notoriously the taxpayer-funded ABC)  resolutely ignore simply Google the above  phrases. Holocaust ignoring is far, far worse than repugnant holocaust denial.?”

While non-historian, non-academic, non-college graduate  Kim Kardashian has spoken out about the Armenia Genocide, given an estimate of how many people died (1.5 million) and enunciated the core message that genocide ignoring may lead to further genocides, leading Australian historian Professor Geoffrey Blainey (Companion of the Order of Australia and formerly of the  University of Melbourne) totally ignored the Armenian Genocide in his books “A Short History if the World” (Viking 2000), “A Very Short History of Australia” (Viking, 2004) and “The Great Seesaw. A new view of the Western World, 1750-2000” (Macmillan, 1988).

British ignoring of the Armenian Genocide.

British Imperialism against Turkey and the Ottoman Empire (tricking Turkey into WW1; British invasion of Iraq , 1914; British invasion of the Dardanelles , 1915) evidently exacerbated Turkish xenophobia. The Armenian Genocide occurred after months of Anglo-French shelling of the Dardanelles and specifically commenced the night before the Allied invasion at Gallipoli. Yet the Armenian Genocide  is shockingly ignored by historians writing histories of England e.g. it is not mentioned, for example,  in “A History of Britain” by E.H. Carter and R.A.F. Mears (Clarendon, 1960), G.M. Trevelyan’s “History of England” (Longmans, 1960), Colin McEvedy’s “The Century World History Factfinder” (Century 1984), and Simon Schama’s “A History of Britain” (BBC, 2002). Andrew Roberts’ 736-page “A History of the English-speaking Peoples” (Harper, 2007) merely allocates the following words: “nationalism is the antithesis of a cosmopolitan empire” [Hugh Trevor-Roper]. Although Armenians, who suffered badly, would take exception to that generalisation being extended to the Ottoman Empire ” and H.G. Wells’ “The Outline of History” (Cassell, revised edition, 1951). merely refers to post-WW1 massacres of Armenians: “He [the Turk] was not only driving back the attacking Greek, but he was, after his age-long traditions, massacring Armenians”. Just imagine a history of Germany that failed to mention the WW2 Holocaust.

Summary.

The Armenian Genocide killed 1.5 million Armenians in 1915-1923 but has been denied as a genocide by Turkey , the US , racist Zionists and genocidal Apartheid Israel . Armenian American entrepreneur and celebrity  Kim Kardashian has urged recognition of the Armenian Genocide, indicating that genocide ignored may lead to genocide repeated. While British, French, New Zealand  and Australian invasion of Turkey on 25 April 1915 evidently disastrously exacerbated Turkish xenophobia and helped precipitate the Armenian Genocide, this atrocity has been remarkably excluded from Australian History and World History works by Australian historians and from histories of England and Britain . Genocide ignored yields genocide repeated and genocide ignoring is far, far worse than repugnant genocide denial or holocaust denial because the latter at least admit the possibility of debate.

By Dr Gideon Polya

Dr Gideon Polya currently teaches science students at a major Australian university. He published some 130 works in a 5 decade scientific career.