U.S.-Israeli Assault on Iran Escalates

January 14th, 2012

Danger of War Grows

by Larry Everest

The danger of a U.S.-Israeli war on Iran is escalating rapidly. The U.S. and its allies are ramping up their all-around assault on Iran, including new crippling sanctions, and openly threatening to attack. Ground is being laid daily in the headlines and statements by politicians of every stripe in mainstream U.S. politics calling for aggression against Iran—all justified by unsubstantiated assertions that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Whether or not Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons technology (and there is no proof they are), this U.S. imperialist narrative and framework is an outrageous effort to turn reality upside down—the reality of which of the clashing oppressive forces in the region is the dominant threatening oppressor and bully.

Iran is a non-nuclear, Third World country. The U.S. is the world’s most powerful nuclear weapons state—with over 4,000 warheads.  It’s the only country to ever use nuclear weapons, killing 150,000-240,000 people in the 1945 bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan (with many more dying of the effects of radiation for years after). It’s the main backer of the one country in the Middle East that actually does have nuclear weapons—Israel.

Now the U.S. and its allies have launched a massive, all-around campaign of aggression against Iran in the name of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. These weapons are horrible, and they should be banished from the earth. If the U.S. rulers were really against these tools of mass murder they’d insist everyone get rid of them—but they’re not. They and their media mouthpieces aren’t saying word one about getting rid of their nukes, or Israel’s nukes, or Britain or France’s nukes.

Instead, the U.S. and its allies are threatening war over the possibility that Iran could get a bomb, a war that would be terrible for the people of the world. In a 2006 statement, Kurt Gottfried, Chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University, said: “The [Bush] administration is reportedly considering using the B51-11 nuclear ‘bunker buster’ against an underground facility near Natanz, Iran. The use of such a weapon would create massive clouds of radioactive fallout that could spread far from the site of the attack, including to other nations. Even if used in remote, lightly populated areas, the number of casualties could range up to more than a hundred thousand, depending on the weapon yield and weather conditions.” And any attack by the U.S. and Israel on Iran would be military aggression to preserve their military dominance—including their nuclear monopoly—in the Middle East. There is absolutely no justice in anything the U.S. is doing in pursuit of this criminal goal.

• • •

The last half of December saw a sharp spike in the U.S.-led assault on Iran’s Islamic Republic. On December 31, President Obama signed a defense authorization bill that included by far the harshest sanctions the U.S. and its allies have yet imposed on Iran. These new sanctions target Iran’s oil exports (which account for well over half of government revenues) for the first time, as well as its financial sector. (One provision calls for punishing foreign firms and banks which purchase Iranian oil, including through its central bank.)

In late December, with these new sanctions looming, Iran staged large-scale naval maneuvers in the Persian Gulf and the commander of Iran’s naval forces declared, “Closing the Strait of Hormuz [the narrow chokepoint at the mouth of the Gulf through which one-fifth of the oil traded on the world market flows] is very easy for Iranian naval forces.” The U.S. Fifth Fleet, stationed in Bahrain (directly across the Persian Gulf from southern Iran), immediately warned that “any disruption” to shipments through the Gulf “will not be tolerated,” adding that “The U.S. Navy is a flexible, multi-capable force … always ready to counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation.”

This latest U.S. saber-rattling comes after several months of escalating actions and rhetoric directed against Iran, including open threats of war.

In early November, 2011, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak were reportedly actively “trying to muster a majority in the cabinet in favor of military action against Iran.” A few days later, Israeli President Shimon Peres warned that such an attack was becoming increasingly likely. (“Netanyahu trying to persuade cabinet to support attack on Iran,” Haaretz, November 2, 2011)

On November 8, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an imperialist-controlled international body monitoring nuclear activities, issued a new report on Iran, claiming that “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.” The U.S., Israel, Britain and France, seized on the report to call for more diplomatic, political, and economic aggression against Iran—while explicitly leaving the military option “on the table.”

A few days later, on November 12, massive explosions rocked a base near Tehran where Iran’s ballistic missiles were being developed. Seventeen people were killed, including a top ranking Iranian military official. This follows the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities by the Stuxnet computer worm earlier this year, as part of what Roger Cohen of the New York Times called almost certainly a “covert American‑Israeli drive to sabotage Iran’s efforts to develop a military nuclear capacity.” Cohen concludes, “An intense, well-funded cyberwar against Tehran is ongoing.” (“Doctrine of Silence,” November 28, 2011)

On November 21, the U.S., Britain and Canada imposed new, more punishing sanctions against Iran’s central and commercial banks, with the U.S. also announcing sanctions against Iran’s nuclear and petrochemical industries. These moves are aimed at cutting Iran off from the international banking and financial system and crippling its economy.

A week later, on November 29, pro-regime Iranian protesters stormed Britain’s embassy in Tehran in retaliation, prompting Britain to formally break diplomatic relations and close down Iran’s embassy in London. On December 1, 2011, the U.S. Senate and the European Union also passed new sanctions against Iran.

The early December downing of a U.S. RQ-170 Sentinel surveillance drone in eastern Iran, 140 miles from the Afghan border, possibly due to an Iranian electronic counter‑measure against the drone flights, sparked a flurry of speculation in the U.S. media over whether Iran—or Russia and China which have ties to Iran—could gain any military advantage from studying the near-intact drone. The blatantly aggressive and illegal nature of this violation of Iranian sovereignty and airspace, and how drones could be part of any military attack on Iran, was pointedly not part of imperialist press discussion. Iran rebuffed President Obama’s request to return the unmanned aircraft, and warned Afghanistan not to permit further U.S. drone flights over its territory. “Until this week, the high-altitude flights from bases in Afghanistan were among the most secret of many intelligence-collection efforts against Iran,” the New York Times (December 7, 2011) reported, “part of an increasingly aggressive intelligence collection program aimed at Iran.”

“[A]cross the region the largely hidden ‘cold war’ between Tehran and its enemies is escalating fast, bringing with it wider risk of conflict,” reports Lebanon’s Daily Star. “From proxy wars in Iraq and Syria to computer worm attacks and unexplained explosions in Iran—to allegations of an assassination plot in Washington—a confrontation once kept behind the scenes is breaking into increasingly open view.” (“New cold war with Iran heats up Middle East, raises risk of conflict,” December 6, 2011)

The Imperialists’ Real Nuclear Concern: Preserving Their Unchallenged Military Superiority

The U.S.-European-Israeli charge that Iran is trying to obtain nuclear weapons, which could then plunge the region into a nuclear conflagration, has been the central justification for imperialist aggression against Iran. When the IAEA report was released, the U.S. media called it “definitive” proof of these claims.

But on closer inspection, the report contained no such proof. Instead it was largely a rehash of unproven suspicions and allegations along with “evidence” refuted years earlier. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh concluded that the IAEA report was a “political document,” not an objective report, and that “no evidence” has been produced “of a facility to build the Bomb.” (“Iran and the I.A.E.A.,” New Yorker, November 18, 2011; see also, “New Threats of U.S.-Israeli Aggression Against Iran,” Revolution #251, November 27, 2011)

Why are the U.S. and its allies stepping up their attacks even if there’s no conclusive proof Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons? Because the core issue has never been whether or not Iran is actually trying to build a nuclear weapon. The U.S. and Israel’s real concern has always been that even if Iran gained the technological know-how for a nuclear weapons program or was seen to have crossed that “threshold”—it would undermine the perception of unchallengeable U.S.-Israel military regional supremacy, thus strengthening Iranian influence and undercutting U.S. imperialist dominance. (This is also the central U.S.-Israeli concern should Iran obtain nuclear weapons.)

From that logic, the logic of a big time gangster worried about a small time gangster infringing on his turf, even allowing Iran to continue its nuclear power program is seen as dangerous.

The failure, to date, of the U.S.-European-Israeli covert war and international pressure to force the Islamic Republic of Iran to halt its nuclear program, or to weaken its grip on power, along with Iran’s reported progress in mastering aspects of nuclear technology, is helping drive the escalation of tension and increasing the chances that the imperialists will turn to more extreme measures, possibly including war. (See, “Clock Ticking for West to Act on Iranian Nuclear Program,” New York Times, December 29, 2011 for imperialist claims and concerns about Iran’s technical advances.)

A Battle for Regional Dominance on Rapidly Shifting Terrain

The nuclear issue, however, is not the underlying factor intensifying the U.S.-Iran clash. That conflict is part of something much larger: a sharpening battle for dominant influence across the entire region, a battle with profound global implications.

The U.S. full-court press against it isn’t aimed at ridding the region of nuclear weapons (if so, they’d demand Israel dismantle its 150 plus nuclear warheads), or liberating the people. The U.S. rulers are going after the Iranian regime because it’s become a major impediment to their continued hegemony over the Middle East. And for over 60 years, control of this region has been a central pillar of their global power and the functioning of world capitalism. As the reactionary Weekly Standard put it, the U.S. rulers have viewed “a favorable balance of power in the greater Middle East as key to a favorable international order.” (“Iran’s Clock Ticking,” December 19, 2011)

But what is that U.S.-dominated “international order”? It is an imperialist system that has caused unimaginable and ongoing suffering and violence, including in the Middle East. To cite but one of many examples, according to a 2006 survey published in the British medical journal Lancet, the 2003 U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq caused more than 650,000 “excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war” up to that point. It also led to over 4.7 million Iraqis fleeing as refugees either inside or outside their country. (See “U.S. Threatens Another War: Who Is the REAL Aggressor in the Middle East?” Revolution #253, December 18, 2011.)

Regional confrontations, escalating fast, becoming harder to control

The Iranian regime has never sought to fully break out of the framework of global capitalism-imperialism, but rather to increase Iran’s leverage and reach within that framework, which is linked to preserving their oppressive rule over the Iranian people. In that context, Iran’s rulers have their own needs and ambitions, including extending their influence across the Middle East and beyond.

Scan the regional map and you’ll find a complex, sometimes behind-the-scenes, battle pitting the U.S., a global imperialist superpower which has strangled the region’s peoples for decades, against Iran and its allies. This conflict—which is evident in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and the Persian Gulf—has grown much sharper over the past year as uprisings throughout North Africa and the Middle East, clashes between Iranian-aligned and U.S.-backed forces, and big power interventions shake up the regional political order.

In some instances, the U.S. seems to be maintaining its hold, even gaining ground. Its key ally, Saudi Arabia, intervened in Bahrain to suppress an uprising and shore up the solidly pro-U.S. regime there. The U.S. and its allies succeeded in toppling the Qaddafi regime in Libya and seem to have strengthened their hand there. The solidly pro-U.S. army remains the dominant factor in the Egyptian regime. And in Syria, the U.S. is increasingly supporting the uprising against the regime of Bashar al-Assad, a key Iranian ally. One U.S. analyst states, “changing Syria’s orientation away from Iran would be a major coup from America’s perspective.” (“Why Iran might be worried by Hillary Clinton’s meeting with Syria exiles,” Christian Science Monitor, December 6, 2011)

In other instances, Iranian aligned forces seem to be gaining ground. Iran greatly strengthened its position in Iraq in the wake of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Now, the U.S. rulers are extremely concerned that the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq will further increase Iranian influence. “[T]he U.S. withdrawal from Iraq will create a power vacuum that the Iranians are eager to exploit,” the imperialist think tank STRATFOR notes. “The potential for Iran to control a sphere of influence from western Afghanistan to the Mediterranean is a prospect that not only frightens regional players such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey but also raises serious concerns in the United States … [which is] seeking to curb Iran’s sphere of influence by working to overthrow the Syrian regime, limit Iran’s influence in Iraq and control Hezbollah in Lebanon. (“The Covert Intelligence War Against Iran,” STRATFOR Global Intelligence, December 8, 2011)

Iran and U.S. ally Saudi Arabia are fighting “an intricate cold war” across the region, “competing for dominance in global energy markets and nuclear technology and for political influence in the Persian Gulf and the Levant. … The Iranian-Saudi rivalry has also expanded beyond Iraq and into the greater Middle East, especially in the wake of the Arab Spring.” Advances by one bring aggressive counter moves by the other. “A proxy Saudi-Iranian war in Iraq represents a very considerable threat to oil supplies,” the Daily Star reports. “Many such confrontations across the region appear escalating fast—and becoming much harder for Washington and its allies to control.” (Mohsen M. Milani, “Iran and Saudi Arabia Square Off: The Growing Rivalry Between Tehran and Riyadh,” Foreign Affairs, October 11, 2011; Daily Star, December 6, 2011)

Regional changes have the potential to threaten Israeli interests, including fueling mass protest and rebellion against Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people, creating further international support for the Palestinians, and contributing to the strength of Islamist forces (for instance in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya).

In an article that cites and draws on a number of recent statements by key figures in the Iranian, U.S., and Israeli ruling classes, British journalist Patrick Seale writes, “The danger is that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu may now seek to break out of Israel’s current political isolation by mounting a spectacular attack on Iran.” (“Will Israel Bomb Iran?” Agence Global, October 11, 2011)

A U.S./Israel Attack on Iran Would Be a Huge Crime

Efforts by the U.S. imperialists to contain, weaken, even overthrow Iran’s current regime have been underway since well before President George W. Bush launched the “war on terror” after the attacks of September 11, 2001 which escalated the U.S. campaign against Iran. War on Iran has been debated at the highest levels of the U.S. government. So far, the U.S., Israel and their allies have calculated that the outcome of such a war would be very uncertain. It may neither topple the Islamic Republic, nor stop its nuclear program, while possibly triggering regional upheaval on a level the imperialists could not control. But these difficulties do not change the U.S. and Israel’s need to confront Iran, so they’ve worked to cripple it through sanctions, diplomacy, and covert operations.

That the U.S., its allies, and Israel routinely carry out such aggression short of all-out war is outrageous and calls for much more visible opposition inside this country. And more, the fact that previous threats to attack Iran have not come to pass should not lull people into a false sense that the U.S. and Israel are just bluffing or using these threats merely to strengthen sanctions and diplomacy. Nor should the fact that Barack Obama not George W. Bush is commander-in-chief of the empire, and that the U.S. is drawing down from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The trajectory toward confrontation between the U.S. and Iran has not only continued, it has become more intense. Sanctions, diplomacy and covert actions can lay the groundwork, including in public opinion, for war. And Iran’s ongoing nuclear program, the U.S.’s inability to achieve its objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan, the upheaval across the Middle East, and the sharpening of different contradictions globally, are all increasing the necessity facing the imperialists to avoid another setback and to maintain their hold on the Middle East. So circumstances can shift the U.S. and Israel’s calculus of the risks and benefits of war.

And wars, including “covert wars,” have a logic of their own, and things can get out of control. There are many flashpoints between the U.S.-Israel and Iran, and clashes, even accidental clashes, can quickly escalate in a spiral of action and counter-action.

Stepped-up intervention against Iran, no matter how the U.S., Israel, and the United Nations attempt to justify it, is criminal aggression in the service of continued imperialist control of the planet. Anyone who wants to see an alternative to the “choices” between U.S. imperialist domination and aggression, and the reactionary forces represented by the Iranian rulers, must confront and act on the reality that support for, or passive complicity in the face of a U.S./Israel attack on Iran would strengthen bothsides of this unacceptable paradigm. And, on the other hand, resistance to U.S./Israeli aggression could be part of bringing forward a radical alternative to both imperialism and Islamic fundamentalism on a global scale.

Any military attack or war on Iran would be a huge crime that would likely result in many, many killed and wounded along with enormous devastation. People, especially in the U.S., have to say—loudly, clearly, and actively—NO!

:::::

Source: Revolution, Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA

URL: http://revcom.us/a/255/danger-of-war-grows-en.html

Imperialist Fabrication Reached Occupied Palestine

January 11th, 2012


Imperialist Fabrication Reached Occupied Palestine

A Declaration from the Participants in al-Khalil Hebron Demonstration

(9-1-2012)

By Adel Samara

Friends from al-Khalil city (Hebron) who are patriotic, nationalists, communists, Marxists invited us to participate in a supportive demonstration to the Arab country Syria, the resistance movement and against foreign and any intervention  in Syria.

The Demonstration took place at 9-1-2012. But the next day (10-1-2010)  we astonished that al-Quds daily (in Jerusalem) publish a photo  (attached) with a comment saying: “ A demonstration in solidarity with Palestinians in Syria and against president Bashar al-Assad).

We contacted al-Quds and the editor said that the photo sent to the paper by EPA. Al-Quds published (11-1-2012) explaining and amend the false piece of news in the previous day. (attached).

It is important to confirm that EPA where desperate to find any action against Syria. If not, why they did not contact the people in charge to knew the truth at least according to the pretended morals of the bourgeois media? The same is for al-Quds paper, also because if the comment under the picture is against the Saudi king, will al-Quds publish it without investigation and confirmation. I doubt that it will publish it even with million confirmations.

We never praise or humiliate president Assad. We are self respected people, but we are real Arabs and organic intellectuals and for sure against imperialism, Arab comprador regimes and rental oil states and Zionist Ashkinazi regime for sure.

It is highly important to note that people like us are clear, clean and courageous enough when write or speak to criticize the Syrian regime and push for real reforms motivated by our love to Syria , but at the same time and with more and intensive manner we attack the enemies of Syria, USA, EU, Turkey, GCC and especially the terrorist groups of Politicized Religion. This is the main difference between us and the counter-revolution camp like media people, intellectuals, writers…etc who never dare to say a single word against the enemies of Syria,  the enemies of humanity.  Is this a clear difference? Yes it is

Names of some of the Participants:

Hisham al-Sharif

Ihsan salem Abu Arab

Ali al-Tawawi

Nader al-A’waiwi

Munzer al-A’waiwi

Dr. Khalil Nakhli

Shawkat Hammad

Dr. Muhmad farhat

Dr. Adel Samara

Abdul A’alim Daa’na

Nazmi Daa’na

How Life as Resistance Deteriorated to Negotiations?

December 7th, 2011
Where are Palestinians in Arab Developments

Adel Samara

The technicality of time spoiling

One might pretend that Palestinian politicians and intellectuals are experts in designing false battles to consume people’s time through acting as if they are busy and even in a dangerous situation, such as the rumors that the Zionist Ashkenazi Regime (ZAR) will assassinate Abbas. This article is based on reading why life as resistance deteriorates to life as negotiations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (WBG) and the false but hot “quarrel” among Palestinians for the membership of the so-called Palestinian state in the UN.

What is really funny in this context is that Palestinians piled many pages by those who support the application for UN membership and those who are opposed to it. Most of the “quarrel” has been concentrated around legal and technical aspects. Some discussions are about people’s national rights in their Homeland. What is interesting is that most of those involved in this debate dealt with legal, technical and political discussions while the national rights, the Palestinian Right of Return (RoR) were hardly mentioned.

To start with, Palestine is the Homeland of Palestinian people. Any direct or indirect recognition of ZAR is a direct or indirect surrender of people’s cause, RoR. The Oslo Accords and Palestinian elections under these accords, i.e. under the rule of  ZAR as a settler colonial one,  is to give up the cause in spite of all justifications offered by secular or religious political organizations. This proves that the argument of some Palestinians about the UN membership for a state in WBG is a termination of the role of PLO as representative of all Palestinian people is meaningless.

This article offers an argument that is totally different. It is an analysis of the drastic deterioration in the Palestinian struggle from “Life as Resistance” to “Life as Negotiations” and how the struggle in all its forms - military, economic (boycotting) political cultural (anti normalization) - has been silenced and replaced by so-called popular resistance - which openly declares that it is against all mentioned forms of struggle, especially the military one,  and is limited to protests in some villages on the one hand and direct and indirect negotiations on the other.

This deterioration started as a hidden old virus in the structure of PLO mainly within its political and intellectual elite. PLO founders did not came from a radical Marxist/nationalist background, but from the petty bourgeoisie/middle class layers with right wing/religious theoretical background and profound relationship with Arab reactionary Wahhabi regimes which are tied to imperialism in a form of dependency where their mere existence and survival are in the hands of the West.

Those Arab regimes financed PLO leadership. So, PLO right wing leadership started from the beginning as “revolutionary millionaires”. In PLO case much of the money was spent in media and cultural activities. By doing that the PLO political leadership recruited many intellectuals who produced a variety many newspapers, magazines and publications. Year after year media department transcend guerrilla struggle. My point here is that the politician secured many intellectuals as his organic intellectuals who were fed by him and theorized for him to justify his politics.

This form of alliance or in fact dependency of the intellectual on the politician wasn’t dangerous so long as the political leader believed or acted as if he believes in military struggle for the liberation of Palestine. I mention “act” here because there is great doubt whether the PLO political leadership truly believed that PLO is able to achieve that goal. What supports my point is the fact that Arafat since 1969 welcomed Edward Said who brought to him letters and other correspondence from the US State Department. Following that Arafat “appointed” Said as a member in the Palestinian  National Council (PNC) and unfortunately Said - the liberal intellectual, post-colonial writer who specializes in comparative literature - accepted that position despite the fact that he never concealed that he was opposed to military struggle as a method of national liberation of Palestine.

Once the politician “bought” the intellectuals, it became for granted that they will support any of his decisions even when they compromise the national cause as it happened when PLO signed Oslo-Accords with Israel and the PLO intellectuals supported it. By doing that the political leadership divorced itself from the national liberation project, the fighter threw away his rifle and the intellectual changed his pen. Since that moment life as negotiations replaced life as resistance.

New changes need new political environment. While before Oslo, the ZAR was controlling the WBG by force and domination, and continues that form of domination today, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has been supported financially from the western donors and the dependent Arab regimes to build a huge bureaucratic apparatus (civil and police). Under these conditions, the PA started ruling by domination (through its various security and ordinary police apparatuses) and by hegemony through making at least one million people dependent on the regime either as employees or by means of corruption. The hegemony aspect here doesn’t mean that it is a condition that the dependent believes in PA justification of the so-called peace process (peace for capital). It is hegemony by interest, selfish and personal interests, i.e. salaries, positions social relations…etc.  The donor-countries also achieved their own hegemony through controlling the money that is donated to the PA, all sources of money including those from Arab oil regimes. They control the funding of NGOs as well. They achieve hegemony in this level through employing many intellectuals, semi-intellectuals and false intellectuals. Most of these intellectuals are from leftist organizations where they are still active.

Needless to say that the number of those who are dependent on thus poisonous capital through jobs in the PA, NGOs, foreign cultural councils…etc exceeds quarter million, and with their families they count for more than million. And as long as this money is coming easy, (and in the case of corruption and NGOs too much money has always been available) large number of the people fell under hegemony in the form that the West is the dream for happiness.

What resulted from this process is:

Land abandonment: many people abandoned the land looking for jobs and easy money.

Those who work for PA, NGOs…etc fell into consumerism to the extent that they were not able to survive without this money, which explains their readiness to pay any price for maintaining that.

What is more dangerous in parallel to that is the process of terminating the productive sectors in the local economy through:

Land confiscation by the ZAR

Absence of PA economic policy, such as those designed for employment, production, local market protection, boycotting ZAR products…etc

World Bank, IMF prescriptions and accepting their lies that growth rate in the WBG is 8%.

The private sector lack of national loyalty and its orientation towards external investment especially in the ZAR despite the fact that it is the most favorable sector by the donors, or it might be because of that it is prioritized.

How is Political Attitudes Decided?

Nicos Poulantza was right in emphasizing that for the social class to be considered a class (class for itself) it is conditioned by and in need for political consciousness. We like to add here that political consciousness may and may not be national/patriotic in its aspiration. This might clarify why several Palestinian capitalist factions, comprador, the sub-contractors, financial capitalists in the diaspora betrayed the cause through the recognition of ZAR and accepting the partition of its Homeland with its enemy. Here, we have a class with political consciousness but has it is not patriotic. Its consciousness as a class comes from its interests, (I will not discuss here if these interests are part of the production process, speculation…etc), and that is the factor which determines its position in the national conflict.

The same goes for the political and intellectual elite whose position has been decided according to their source of income, which is not drawn from the production process but from their political services for the agenda of their donors. But their source of income is based on their intellectual work as their own power. Both intellectual power and source of income intermingled reciprocally.

The mentioned Palestinian intellectuals are divided in several groups:

A - Old PLO intellectuals who were brought to the WBG through Oslo Accords as part of PLO cadres. Most of these maintained their loyalty to PLO leadership regardless of which politics it follows.

B - Local liberal externalized intellectuals who never played any patriotic role and have normalized with ZAR since the beginning of the occupation of the WBG in 1967.

C - The renegade leftist/Marxist intellectuals who were demoralized following the collapse of the USSR and who compete with liberals to prove that they are real renegades and have adopted capitalist western culture.

The question here is, while the PA ruling party, the dependent capitalist “class” and their organic intellectuals are normalizing with the enemy, betraying the boycotting of its products, “begging” for a false state in a tiny part of their Homeland, and liquidating the RoR, then what is the position of other components of the national movement, i.e. the politicized religion groups and the left?

Both groups were in state of chaos and hesitation. While the PA camp declared several months ago that there will be no change in their negotiation policy with Israel if they were to succeed or fail in obtaining the UN membership, other groups remained silent until the last few days before UN voting. We have a big WHY here?

This hesitation is either due to political weakness or they are not genuine in their position, i.e. they are close to the PA politics of negotiations and its acceptance of a tiny state in the WBG Oslo-Stan. What supports this opinion is that all political groups in PLO and PA cabinet remained in their positions and did not resign.

Moreover, after all these passive, but destructive steps from the PA, Hamas returns to negotiations for reconciliation with the PA whose well known strategy is negotiations and not resistance? While Hamas position, as it always pretended, must be the opposite. But, recently following the meeting of Abbas and Misha’al (of Hamas) in Cairo, the latter declared the adoption of popular resistance and not military struggle.

Palestinians for Reconciliation or

Palestinians Standing in the Counter-Revolution Camp

Developments in Arab Homeland are still vague. One really hesitates to call developments in any country a revolution. But counter-revolution is clear. For sure there are changes forward in Tunisia and Egypt. But still they are not revolutions. Month after another the coalition between military leadership, Moslem Brothers, some remnants of Mubarak’s and Ben Ali former ruling parties, and the US/EU regimes become clear. Libya has been destroyed and divided among imperialist powers that left the trickle –down economy and power for their agents, “NATO revolutionaries” of liberals and Islamists. In Yemen, the Arab Oil regimes controlled by US/EU are trying to control the protests and direct their allies in Yemen in a pre-emptive step to stop the developments from continuing and radicalizing. Bahraini popular revolution is suppressed by means of military oppression and silencing the media. Somalia is under several forms of African occupations supported by the US/EU. The target now is Syria which is different from all other cases. The experience in Syria uncovered more than any other case that the West does not care about people’s rights, democracy or reform which people certainly need. The US/EU are targeting Syria because of its regional politics, i.e. its support to the resistance movements in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Syria is targeted because of its position towards ZAR, as it is well known that the recognition of ZAR by Egypt, Jordan, PLO and the indirect recognition from the oil dependent and colonized regimes are not enough to donate ZAR the final Arab recognition as long as Syria is still against it.

All  counter-revolution forces are in alliance against Syria: Arab Oil rulers, the new rulers in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, other Arab League members, Moslem Brothers, Turkey and the leader of all these, the US/EU.

New developments spur from the Syrian case. These developments blocked the direct aggression against Syria, at least for the time being, Russia, in the first hand, and China who are developing a semi-pole facing the West, supported by India, Brazil and South Africa, the economic/financial crisis in the US/EU, the Iranian firm support to Syria and Hizbullah in Lebanon. But, the main source of Syrian regime’s power is its unified army and the people’s majority support especially when the two forms of terrorism became evident:

-The BBC, Al-Jazeera Al-Arabiya and other enemy’s media outlets,

-The armed terrorists inside Syria.

Palestinians against Palestine!

Many writings were published raising questions including some important ones like: Why each Arab protest is limited to each country alone and why are the Palestinians silent while the entire Arab Homeland is shaking?

I will comment on both questions through their relationship and influence on Palestine. We must differentiate between the expansion of protests from one Arab country to another on the one hand, and the Qutri slogans on the other. The expansion of protests reflects the common national sentiment as a response to the joint regimes’ repression. It is a sentiment that is hidden because of the borders that divide each country from another. But because of the continued repression against political parties, nationalist and leftists, the national sentiments failed to develop in a politicized manner. The goal behind that is to ignore Arab unity which, as long as it is ignored, the Palestinian question will deteriorate considering that it is still the central cause for the Arab peoples. In this context, we must criticize Arab nationalist regimes which fell in Qutriyah and failed to reach any form of unification which is the reason that kept them vulnerable to the extent that they were not able to confront aggression as in the cases of Iraq, Libya, Somalis and Sudan…etc. Those regimes were protected from colonial aggression and occupation by the existence of the USSR which had collapsed, and protected internally by police. They failed to grasp the fact that people’s support and Arab unity is the only guarantee for their continuity and survival.

The Palestinian case is different from all Arab cases as a country under settler colonialism which means that resistance should be on the top of people’s agenda. Any conflict for political power will replace the current regime by another dependent one either of politicians or police junta conducting a coup de tat and maintain the same policy with ZAR. Real resistance is the most important and effective factor which terminates the power of the dependent PA and weakens its compromising negotiations with Israel. The sudden collapse of the PA is not at hand. This means that its liquidation must take place by development of resistance and the change of balance of power.

To neutralize people’s resistance and Arab masses from supporting the Palestinian cause, and accordingly to guarantee Arab peoples’ carelessness towards Palestine, which still in at the core of Arab nation’s agenda, the PA takes several steps and decisions in this direction: recognition of the ZAR, support of the invasion of Libya, donating the lead of Arab League to Qatar to attack Syria, opening a consulate in Iraqi Kurdistan to weaken Iraqi unity, continuing corruption…etc.

Finally, while each Arab country is expecting internal developments which might move forward or backward, an issue which depends on the balance of power between “revolution’ and counter-revolution, the Palestinian cause appears to be in a semi- paralysis situation. The main role of revolutionary currents is to move towards resistance and to launch a campaign against negotiations. This is the only way for Palestinians to maintain their cause and its Arab and international support.

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

November 9th, 2011

Book Review:

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

By:  Naomi Klein

Published September 18th 2007 by Metropolitan Books

url: http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine

setting:  United Kingdom

literary awards

Warwick Prize for Writing Winner (2009)

In THE SHOCK DOCTRINE, Naomi Klein explodes the myth that the global free market triumphed democratically. Exposing the thinking, the money trail and the puppet strings behind the world-changing crises and wars of the last four decades, The Shock Doctrine is the gripping story of how America’s “free market” policies have come to dominate the world– through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries.

At the most chaotic juncture in Iraq’s civil war, a new law is unveiled that would allow Shell and BP to claim the country’s vast oil reserves…. Immediately following September 11, the Bush Administration quietly out-sources the running of the “War on Terror” to Halliburton and Blackwater…. After a tsunami wipes out the coasts of Southeast Asia, the pristine beaches are auctioned off to tourist resorts…. New Orleans’s residents, scattered from Hurricane Katrina, discover that their public housing, hospitals and schools will never be reopened…. These events are examples of “the shock doctrine”: using the public’s disorientation following massive collective shocks – wars, terrorist attacks, or natural disasters — to achieve control by imposing economic shock therapy. Sometimes, when the first two shocks don’t succeed in wiping out resistance, a third shock is employed: the electrode in the prison cell or the Taser gun on the streets.

Based on breakthrough historical research and four years of on-the-ground reporting in disaster zones, The Shock Doctrine vividly shows how disaster capitalism – the rapid-fire corporate reengineering of societies still reeling from shock – did not begin with September 11, 2001. The book traces its origins back fifty years, to the University of Chicago under Milton Friedman, which produced many of the leading neo-conservative and neo-liberal thinkers whose influence is still profound in Washington today. New, surprising connections are drawn between economic policy, “shock and awe” warfare and covert CIA-funded experiments in electroshock and sensory deprivation in the 1950s, research that helped write the torture manuals used today in Guantanamo Bay.

The Shock Doctrine follows the application of these ideas through our contemporary history, showing in riveting detail how well-known events of the recent past have been deliberate, active theatres for the shock doctrine, among them: Pinochet’s coup in Chile in 1973, the Falklands War in 1982, the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Asian Financial crisis in 1997 and Hurricane Mitch in 1998.

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine

Libyan Rebels Listed by US State Department as Terrorists

November 9th, 2011

by Tony Cartalucci

NATO leaders are guilty under US code of providing material support to terrorists.

“Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. To violate this paragraph, a person must have knowledge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization (as defined in subsection (g)(6)), that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act), or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989).” -USC § 2339B. Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations

….


In March 2011, the London Telegraph reported that Libya’s rebels had direct ties to Al Qaeda and that both leaders and fighters had spent time in both Iraq and Afghanistan combating US troops. The article titled, “Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links” featured Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, who had been captured by the US after fighting Americans in Afghanistan, returned to Libya, and released under a bargain for Hasidi and his Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) militants to abandon extremism and become productive members of society. Quite obviously, and with the US, UK, and NATO’s help, Hasidi and his men went back on this bargain and are now sowing murder and mayhem across Libya.

The New York Time more recently reported in an article titled, “Exiled Islamists Watch Rebellion Unfold at Home” that LIFG has “renounced Al Qaeda and are part of the mosaic of rebel fighters united under the umbrella of the Transitional National Council, the opposition leadership that the United States formally recognized as Libya’s legitimate government.” Of course, “renouncement” is exactly what these very same men did to be released from Qaddafi’s prisons in the first place before immediately taking up arms and laying waste to the nation. The New York Times also notes that exiled LIFG leader Abu Sohaib, currently being harbored in London, is unable to return to Libya because he and LIFG is a listed terrorist across the Middle East and throughout most of Europe, including the UK. His LIFG fighters are noted as having “combat experience in Iraq or Afghanistan,” and that they are part of the “social fabric of eastern Libya,” namely Benghazi, Tobruk, and Darnah in a region often referred to as Cyrenaica.

WestPointStats

Image: Taken from a US West Point study, these graphs created by data obtained in Iraq clearly show that Libya’s eastern region, and the cities of Darnah and Benghazi in particular, provided by far more militants found fighting US troops in Iraq than any other nation, including Saudi Arabia. An apt summary of the report can be found at Tarpley.net. (click image to enlarge)

….


To get a clearer picture of just how much of the “social fabric of eastern Libya” these Al Qaeda LIFG fighters make up, a study from West Point US Military Academy indicates that this region produced more foreign fighters per capita found in Iraq than any other nation including Saudi Arabia. The vast majority of these fighters came from Darnah and Benghazi, the latter being the epicenter of the current Libyan rebellion. The report, explained in detail by geopolitical analyst Dr. Webster Tarpley, proves just how understated the New York Times article is in portraying these terrorists as “part of the social fabric of eastern Libya.” The facts prove quite clearly that terrorism is the social fabric of eastern Libya.

Just this week, the UK Independent provided its readership with a watered down headline that reads, “Rebel military chief says he was tortured by CIA.” The article indicates that the current rebel leader, Abdulhakim Belhaj (aka Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi) is in fact an LIFG founding member, with combat experience in Afghanistan against the Russians, omits that he was also involved in fighting US troops there in 2001, but does mention that he was held by the CIA, then the Libyan government before taking command of NATO-backed rebels in Libya. The Daily Beast reports in an article titled, “Libya’s Powerful Islamist Leader,” that Belhaj was in fact, face-to-face with Osama Bin Laden back in the 1980’s, and that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) is listed by both the U.S. State Department and the British Home Office as an international terrorist organization.

LIFGlisted

Image: A screenshot taken directly from the US State Department website showing the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) clearly listed as a foreign terrorist organization. This is important, as US Code prohibits providing material support to listed terrorist organizations. With revelations of Al Qaeda and LIFG fighters leading the Libyan rebellion with NATO-members’ full military, financial, and diplomatic support, attempts are being made to plea ignorance as to the true nature of the rebels. Listed below LIFG, is MEK, an Iraqi/Iranian group also being armed and supported by the US. (click on image to enlarge)

….


With the corporate media’s help, Belhaj/al-Hasidi and his men are being portrayed as reformed terrorists despite the fact that they are still LIFG fighters and LIFG itself is still listed as an international terrorist organization. And while many will applaud the corporate media for coming forward with this information, it should be noted that Pepe Escobar first broke this story on Russia Today, and the US and British propaganda outlets have merely been forced to address the growing public awareness of who these “pro-democracy” rebels really are and what role the US and British governments have had in betraying their people by providing material support for men who literally killed US and UK troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan over the 10 year “War on Terror.”

According to US Code Section 2339A & 2339B, the leaders of NATO, along with the US, UK, and French governments, are clearly guilty of providing a listed terrorist organization with material support in the most egregious, overt case since the code was written. The staggering scale of training, arming, and providing air support for Libyan Islamic Fighting Group militants, listed by the US State Department itself as a terrorist organization, all done criminally under the guise of “international law” rubber stamped by the contrived UN and bolstered with support from the equally contrived International Criminal Court, may be partially why more people are unable to understand the scope of criminality involved in NATO’s intervention in Libya.

A similar situation exists within Iran, where another terrorist organization, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) are being covertly armed and aided in fighting the Iranian government. US policy makers are fully aware that organizations like LIFG and MEK have US blood on their hands. In fact, their only concern is how using such organizations will appear publicly and how such perceptions might threaten their agendas. In the Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution report, “Which Path to Persia?” we can see clearly the thought process that goes on behind supporting terrorist organizations. Brookings’ only concern is how to remove MEK terrorists from the US State Department list (listed just below LIFG) so they can be supported more overtly in a Libyan-style military intervention.

“Potential Ethnic Proxies,” page 117-118 (page 130-131 of the PDF): “Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S. proxy is the NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), the political movement established by the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). Critics believe the group to be undemocratic and unpopular, and indeed anti-American.

In contrast, the group’s champions contend that the movement’s long-standing opposition to the Iranian regime and record of successful attacks on and intelligence-gathering operations against the regime make it worthy of U.S. support. They also argue that the group is no longer anti-American and question the merit of earlier accusations. Raymond Tanter, one of the group’s supporters in the United States, contends that the MEK and the NCRI are allies for regime change in Tehran and also act as a useful proxy for gathering intelligence. The MEK’s greatest intelligence coup was the provision of intelligence in 2002 that led to the discovery of a secret site in Iran for enriching uranium.

Despite its defenders’ claims, the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take America hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread.


Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MEK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001. At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations.”

….

US policy makers, working directly for Wall Street and London corporate-financier interests, clearly have no qualms over using or supporting terrorism, with perception management being their only concern. We see this diabolical methodology, precisely articulated in “Which Path to Persia?” now being executed across Libya verbatim. It looks as if there was not enough time to get LIFG off various international lists of terrorist organizations as Brookings had hoped to do with MEK, and instead a concerted effort by the corporate-media and NATO members is being made to downplay the reality that the US, British, French and Qatari governments are openly sponsoring terrorism. Look for similar narratives as seen in Libya to be used in both Syria and Iran - with militant terrorists portrayed as hapless protesters being oppressed by a brutal government, before a full-scale military insurrection followed by a US led military intervention.

Land Destroyer

As NATO Ends Libyan Bombing Campaign, Is the U.S. Seeking Greater Military Control of Africa?

November 9th, 2011

Radio Show Hosted by Amy Goodman

NATO ended its bombing campaign in Libya on Monday. Over the past seven months, NATO aircraft conducted more than 26,500 sorties, including 9,700 strike missions. NATO said it bombed 5,900 military targets inside the country. While NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen hailed the campaign as a success, many analysts say NATO’s intensive bombing campaign violated its U.N. mandate. “The role that NATO played in Libya has been a very, very problematic one, a very troubled one, and ultimately is going to have a very long-term, deleterious impact on Libya’s future,” says Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies. “The notion that the NATO bombings somehow was to do nothing but protect civilians is simply not the case.” Bennis says the Libyan revolution began as part of the Arab Spring, but the NATO intervention turned it into a “Western assault on another North African, Middle Eastern, Arab country.” She also expresses alarm over the rising U.S. military presence in Africa. “Despite efforts to claim that AFRICOM [U.S. Africa Command] is really about healthcare and AIDS education and women’s rights, to be carried out by the U.S. military, we have a very serious reality that Africa now provides more oil to the United States than the entire Middle East.” [includes rush transcript]

Guest:

  • Phyllis Bennis, fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. She’s written several books, including Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power and Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer.

AMY GOODMAN: NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen was in Tripoli yesterday to mark the end of the military seven-month campaign in Libya. Speaking to Al Jazeera English, he said the mission had been a great success.

SECRETARY GENERAL ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN: Our military assessment is very clear. A significant threat against civilian population doesn’t exist any longer. This is a reason why we can now bring Operation Unified Protector to a close. We have fulfilled the United Nations mandate. We have prevented a massacre on the Libyan people. We have saved countless lives. A great success.

AMY GOODMAN: Phyllis Bennis, with the Institute for Policy Studies, your assessment of NATO’s involvement in Libya and what it means for the rest of Africa?

PHYLLIS BENNIS: I think that the role that NATO played in Libya has been a very, very problematic one, a very troubled one, and ultimately is going to have a very long-term, deleterious impact on Libya’s future.

The notion that the NATO bombings somehow was to do nothing but protect civilians is simply not the case. In the last several weeks of the bombing campaign, it was actually escalating against the city of Sirte, which had been a longstanding—it was Gaddafi’s hometown. It included many people in the population who were supporters of Gaddafi, but by far not all of them. And yet, the bombing of that town had been ferocious. There were huge numbers of civilian casualties, many of them caused by the Libyan bombing. I don’t think we have anything close to accurate numbers yet. But the notion that the people of Sirte, the civilians of Sirte, were being protected is simply specious. It’s simply false. The civilians of Sirte were a target of NATO, not being protected by them. So that’s one example.

I think the broader question of the role of NATO was that by bringing in the U.S. and NATO forces, it transformed what had begun as part of the Arab Spring, the overthrowing of a dictator, in the context of the Arab Spring popping up all over the region, and turned that into a Western invasion, a Western assault on another North African, Middle Eastern, Arab country, also an African country, and leaving behind the absolute dependence militarily. You had NATO emerging essentially as the air force of the National Transitional Council, the NTC, that was the self-appointed leadership of the uprising. You have a situation now where the militias that fought against Gaddafi have made clear that they don’t believe the NTC speaks for them. They don’t believe the NTC is their legitimate leadership. They don’t feel accountable to them. So, you have a country that is thoroughly glutted with arms, without accountability, dependent in the past on a NATO-U.S. military presence and military action. And where it goes now is very unclear.

There have been statements by the earlier leadership that they would, quote, “remember” who their friends were, and they would make sure that they were treated well in a post-Gaddafi Libya. That was widely interpreted to mean that the countries that had provided military support to the anti-Gaddafi forces would gain a privileged position regarding Libyan oil contracts, etc. The irony, of course, here, Amy, is that this was not a war for oil in the classic sense, where there was a need to overthrow a dictator in order to claim the access to Libyan oil. Libyan oil was very much in the pockets of the NATO countries—Europe, the United States. Relations with Gaddafi were as friendly and chummy as could be—the pictures all over the world of Gaddafi arm in arm with presidents and kings and heads of state, most memorably perhaps with Condoleezza Rice, but also with President Bush, with President Obama, as recently as just weeks before the attacks, the NATO attacks, on Libya began.

So the future for Libya is going to be a very, very difficult one to reclaim some level of independence. The new leadership that is emerging, that includes both forces close to the U.S., close to the CIA for many years, as well as Islamist forces of a wide variety of sorts, as well as Libyan more secular forces that have wanted to challenge the political repression that characterized the Gaddafi regime, despite widespread well-being in terms of economic and social rights. So there’s a very complicated and, I think, very difficult place. Libya is going to be very vulnerable to Western pressure for a long time.

Further afield, further in the rest of Africa, you have a situation where the rising role of NATO looks very dangerous. We saw just in the last 24 hours or so, with Kenyan troops moving massively into Somalia, claiming to be going after the Shabab militia, but in the process, there were bombings, significant bombings, of a refugee camp with a number of people killed, dozens injured, not going after the militias, but going after the refugees, internally displaced Somalis who are fleeing the violence. There is now, we hear, a call from both Kenya and the government, such as it is, in Mogadishu that controls just part of the capital, really—no other part of the country—asking for NATO engagement again, asking for the U.S. and Europe, with NATO, to engage militarily. They’re asking first for a blockade of the port of Kismayo along the Somali coast, which is supposedly a place where there is great influence of the Shabab militia, which has carried out terrible atrocities against Somalis—there’s no doubt about that. But bringing in outside forces, bringing in more military forces, more men with guns, inevitably leads to more civilian casualties, not fewer. So the prospect of escalating the war in Somalia still further by bringing in NATO is a very bad example.

It’s an example, potentially, of the look of NATO expanding its own self-defined mandate from being initially to defend its own members—the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, it was called, of course. It was a Cold War creature. It was created by and during the Cold War to go after the Soviet Union. That’s what it was all about. With the end of the Cold War, instead of saying, “We’ve finished that job,” they have now expanded beyond that mandate, first to take up all the various questions and engagements and military involvement in Bosnia, in Kosovo, and now we’re seeing the involvement of NATO first in Libya and perhaps elsewhere in Africa.

You see at the same time, in parallel to a rising NATO role, you see the role of AFRICOM, the U.S. Africa Command, which, at least at the beginning of the NATO engagement, was in command of U.S. forces in NATO. And despite efforts to claim that AFRICOM is really about healthcare and AIDS education and women’s rights, to be carried out by the U.S. military, we have a very serious reality that Africa now provides more oil to the United States than the entire Middle East. So, the notion that this is somehow a humanitarian goal, which just coincidentally is going to be carried out by the U.S. military in the name of Africa Command, simply boggles the imagination. This is the expansion of U.S. military control of Africa. And we’re seeing, if we look at NATO as a whole and who are the powerful military forces within NATO, these are the former colonial powers in Africa. And I think that this is something that the African Union is going to be very much on guard against, and I think people across Africa are going to be seeing it that way.

We have a history where no African state, except for the president of Liberia, who just won the U.N.—sorry, who just won the Nobel Peace Prize this year—Ellen Johnson Sirleaf is the only African head of state who offered to host Africa Command. The Africa Command turned it down, because they believe that the situation in Liberia, the infrastructure, was not sufficient. But no other African country was prepared to welcome this U.S. military base on their soil. Whether that will change with the fall of Gaddafi, the emergence of a new government in Libya, presumably very dependent on, friendly towards the United States and NATO, whether Libya, for example, could emerge as a host of the Africa Command, remains to be seen. But it means a very dangerous period underway for Africa.

AMY GOODMAN: Phyllis Bennis, I want to thank you very much for being with us, fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Among her books, Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power. When we come back, we’ll take a look at Afghanistan. Stay with us.

Democracy Now, November 01, 2011

US Should Be Paying Bills, Not Funding Wars

November 9th, 2011


By Aaron Adams


November 03, 2011 “Global Times” — US President Barack Obama’s recent announcement of a withdrawal from Iraq, coupled with talk of serious cuts in the US defense budget, tempts observers to hope that the US may finally break its addiction to runaway defense spending and tackle its massive debt. Such hopes were dispelled by US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s recently concluded trip to East Asia.

Although he declared at the beginning of his weeklong trip that the US is “at a turning point after a decade of war,” he reaffirmed his commitment to policies that have overstretched the US military and saddled the country with a mountain of debt.

In his first trip to Asia as defense secretary, Panetta assured US allies that the US will continue a foreign policy based on maintaining dominance in every corner of the globe without regard to whether such a stance is fiscally sustainable.

The world needs reassurance of the US’ commitment to pay its bills, not more promises of American willingness to serve as a proxy military for wealthy allies.

America’s military presence in Japan is a classic example of how the US’ misplaced priorities undermine its own interests, with the US straining its own finances to subsidize the defense needs of one of its richest creditors.

Japan owns $900 billion in US treasury bills, making it second only to China in its holdings of US debt. One reason for such massive US borrowing is that America allocates 4 percent of its GDP to defense spending, dwarfing the 0.8 percent of GDP Japan spends on its military. Yet, instead of asking nations such as Japan and South Korea to take responsibility for their own defense, Panetta assured them that the US will not withdraw a single soldier from East Asia.

While Panetta’s stance is disappointing, it is not surprising. The compromise between Obama and the Republican-led Congress that ended the debt ceiling fight stipulated that $600 billion would be cut from the US defense budget if Congress could not find an alternative way to reduce the deficit. To stave off these cuts, Panetta and the US Department of Defense have attempted to weave elaborate tales of woe to stoke the US addiction to military spending. Panetta repeatedly warned that such cuts would result in a “hollowed out” military, while warning that China’s defense spending continues to increase. Panetta neglects to mention that, even if the cuts come to fruition, the US defense budget will still be many times larger than China’s.

If the US makes difficult cuts now and informs its wealthiest allies that they are responsible for their own national security, it can avoid the imperial overstretch that has doomed so many empires in the past. Such a move will also save the US from the awkwardness of borrowing more money from China for the purpose of engaging it in an arms race.

Panetta is fighting the wrong enemy. The US military budget exceeds that of all other great powers combined. The US could cut its defense budget in half and still have the world’s best-equipped military.

If the US ultimately falls from its perch as the world’s most powerful nation, it will not be because it failed to spend enough on its military, it will be, as was the case with the Soviet Union and the British Empire, because it could no longer pay its bills.

The author is a graduate of the University of Washington and a writer and lecturer on topics ranging from Chinese military affairs to business and financial issues. aaronadams128@yahoo.com

All You Can Eat: How Hungry is America?

October 13th, 2011


Author: Joel Berg

Publisher: Seven Stories Press
Web Page: http://www.sevenstories.com
Reviewed by: Paul Lappen

This book looks at the current state of hunger in America. Written by an anti-hunger activist, and former government official, it is not a pretty picture.

If food insecurity (the new euphemism for “hunger”) is such a huge problem, then why are there so many obese African-Americans? Doesn’t it show that they are getting more than enough food? What it really shows is that those whose food insecurity situation is bad, but not totally desperate, have to rely on cheaper high-calorie food that is full of chemicals and preservatives.

Why don’t inner-city residents buy more vegetables, even organic vegetables? Most inner-city neighborhoods don’t have a supermarket, so the people have to rely on convenience stores that will carry cheaper pre-processed foods, instead of organic vegetables. Also, if you are given a certain amount of money, and have to make it last an entire week, vegetables are rare, and expensive organic vegetables are simply not a possibility. Find out what your state gives food stamp recipients each week to live on, and see if you can do it.

Another problem for inner-city residents is that the various government programs are administered by different agencies, which physically are nowhere near each other. It requires taking time off work, or finding child care, and getting on several buses, in order to go through several different sets of bureaucratic nonsense.

Everyone knows someone who says they have seen a food stamp recipient buying lobster or caviar or something else very expensive with food stamps. That is highly unlikely, because the average inner-city recipient has no access to such items, and benefits are distributed on what look like regular debit cards, to reduce the stigma.

What to do? Among other things, the author advocates putting all hunger programs together into one giant program. He also advocates making free school breakfasts available for all children, to reduce the stigma for children, and making healthy food much more available in the inner city.

This book is a large eye-opener. It is full of practical solutions, and is very easy to read (even with the charts and graphs). It is very highly recommended.

Unions, Socialists Join Forces to “Occupy Wall Street”

October 13th, 2011

By Alex Newman

A growing number of unions, prominent big-government advocates, and socialist groups are joining the “Occupy Wall Street” demonstrations in New York and “solidarity” protests nationwide.

The trend has some analysts very concerned — particularly after reports claimed union bosses tied to the Obama administration were plotting to bring about chaos. And while the protests which began on September 17 may be small now, supporters and critics alike say this may be only the beginning of something much bigger.

In just the last week several large labor groups have officially announced their support for the occupation. The NYC Transit Workers Union, with nearly 40,000 members, voted to back the protesters on September 28. And the SEIU’s massive 32BJ union, which claims to represent over 120,000 property service workers, recently decided to use an upcoming rally to show “solidarity” with the Wall Street occupiers.

“The call went out over a month ago, before actually the occupancy of Wall Street took place,” 32BJ spokesman Kwame Patterson told the Huffington Post. But now “we’re all coming under one cause, even though we have our different initiatives.”

The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) union, with over 10,000 members, also endorsed the demonstrations this week. “This occupation on Wall Street calls into question the very foundation in which the capitalist system is based,” it said in a statement, claiming the protests were aiming to hold accountable the “oppressors.”

“Throughout the world, from Egypt to Greece, from China to Madison, Wisconsin, working class people are starting to rise up. The IWW welcomes this,” the group concluded in its endorsement. “We see the occupation of Wall Street as another step — no matter how large or small — in this process.”

According to news reports, more major unions are now considering jumping onboard as well. And powerful organizations backed by “Big Labor” — critics call them “front groups” — are also openly supporting the efforts.

“Their fight is our fight,” said Director Michael Kink of the union-backed Strong Economy for All Coalition. “They’ve chosen the right targets. We also want to see a society where folks other than the top one percent have a chance to say how things go.”

Kink‘s organization is backed by some of the most powerful unions in the country, including the SEIU, the AFL-CIO, the Communication Workers of America, several teachers’ unions, and labor groups representing government workers. According to its website the group fights for bigger government and higher taxes.

A broad coalition of socialists and Marxists has jumped on the bandwagon, too. The Socialist Party USA, for example, announced on its website that it “supports the mobilizations to occupy Wall St. in New York and various cities across the US and encourages our locals to take part in these actions.” The party, which aims to create a “new social order,” is even broadcasting a live online video feed from the protests.

Notorious anti-capitalist agitators have recently started to draw attention to the so-called occupation as well — busily touting it to anyone who will listen. Among the biggest names is “documentary-film” maker Michael Moore, who told CNN that the protests would soon spread across America.

The multi-millionaire even went to Wall Street in an effort to attract more media coverage for the occupation. “The people here have lit the spark,” Moore said during a video-taped interview from the protest site (below). “These numbers will grow and they’re going to grow all across the country.”


Moore told the interviewer he wanted to see increased taxes, a “democratic economic system,” and Wall Street bankers who he blames for the crisis thrown in jail. And even though he didn’t plan to camp out with the protesters, he promised to return often.

“African-American studies” Professor Cornel West, a self-described socialist and the honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, is another one of the big wigs who has joined the campaign. He called it a revolution.

“The elites will tremble in their boots,” he said, noting that Martin Luther King Jr. would smile from the grave. “Don’t be afraid to say revolution.” The crowd repeated each of West’s statements, as if in prayer, and cheered wildly following the short speech.

Openly communist propaganda venues such as the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) are also hyping the events. Even the Communist Party USA-affiliated newspaper People’s World praised the protesters’ signs “demanding curbs on Wall Street, demands for finance reform, job programs for youth, no cuts to Social Security,” and more.

“The Wall Street financiers are terribly afraid,” the publication claimed, saying more than 5,000 demonstrators were present at one point. “Youth taking to the streets to protest the deeds of this nation’s financiers constitutes a welcome addition to the big fightback going on in America today. Wall Street had better get used to it.”

Similarly, the communist dictatorship ruling mainland China used its propaganda organs to tout the demonstrations. Calling the alleged American press blackout “shameful,” China Daily Deputy Editor Chen Weihua blasted the so-called “mainstream media” for having “miserably failed” to provide adequate coverage of the thousand or so protesters.

“One US journalist said it was because these people are too left-leaning and do not seem to have a clear goal for their rally,” he wrote. “I am not sure if they are all left-leaning, but a schedule I saw did include sessions on the Communist Manifesto and Spanish Revolution. Still, that does not justify a blackout imposed by the major news media outlets on such a prolonged protest.”

The increasing support for the protests is prompting a mixture of concern and celebration among conservative and free-market-oriented activists. While critical of the unconstitutional alliance between bankers — or “banksters” — and the federal government, constitutionalists remain suspicious of the overwhelming anti-capitalist sentiment displayed by protesters and their supporters.

The objectives of the purportedly “leaderless” anti-Wall Street movement remain somewhat murky — probably on purpose, according to critics. One of the most frequently cited demands, however, is that the government curtail the free-speech rights of companies and organizations.

But in other areas, some conservative activists believe they have found common ground. Some of the websites and organizations associated with the occupation, for example, have even attacked the Federal Reserve, the banker bailouts, and various government wealth transfers to the elite.

“We demand that solutions be found that stop the Federal Reserve from stealing our future,” said a “tactical plan” released by one participating organization known as US Day of Rage. The group blasted “banksters and their minions” and “too big to fail” policies, among other targets.

But more than anything, the protesters and activists appear to be clamoring for bigger government and an end to what little remains of the free market. And according to several reports, the whole movement is actually being orchestrated by anti-capitalist union bosses and tax-funded “community organizers” connected to the Obama administration.

Two of the most prominent individuals alleged to be puling the strings behind the scenes  are disgraced ACORN founder and union boss Wade Rathke, and regular White House visitor Stephen Lerner of the SEIU. Both were caught earlier this year calling for massive protests, with a video surfacing earlier this year of Lerner scheming to bring down the stock market and destabilize the nation. Numerous analysts called the plots “economic terrorism.”

Despite initial fears among some conservative analysts that the demonstrations would lead to riots and violence from Los Angeles to New York and Boston, the protesters have remained relatively peaceful so far. However, reports of “police brutality” and scuffles with law enforcement continue to surface. And the movement is apparently attracting more supporters every day.

:::::

Source: The New American

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9214-unions-socialists-join-forces-to-occupy-wall-street

Libya: NATO Provides the Bombs; The French “Left” Provides the Ideology

October 13th, 2011



by Pierre Lévy

Last April, former Le Monde diplomatique director Ignacio Ramonet published (in Mémoire des Luttes) a text entitled “Libya, the Just and the Unjust.” The war had been started a few weeks earlier, inaugurated by French aircraft which had the honor of dropping the first bombs on Tripoli.  On March 19, “a wave of pride swept through the Elysée palace,” Le Monde reported.  At the time, experts and commentators had no doubt that within a few days or a few weeks at the very most the country would be rid of the “tyrant,” thanks to the anticipated popular uprising, facilitated by the aerial nudge from the coalition, aglow in the sage aura of Bernard-Henri Lévy.

To be sure, in his text Ignacio Ramonet took his distance from NATO.  He nevertheless stated from the very outset: “The Libyan insurgents deserve the help of all democrats.”  God be praised, certain democrats were not stingy with their help: in five months, more than 15,000 airstrikes delivered several thousand tons of bombs, not to mention the latest generation of missiles, special forces on the ground in the form of instructors — a gift prohibited in principle, but love is blind.  Only the result counted: Total victory.

The pun is easy but unavoidable, especially since Libération published the letter in which the National Transitional Council (NTC) promised to grant 35% of concessions to the French petroleum giant Total “in exchange” (the term used) for French military engagement (a document which naturally triggered a hasty denial from the Quai d’Orsay).  The fight for freedom is such a noble cause.  The author nevertheless concluded his article by taking note of “the strong odor of petroleum hanging over the whole business.”

Indeed.  But nevertheless, his approach was no different from that of all the Western leaders and media.  In particular, he accepted the analysis of the Libyan uprising as an active part of the “Arab spring.”  Lumping events together in that way disregards the reality of each separate nation.  And in this case it is even the opposite of the truth.

In Tunisia and then in Egypt, popular movements, which certainly were not identical, did share some important points in common.  In terms of domestic policy, the mobilization saw the convergence of the working classes with what are called the “middle classes” in a movement whose social demands were inseparable from democratic objectives; in each of those two countries, the workers’ struggles and strikes of recent years — harshly repressed — constituted an essential background for the development of the movement, all in a context of mass poverty.

In terms of foreign policy, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak were unquestionably puppets of the West, of which they were always an integral part, geopolitically, economically, and ideologically.

The Libyan situation was altogether different.  In social terms, to start with, the country was by far the most advanced in Africa according to the Human Development Index (HDI).  In that regard it is striking to consult the statistics provided by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), whether concerning life expectancy (74.5 years — before the war, that is), the eradication of illiteracy, the status of women, or access to health care and to education.  The standard of living and social protection were very substantially subsidized.  There is no need to belong to the Moammer Kadhafi fan club to recall these facts.

Moreover, by his history, Kadhafi can scarcely be put in the same category as his two former neighbors.  Indeed, Ignacio Ramonet correctly observes that around 2000 he did spur a gradual rapprochement with Western leaders, who ended up rolling out the red carpet for him, business being business.  However, they never considered him “one of the family”; he was always too unpredictable, and above all he never abandoned the “Third Worldist” tone of his discourse, particularly within the African Union in which he played a very special role.

Still, the privatizations and liberalizations undertaken in recent years did not fail to impact on class relations.  A certain category of the population got rich, sometimes very much so, while adopting liberal ideology.  Precisely some of those to whom the “Guide” entrusted the “modernization” of the country and privileged contacts with international high finance (and its university connections, notably in the United States) came around to the idea that, in this context, the historic leader was more of an obstacle than an asset for the completion of the process.  Part of the middle classes and well-to-do youth, especially in Benghazi for historic reasons, therefore constituted a social base for the rebellion — a rebellion which was armed from the start, not made up of peaceful crowds.

The countless reports and interviews with the “anti-Kadhafi” youth are enlightening.  Le Monde cited those well-to-do young women who shouted “no milk for our children, but arms for our brothers.”  A slogan which would probably have astonished the Egyptian demonstrators . . . and which in any case illustrates the absurdity of lumping these events together.

In short, the absence of social demands and even the presence of a demand for “more economic freedom”; (not systematic but nevertheless frequent and now louder) calls for a stricter application of “Islamic law”; NTC leaders closely linked to the Western business world or even trained there; and a movement which was only able to win thanks to NATO bombing — all that is not exactly what is known as a revolution.  Symbolically, the “new” Libyan flag is the old banner of King Idris the First, overthrown in 1969.  At this point the term that comes to mind would rather be a counter-revolution.

On that hypothesis — if only as a proposal for debate — then things look a bit different.  Of course that doesn’t mean that the insurgents who want to liquidate Moammer Kadhafi are all Western agents; many are surely sincere.  But so were many Chouans during the Vendée wars.  Many of them were massacred nonetheless — sometimes blindly but necessarily in order to save the young revolution.

And when it comes to “massacres,” the protégés of the Allied Powers don’t seem to need many lessons, to say the least.  That applies in particular to the veritable pogroms that took place — and may still be going on — against civilians with black skin.  Presented as “regrettable errors” by Western media when they couldn’t be totally ignored, they seem to have been much more widespread than what we have been shown.  Above all, they indicate a class racism, since, whether Libyans or immigrants, blacks make up the main ranks of what could be called in broad terms the working class, not exactly in the good graces of the insurgents, least of all in Cyrenaica.

In any case, the “protection of civilians” is not only a high point of hypocrisy on the part of Western leaders.  Above all it constitutes the pretext for intervention, absolutely contrary to the founding principle of the United Nations Charter: the sovereignty and equality before the law of each State.

It is this eminently progressive principle that Cuban, Venezuelan, and many other Latin American leaders rightly defend, to the chagrin of Ramonet.  The latter thus denounces their “huge historic error” in refusing to take the side of the rebels.  On the contrary, by adopting that position, they are making the greatest contribution imaginable to the social and political emancipation of peoples.  It is true that, when it comes to the idea of intervention, those Latin American leaders have been inoculated against it by the historic solicitude of the Yankees for their southern neighbors.

Caracas, Havana, and others are accused by Ramonet of practicing a Realpolitik by which States act according to their interests.  Thank goodness!  For the interest of Venezuela, Cuba, and other Latin American States (most particularly the progressive ones) is indeed to defend themselves against the “legalization” of intervention whose only aim is to justify imperialist powers minding other people’s business.

Ignacio Ramonet praises UN Resolution 1973 which authorized the use of force against Tripoli.  He sees an extra dose of legitimacy for that text in the prior approval by the Arab League.  Strange way of looking at things: that organization, whose submission to Western leaders is no secret, had not up to then made a name for itself by its active devotion to the freedom of peoples (and of the Palestinian people in particular).  Dominated by big players as progressive as Saudi Arabia, it is an indisputable point of reference when it comes to promoting democracy. . .

Ramonet adds that “the Muslim powers that were hesitant at first, such as Turkey, came around to taking part in the operation.”  Are we to understand that a Muslim power has a special legitimacy to bless the flight of Rafale and Mirage fighter-bombers?  That should make the Kurds happy.

Finally, to finish telling off Chavez, Castro, or Correa, Ramonet recalls that “many Latin American leaders had rightly denounced the passivity or complicity of the great Western democracies regarding the violations committed against civilian populations between 1970 and 1990 by military dictatorships in Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay.”

Let us recall what the author knows as well as anyone else: as for “passivity” or “complicity” of the “Western democracies,” in reality it was at their direct instigation, and with their active cooperation, that the bloody coups were carried out.  But even so, nobody ever heard that at the time the democrats of those countries called for air raids on Santiago or commando raids on Buenos Aires.  It is by themselves — and never from the outside — that peoples gain their freedom.

Beyond the case of Libya, that is the point, the most essential, which deserves to be discussed among all those who adhere to the right of peoples to decide their own destiny — what used to be called anti-imperialism.

Used to be?  In fact, it was so up until the fall of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact opened the way to the reconquest of the entire planet by capitalism, its dominations and its imperial rivalries.  And that left no other choice to countries except to align themselves with the canons of “human rights,” the “rule of law,” and the “market economy” — three terms which have become synonymous — or else find themselves under fire from the cannons of the planetary policemen shamelessly calling themselves the “international community.”

By the way, an interesting scene took place in Brussels on the occasion of the European summit last March 24 and 25.  It was nearly one o’clock in the morning.  The French president rolled into the pressroom.  Questioned as to the bombing raids begun five days before, he rejoiced: “It’s a historic moment (. . .) what is happening in Libya is creating jurisprudence (. . .) it is a major turning point in the foreign policy of France, Europe, and the world.”

In reality, Nicolas Sarkozy revealed there what is probably the least visible but the most significant objective of this war.  That very morning, the special advisor of the UN Secretary General also described as “historic” the resolution putting into practice the “responsibility to protect” for the first time since the adoption of that fearsome principle in 2005.  Edward Luck added: “Perhaps our attack against Kadhafi (sic!) is a warning to other regimes.”

Granted, when it comes to armed intervention against a sovereign State, the so-called “international community” is no beginner.  But it is the first time that the UN Security Council explicitly gave the green light, and that its secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, played an active role in unleashing hostilities.  The full implications of such a situation need to be weighed: the brutal challenge to the sovereignty of States has been legalized — even if not legitimatized.  The dominant planetary oligarchies, whose final horizon is “world governance” without borders, have thereby scored a major point: interventionism (”preventive” at that, according to Mr. Luck) can henceforth be the rule.

This conception, which explicitly contradicts the United Nations Charter, is a time bomb: it undermines the very foundations on which it was written and could mean a veritable return to barbarism in international relations.

For the uncompromising defense of the principle of non-intervention does not stem from some narrow, archaic, fundamentalist cult, but primarily from a basic principle: it is up to each people alone to make the choices that condition its future.  Otherwise, the very notion of politics loses its meaning — whatever dramatic paths it must sometimes face.

It is the exactly the same with intervention as with torture.  In principle, civilized people are against its use — but someone can always be found to insist that “in extreme cases” one should be able to make an exception (”to avoid murderous attacks” was what they said during the Algerian “events”; to “avoid the massacre of civilians” is the justification today at the Elysée and elsewhere).  Now, evidence shows that, once one exception is granted, soon ten, then a hundred, will be allowed, for the sordid debate has been accepted that weighs the suffering inflicted on a tortured person against what may be gained from it, always presented in humanistic terms.  It is the same thing with respect for sovereignty: a single exception leads to eradication of the rule.  There is no — not any! — circumstance that justifies intervention.  Suppose that Nicolas Sarkozy pursued a policy totally contrary to the interests of his country and his people (absurd hypothesis, of course) — that would in no way justify Libyan — or Bengali, or Ghanaian — aircraft dive-bombing the Champs Elysées.

And what is one to make of the statement that “The European Union has a specific responsibility.  Not only military.  It must think of the next stage of consolidation of the new democracies which emerge from such a nearby region”?  One can’t help noticing that Ramonet echoes word for word the ambitions displayed by Brussels.  Leave aside the “not only military” which indicates, if words mean anything, that the EU would have grounds to intervene militarily as well.  But this “specific responsibility” which European leaders constantly claim to possess, who gave it to them?  A “benevolence” naturally attributed to a great power and its neighborhood?  Such is precisely the description of an empire, albeit in gestation.

It is hard to avoid thinking of the speech given in Strasbourg by the current president of the Republic in January 2007, when he was, while campaigning, seeking to confirm his commitment as a “convinced European.”  On that occasion, he glorified “the shattered dream of Charlemagne and of the Holy Roman Empire, the Crusades, the great schism between Eastern and Western Christianity, the fallen glory of Louis XIV and Napoleon. . .”  Thereupon continued Nicolas Sarkozy: “Europe is today the only force capable of carrying forward a project of civilization.”  He went on to conclude: “I want to be the president of a France which will bring the Mediterranean into the process of its reunification (sic!) after twelve centuries of division and painful conflicts (. . .).  America and China have already begun the conquest of Africa.  How long will Europe wait to build the Africa of tomorrow?  While Europe hesitates, others advance.”

Not wanting to be left behind, Dominique Strauss-Kahn around the same time expressed his desire for a Europe stretching “from the cold ice of the Arctic in the North to the hot sands of the Sahara in the South (. . .) and that Europe, I believe, if it continues to exist, will have reconstituted the Mediterranean as an internal sea, and will have reconquered the space that the Romans, or Napoleon more recently, attempted to consolidate.”  And by the way, the highest distinction bestowed by the EU was baptized the “Charlemagne Prize” — a hint as to what European integration was from its origins and has never ceased to be: a project necessarily and essentially imperial and ultra-free-market.

The point then is not whether or not Colonel Kadhafi is an innocent choir boy exclusively concerned with the happiness of peoples, but rather what tomorrow’s world will be like: the free choice of each people deciding its future, or the acceptance of intervention as the norm, no doubt dressed up as “human rights”?

For there is one obvious truth that should never be forgotten: intervention has never been, and will never be, anything other than the intervention of the strong in the affairs of the weak.  The respect for sovereignty in international relations is what the equal vote is to citizenship: certainly no absolute guarantee, far from it, but a substantial asset against the law of the jungle.  The latter is what could very well take over the world stage.  If all that seems too abstract, let us come back to the recent history of Libya.  After years of being subjected to embargo and treated as a pariah, Colonel Kadhafi undertook the rapprochement mentioned above with the West, which notably took the form in December 2003 of an official renunciation of any nuclear arms program in exchange for guarantees of non-aggression promised specifically by Washington.  Eight years later, there is no getting around the fact that that commitment lasted only up until the day when they felt they now had reasons to trample it under foot.  Suddenly, in the four corners of the earth everyone can measure the worth of the word given by the powerful and just how much they value the commitments they have made.  The leaders of the DPRK (North Korea) thus publicly congratulated themselves for not having given in to pressure to abandon their nuclear program.  They were right.  It would be logical to draw the obvious conclusions in Teheran, in Caracas, in Minsk, and it many other capitals.  It would be perfectly legitimate.

Barely a few months before Libya, there was Ivory Coast — another point of pride for Sarkozy; already the UN Security Council gave its blessing to gunboat diplomacy, on the sole pretext of allegations of electoral irregularities — a first!

And already the Westerners are polishing up their (military and ideological) weapons for their next adventures.  Thus Paddy Ashdown, who notably spent four years as EU High Representative in Bosnia-Herzegovina, confided to the Times that from now on we should adopt and get used to the “Libyan model” of intervention, in contrast to the “Iraqi model” of massive invasion, which showed its inadequacies.

For his part, the NATO Secretary General made a plea on September 5 for the Europeans to pool better their military means in this period of budgetary restriction.  For Anders Fogh Rasmussen, “as Libya proved, we can’t know where the next crisis will come, but it will come.”  At least that much is clear.

That being the case, does it really make any sense to analyze the Syrian crisis as the uprising of a people against the “tyrant” Bashar al-Assad?  On the contrary, one may be forgiven for thinking that he is just the next on the hit list of Western governments.  In that case, is there really nothing more urgent to do, even in terms of the cause of emancipation of peoples, than to align oneself with the latter, even unintentionally?

As for the positions taken by Ignacio Ramonet, one will not insult him by assimilating him to the “left” which has long since given up the memory of struggles.  But one is obliged to note that in this case he finds himself swept along with the latter which unhesitatingly chose its side in the Libyan affair.

That once again illustrates the sad paradox of our era: the forces of globalized capitalism and reinvigorated imperialism henceforth draw their essential ideological ammunition from “the left” — from “human rights” to immigration, from ecology to globalism (which is the exact opposite of internationalism). But that is another debate.

Or is it?


Pierre Lévy is a French journalist.  He is a former editor of L’Humanité (1996-2001) and former member of CGT-Métallurgie.  He is now the editor of Le Nouveau Bastille-République-Nations.  The original article “Contre la banalisation et la normalisation de l’ingérence” was first published by Le Grand Soir on 28 September 2011.  Translation by Diana Johnstone.

Source: MRzine, Monthly Review

URL: http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/levy051011.html