Reflexive Racism in Israel and America
Monday, March 7, 2005 08:57 p.m.
When attempting to justify thirty years of oppressive occupation in the West Bank and Gaza, Israel’s advocates often attempt to portray Israel as being victimized by hostile Arabs who seek nothing but the destruction of the state of Israel. This grossly inaccurate narrative of the situation attempts to engender and exploit a reflexive racism that is present in the west; that is, the assumption that all members of a racial group, in this case Arabs, intrinsically hate another group, in this case Jews and westerners. Nothing could be further from the truth, but Israel’s sympathizers have used this notion to manipulate public opinion in Israel and America in favor of Israel and its occupation which is otherwise unjustifiable.
Anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment has been rampant throughout much of the western world since September 11th. It has particularly effective in inspiring racism in a ‘post-racial society’ because it has been constructed to appeal to those espousing liberal values, as it portrays Muslims and Arabs as intolerant, oppressive, misogynistic, racist, undemocratic, and religious extremists. This image of Arabs easily inspires hatred among liberal democrats in the west who value tolerance, freedom, gender and racial equality, democracy, and secularism.
There are some fringe elements in Arabic societies who do indeed fit the stereotypical western image, but there prominence is extremely exaggerated. The most oppressive and undemocratic societies are by far those of American allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, and Jordan. It is no coincidence that the most repressive regimes in the region are American allies, for the US to maintain economic control over a countries resources, its government must necessarily be undemocratic and oppressive in order to crush any popular movements to take control of the country and its resources.
This general anti-Arab sentiment has been harnessed by the Zionist movement in order to portray the criminal perpetrator as the victim. America experienced on September 11th what Israel has been dealing with for thirty years, the fury of barbaric, irrational, and hateful Muslim extremist; there is no difference essential between Yasser Arafat and Osama bin Laden, there is no essential difference between those involved in the intifada and those involved in terrorist organizations Al Qaeda, all Arabs are the same in their hatred of everything western and of freedom and democracy, thus goes their narrative.
Several historical incidents are used to validate this assertion. The Palestinians have on several been offered a state alongside a Jewish state, and in every case, they rejected the offer; is this not proof that they have no desire for a two state solution, but will not settle at anything but the absolute destruction of Israel? The standard argument states that since the very birth of the modern Israel, the state has been under attack because of what it is and who its people are, just as terrorists attacked the US because they hate what America is and the ideals stands for; it is never considered in mainstream discourse that perhaps there are political motives for the violence, many of which may be legitimate.
As the pro-Israel narrative explains the situation, the Arab states invaded Israel in 1948 because of pure hatred for Jews, not because the UN partition plan allocated 55% of Palestine to 30% of the population who owned only 6 or 7% of the land. The Camp David peace talks in 2000 did fall apart because of a failure to compromise on both sides on key issues such as the state of Jerusalem, the refugee problem, and the military rights of a potential Palestinian state; Yasser Arafat deliberately sabotaged negotiations because he had no interest in a Palestinian state but wanted to crush Israel forever.
According to the Israeli narrative, all Arabs and in particular Palestinians are intrinsically hateful people who are not capable of living peacefully. No one should ever make the mistake of depicting another group as essentially hateful; this is terrible thing that can be said about a person or a group of people.
The Israeli narrative is obviously inaccurate and based on a mixture of legitimate paranoia and cynical posturing to depict the oppressor as the victim in the eyes of the world. While Jews have historical reason to fear those who wish to annihilate them, it is quite clear that in this situation, Palestinians seek only a homeland, like the Jews did during the early 20th century, and not violence or destruction. All of Israel’s Arab neighbors have recognized it, with the exception of Syria, which has agreed to recognize Israel upon the return of the Golan Heights. Neither do the Palestinians wish to destroy Israel; a poll taken recently by PCPO found that 57% of those surveyed favored an end to the use of violence in the intifada. Would a similar poll in the US or Israel have found that nearly 3/5ths of the population was opposed to the use of violence against Arabs? This number is incredibly high, when the situation of those living in the occupied territories is taken into perspective.
Unfortunately, there are some on both sides that are openly and vehemently racist, and while racism can never be justified, it can at least be understood, given that both sides have suffered atrocities during the conflict. This racism will never cease to exist as long as a peaceful agreement is not met that satisfies the legitimate concerns of people on both sides.
|
If current trends continue, 90 million Africans will contract HIV
Friday, March 4, 2005 06:30 p.m.
In a recently released report, the UN has warned that if more is not done to combat the pandemic, up to 90 million new cases of HIV could appear in Africa during the next twenty years. At the present time, 25 million Africans are HIV positive. The report recommends an international campaign against HIV and up to 5 billion dollars in investments to Africa to build infrastructure to be used to help contain the spread of the disease. The UN estimates that a more active campaign against HIV could save 16 million contractors from dying from the disease and another 43 million from becoming infected with the disease at all. The report states that if millions of Africans are infected, “it will no be because there was no choice.”
The developed world has thus far been criminally negligent to the AIDS pandemic, as people in Africa and other underdeveloped countries are by far the most affected. In his State of the Union address in 2003, George Bush’s promised 10 billion to fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean, only 3.6 billion of which has been budgeted. Compare this meager donation to the amount of money allotted to Washington’s killing machine; the Pentagon will receive 1.7 billion dollars for 2005, not including the billions of dollars being spent daily in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is only one word that can truly describe the misery that will be felt in Africa if there is no significant change: holocaust. The specter of a death toll far more monstrous than any ever seen before is looming ominously in the near future, threatening what may be the worst tragedy in human history. It is outrageous that AIDS research is not being funded completely. Despite the fact that much of the turmoil and lack of infrastructure that has allowed AIDS to spread in Africa is due to European Imperialism during the 19th and early 20th centuries, the west has not taken the needed initiative to fight the disease.
Various church leaders and abstinence advocates have also committed the atrocity of preventing the distribution of condoms and accurate information about sex and AIDS in Africa. One despicable action was taken by a leader of the Catholic Church who visited Africa and instructed Christians there not to use condoms. Actions such as these are nothing short of terrorist. The world also must work together to build and completely fund an information campaign in Africa that would dispel myths about AIDS so that infection does not become anymore widespread, and not turn its back on this potential tragedy of unspeakable magnitude.
|
Israel freezes handover of West Bank cities to Palestinians
Sunday, February 27, 2005 11:32 p.m.
Following a suicide attack at a night club in Tel Aviv in which four Israelis were killed, Israel announced that it would freeze its plans to hand over control of five Palestinian cities in the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority, which it had promised to do after February 8th. This attack was the first major attack since the PA and Israel have agreed to return to the ‘peace process.’ Sixty-seven Palestinian civilians were killed in January alone and at least eight so far in February. Since the last suicide attack on November first, 170 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military.
Israel continues to refuse compromise on any significant issue, thus perpetuating a violent conflict that has killed thousands on each side and has had repercussions throughout the world. Since the ‘peace process’ resumed, the Palestinian Authority has gone to great lengths to comply with every demand made by Israel and the US; the PA has drafted a police force to guard Israeli settlers in the occupied territories, while Palestinian citizens have no armed group to protect them from harassment and violence. While Palestine has clamped down on militants (preventing a major attack until the most recent bombing in Tel Aviv), Israel has continued to construct the apartheid wall which cuts into the West Bank, cutting off 274,000 Palestinians from the rest of the West Bank, and limiting their right to travel outside the barrier. The International Court of Justice has claimed that the wall constitutes a ‘defacto annexation’ and ordered that Israel immediately tear down the wall and compensate Palestinians affected by the barrier. Indeed, the continued construction of the wall and the continued construction of settlements seems to be aimed at creating a situation where it is impossible for a Palestinian state to come into existence. Israel also continues to construct settlements and continue to seize land in the West Bank.
Israel obviously has no intention of settling on an agreement, as it has made demands of Palestine that are impossible to meet. When these demands are not met, Israel can blame the Palestinians for the failure of the ‘peace process’ and can continue in their campaign to annex the West Bank.
For there to be a lasting peace of any sort, Israel must be willing to truly make important concessions to the Palestinians, for one, all Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine must be dismantled, the wall must be dismantled, and Palestine must become a sovereign state. Other concessions must be made, including, perhaps, economic compensation for its policies that have devastated the Palestinian economy, forcing 31% of the population to work for less than a day. Israel must take the initiative to end the occupation and secure a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab nations surrounding it. If they insist on perpetuating the brutal military occupation of Palestine, thousands of innocent Arabs and Jews will die because of it.
|
Operation Ajax and America’s Ugly History in Iran
Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:36 p.m.
As the Bush administration begins to build its case for war by disseminating propaganda about the nature of the theocracy in Iran, its abuse of human rights, and its opposition to democracy, it is highly unlikely that there will be any discussion of Iran before the Revolution of 1979. This is because, like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein (both of whom received funding from the US government whilst waging wars against enemies of the US) the theocracy in Iran would never have come to power had it not been for actions taken by the US.
The Iranian Revolution was a direct reaction against the US supported regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Reza Pahlavi replaced his father in 1941, shortly before his 22nd birthday, when his father was forced to abdicate by the British due to his close ties to Nazi Germany. The Shah was an egregious and corrupt tyrant, a major human rights violator, and a beloved ally of the United States, who sent him a steady supply of arm shipments and financial support. He imprisoned hundreds of political activists, enforced strict censorship laws, and frequently assassinated political dissidents. His economic policies created an enormous gap between the wealthy and the poor in Iran. He operated his own secret police force (known as SAVAK), co-founded by the CIA, which was and given unlimited power to arrest, torture, place under surveillance, and assassinate Iranians, especially members of dissenting political organizations.
It is interesting to compare these crimes committed by the Shah to those of the current Iranian regime as reported by Amnesty International. The crimes are nearly indistinguishable from each other.
“Scores of political prisoners, including prisoners of conscience, continued to serve sentences imposed in previous years following unfair trials. Scores more were arrested in 2003, often arbitrarily and many following student demonstrations. At least a dozen political prisoners arrested during the year were detained without charge, trial or regular access to their families and lawyers. Judicial authorities curtailed freedoms of expression, opinion and association, including of ethnic minorities; scores of publications were closed, Internet sites were filtered and journalists were imprisoned. At least one detainee died in custody, reportedly after being beaten. During the year the pattern of harassment of political prisoners’ family members re-emerged. At least 108 executions were carried out, including of long-term political prisoners and frequently in public. At least four prisoners were sentenced to death by stoning while at least 197 people were sentenced to be flogged and 11 were sentenced to amputation of fingers and limbs. The true numbers may have been considerably higher.”
The fact that the US government supported a dictator whose crimes are so similar in nature to those committed by the regime presently in power (one of the two remaining members on Bush’s ‘Axis of Evil’) should be enough evidence of the cynical nature of Bush’s crusade for democracy in Iran. If the Bush Administration decides to invade, it will build its case on ‘replacing tyranny with democracy;’ however, an important fact will never enter mainstream debate on the issue is the fact that just over half a century ago, the US did the exact opposite and replaced a democratically elected government with a tyranny.
The time of greatest prospect for an Iranian democracy was in 1951 with the election of a new prime minister by the Iranian parliament, Mohammed Mossadegh. Mossadegh was popular among the people, and passed key reforms such as the abolition of the centuries-old feudal agriculture system. However, he faced staunch opposition from the US and Britain when he enforced the Oil Nationalization Act, putting the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (worth hundreds of millions of dollars) under public control. At that time, Iran only gained 16% of the profit from the oil, with the British receiving the rest of the profit. The British and the Americans felt threatened not only because The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was the largest British company at that time but also because they feared the global spread of nationalism that encouraged the autonomous political and economic rule in the third world might put first world interests in danger.
The British and the Americans agreed that Mossadegh was a threat, and when Mossadegh’s political base proved to be too powerful for their initial political intimidation, they decided to orchestrate a covert coup, codenamed Operation Ajax, to reinstate the Shah. Politicians, journalists, and religious leaders were bribed and enlisted to spread propaganda denouncing Mossadegh as a communist. When an attempt to have Mossadegh arrested by bribed military officials failed, the American officials hired Iranians who were to claim to be pro-Mossadegh and also communist and then start a riot in the streets in which mosques would be defaced and stores would be looted. This event severely hurt Mossadegh’s reputation and legitimacy. Mossadegh was finally captured and arrested after a gun battle in front of his home that killed 100 people. The Shah was returned to power and his violent regime resumed control.
In 1979, 26 years after Iran’s brief experience with democracy, a revolution finally began against the Shah. In the early stages of the revolution, a vast array of social and political groups collaborated in an attempt to overthrow the Shah, including members of the middle class, small businessmen, liberals, secularists, Marxists, anarchists, and a various religious groups. On Sept 8, when a massive protest broke out in Iran, the Shah launched a military attack on the protesters, killing hundreds. At this point, the Shah’s army began to defect, and the Shia cleric and leading member of the religious opposition Ayatollah Khomeini began to gain widespread public support. The group of Shiite religious leaders seized control of the country, and has held it until today.
There would be no theocracy in Iran today if it had not been for the US’ actions, which fostered great feelings of (legitimate) anti-Americanism throughout the Middle East and demonstrated the US’ opposition to democracy in the region. Had the Iranian people been given control over their own affairs, they would never have become a ‘failed state’ and a hot bed for religious extremists. It is because they were brutally oppressed by the Shah that they reacted so violently and such radical views took hold among portions of the population, although certainly not all of it. The US created the situation in Iran that allowed for a fundamentalist regime, and whether or not it wants to claim ownership, the Iranian theocracy is indeed America’s creation.
Operation Ajax led to a new era of American intervention and imperialism. It was the first time they had fought against a democratically elected government solely to advance their interests and the first time they had covertly sponsored a coup. The repercussions of Operation Ajax have been felt throughout the Middle East. It became a template of sorts to be used in future acts of regime change to dispose of leaders who threatened American interests. The year following the coup in Iran, the US staged a similar coup in Guatemala against a democratic leader, again accusing him of communist leanings, and again because US (fruit) interests were threatened. Since that time, the US has engaged in similar military actions on countless other occasions.
Iran under the Shah also became a model example for the US as a Middle Eastern leader: pro-American and authoritarian and brutal enough to crush a populace that is largely opposed to American dominance in the region. Saudi Arabia is an excellent example of such a country. The US has been the main impediment to human rights and democracy in the Middle East throughout the last 50 years by supporting such atrocious regimes as the one in Turkey, who has committed two acts of near genocide (the Armenians and the Kurds), Israel, Pakistan, the Taliban, Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran wars, and the aforementioned royals of Saudi Arabia. Now Bush and the neoconservatives are proclaiming their allegiance to democracy in the region, and intent on conquering countries to force them to accept it. Even if their motive was legitimate rather than cynical, it makes no sense to attempt to destroy the negative repercussions of an imperialistic military policy by employing that exact same system. This same logic would recommend taking a medicine to combat its own ill side-effects brought on by a previous usage. A democratic and autonomous Middle East must be fought for, but Bush’s charade should fool no one, the US is still inhibiting democracy and human rights by supporting atrocious regimes of elites in the Middle East who are willing to do business with the US, and mercilessly invading those who won’t.
Resources
http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/irn-summary-eng
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/25/1534210&mode=thread&tid=47
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
|
Iran’s threat to US hegemony in the Middle East
Friday, February 18, 2005 11:44 p.m.
A military conflict between the United States and Iran seems to be inevitable. Iran may at some point in the near future present a major threat to US dominance in the Middle East. Rather than redefining its foreign policy and being forced to limit its hegemony, the US government will almost certainly attempt to destroy the threat and conquer Iran if it is given the chance.
In order to understand the impending conflict in Iran, it is important to understand the US foreign policy in general. The US foreign policy has been primarily focused on achieving two goals, often simultaneously. Of course a major goal has been the expansion of the American economic, political, and military empire. In the past, the US has been concerned mostly with controlling resources and economic markets, often invading third world countries whose policies were opposed to capitalist globalization, justifying this imperialism as ‘humanitarian intervention,’ and then installing a pro-American puppet government. Invading Iran is certainly a top priority for the militant globalists in Washington.
However, the US has also needed to contain potential military, economic, or political rivals who might become too powerful or threatening US dominance. These actions can be understood as an attempt to maintain and perpetuate an empire, and to protect the unipolar world that has existed since the demise of the Soviet Union. In the future, as the US largely accomplishes the first goal by bringing all geopolitically important areas under its rule, the focus of US foreign policy will shift from expanding the empire to protecting the global status quo.
A major aspect of the maintenance of America’s global status has been the campaign to ensure that no state with policies adverse to the US obtains nuclear weapons that could be used to keep US hegemony in check. Not surprisingly, the two states left in the ‘Axis of Evil’ (North Korea and Iran) are the two states opposed to the US that potentially could create nuclear weapons (India and China, while not strictly ruled by the American Global System, are far too powerful to be directly confronted). The Non-Proliferation Treaty, which could have been a major victory in the cause for world peace, has instead been abused by the United States too ensure that a peer nation never arises and is never allowed to threaten American dominance.
Iran is certainly a strategically important country, with nearly 89.7 billion barrels of oil in its reserves, which are larger than any other country outside the globalized economy. However, aside from the oil, the Bush administration may be compelled to attack Iran because of its nuclear developments.
There is still no conclusive evidence of any kind that Iran has nuclear weapons. By suggesting that Iran’s nuclear program (which Iran claims is to be used for peaceful purposes) is an attempt to build nuclear weapons, Bush certainly may be merely attempting to play the WMD card a second time. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is apparently convinced that Iran’s nuclear program is not meant to be used to build weapons. “The latest steps on Iran's behalf persuade us that Iran has no intention of building an atomic weapon. Consequently, we will continue to cooperate with Iran in all fields, including in nuclear energy.” [1] Iran voluntarily subjected itself to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspections, which found only minor violations of protocol.
The Bush Administration continues to claim, however, that Iran is proliferating nuclear weapons and is not complying with inspectors. To say that this assertion is only an imperialistic attempt to manipulate world opinion in favor of a war is, in my opinion, not understanding the multiple facets of the American empire. Certainly, that is part of the administration’s strategy, but they are also genuinely concerned (and were genuinely concerned in the case of Iraq) about the prospect of another nuclear power in the Middle East.
If Iran were to develop nuclear weapons, it would force the US and Israel to take much less aggressive roles in the region. Currently, the only nuclear power in the Middle East is Israel, giving the United States the freedom to act with impunity, as it has on countless occasions, causing much political turmoil and humanitarian crisis in pursuit of their geopolitical interests.
If a leading Islamic nation were to develop nuclear weapons, the concept of MAD (mutually assured destruction) could be reintroduced into the global conflict between the west and Islam. It would be inconceivable for Iran to use nuclear weapons against the largest super power in the world or its greatest ally, Israel; doing this would mean almost certain annihilation for Iran or any other country. However, if MAD were reintroduced into this conflict, it would reinstate a much needed degree of balance, and America’s hawks would be forced to be slightly more cautious and less coercive throughout the entire Middle East.
Can the US conceivably prepare to attack Iran, after losing a war in Iraq that damaged it both economically and militarily? According to some Seymour Hersh, the US may already be engaged in covert military actions in Iran, and if not, people within the government are at least considering the possibility of attacking Iran. “In my interviews, I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran. “Everyone is saying, ‘You can’t be serious about targeting Iran. Look at Iraq,’” the former intelligence official told me. “But they say, ‘We’ve got some lessons learned—not militarily, but how we did it politically.”” says Hersh [2].
Another option, possibly more viable, would be to allow Israel to preemptively attack Iran. Both Cheney and Bush have publicly said that they would support such an action. “One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked, that if, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," said Cheney [3]. “Israel is our ally, and in that we've made a very strong commitment to support Israel, we will support Israel if her security is threatened," Bush added more recently [4]. Such an attack could unleash another far more deadly Arab-Israeli war and would escalate the situation to a new, unprecedented level of havoc.
The Bush Administration is not attempting to hide the fact that they want to attack Iran at some time during the next four years, presumably before Iran gets a chance to develop nuclear weapons that would restrict American action in the Middle East. Iran seems to take this threat seriously; they recently signed a mutual defense pact with Syria, a country that has also been receiving a good deal of criticism from the US since the death of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri (who had called for a withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon). Ostensibly, the pact was an attempt to form a united front in case of an attack by the US on either country. The announcement came shortly after an unidentified aircraft fired a missile in the province of Bushehr, the site of Iran’s nuclear power plant.
The devastating campaign against threats to the American global dynasty will continue, and, barring a diplomatic miracle, Bush will attempt to bring ‘regime change’ to Tehran (and, possibly also to Damascus) sometime in the next four years. The situation has thus far not deviated from the situation two years ago at all; Bush is portraying a villainous Muslim enemy with a horrendous human rights record and ties terrorism that is trying to get hold of deadly WMD. After seeing these exact same histrionics only two years before, perhaps the world will be ready and take a stand before Bush can concoct another murderous war.
[1] http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5102E175-CBBA-4BCD-B7F7-8D184367E0C2.htm
[2] http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact
[3] http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=4644
[4] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/18/wiran18.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/02/18/ixnewstop.html
|
Democracy under Occupation
Sunday, February 13, 2005 01:55 p.m.
More than two weeks after the citizens of Iraq voted for the first time in 50 years, election officials have announced that the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance won nearly half of the 8.5 million votes cast. The Shiites, the majority in Iraq and a group long oppressed by Saddam Hussein’s Sunni regime, will have substantial power in government and will hold about 48% of the seats on the Transitional National Assembly. The Kurdish alliance won about a quarter of the votes cast, with Iyad Allawi, the interim Prime Minister and his US-backed secular list winning only 12% of the vote. The Sunni Arabs, who make up around 35% of the population in Iraq, preformed abysmally in the election, with their largest list led by the country's interim president Ghazi al-Yawer, a Sunni Arab, winning less than 2%. Few Sunnis participated in the vote, either because of violent conditions in many Sunni strongholds or because of boycotts organized by prominent Sunni leaders. Because the Sunnis did not participate in the election, many of them will not view the results or the Assembly as legitimate. 58% of eligible voters participated in the election, which is unsurprising, as Dahr Jamail reports that most voters thought that by voting they could help end the occupation.
Of the three occupied votes that have been held since the start of 2004 (in Afghanistan, Palestine, and Iraq), this is the first election where the candidate backed by the occupying force has not won a substantial majority. The fact that Allawi did not win in a landslide, unlike US endorsed Hamid Karzai who won with 60% of the vote in Afghanistan and Mahmoud Abbas who won with 62% of the Palestinian vote despite being overwhelmingly supported by politicians in the US and Israel suggests that perhaps this election was more legitimate than the Palestinian election, in which Abbas’ leading opponent (political prisoner Marwan Barghouti) voluntarily dropped out of the election, and the Afghanistan election which became a farce due to fraudulent activates that were so widespread all fifteen of Karzai’s opponents launched a protest against the results of the election.
While the results of the Iraq election do not appear to have favored the US puppet candidate, there is no possibility of the Transitional National Assembly becoming autonomous and making decisions that the US disapproves of while Iraq is still under military occupation. If the Assembly peruses any policy that is even slightly democratic and in defiance of US interests, the US will undoubtedly destroy the assembly or at least threaten it into submission. If the US was interested in the creation of a democratic society in Iraq it would withdraw the greatest obstacle to democracy in Iraq: American soldiers. But after spending billions of dollars on a war, there is no way the US will let something as insignificant as the will of the people stand in the way of its plunder. These elections were not held by the US in the hope of creating a democratic society in Iraq, they were held to save the reputation of ‘humanitarian intervention’ as an imperialistic ideology.
The struggle for autonomy and democracy in Iraq will not take place in the ballot box, but rather, it will be fought against foreign occupiers who wish to force Iraq and its people into a submissive state under a neocolonialist regime in which all of Iraq’s resources will be drained from under its feet into the coffers and safes of first world war profiteers. There is no greater democratic struggle than the struggle against a military, economic, and political occupation, such as the one Iraq is currently dominated by.
In reality, it is largely irrelevant who is elected to the Transitional National Assembly, the Iraqi people will never gain control of their country by voting in a US sponsored poll. The people of Iraq will only become autonomous when the US occupation is ended.
|
Neocolonialism versus Democracy in Iraq
Sunday, January 30, 2005 05:41 p.m.
To any sober observer, Bush’s attempt to spread ‘democracy’ through conquest is bizarre and illogical; by very definition, democracy cannot be imposed upon a people, and the fact that Bush claims to be doing this should in itself raise questions about Bush’s crusade for democracy in Iraq.
To better understand the prospect of democracy in Iraq, it is important first to understand what neocolonialists such as Bush truly mean when they use the term ‘democracy.’ In ‘The World in 2005,’ a booklet published by The Economist magazine (a defender of imperialism if there ever was one), an article entitled ‘The winds of change in Latin America’ discusses the “emerging battle between liberal democracy and populism” as a key conflict in Latin America.
This is Orwellian language at its best; only an extremely powerful and authoritarian system could turn synonyms into antonyms in such a short period of time. Obviously, what the Economist is talking about is the emerging battle between neo-liberalism and populism, that is, the battle between American corporations and the indigenous populations of South American countries for control of the natural resources of developing nations.
A similar battle between the Iraqi people and US government and corporations for control of the Iraqi government (and therefore its resources) begins today as Iraqi voters go to the polls. And the US will make sure that the ‘democracy’ it’s bringing to Iraq (to save the reputation of ‘humanitarian intervention’ as a foreign policy, not to let the Iraqi people rule their country) doesn’t turn into autonomous populism- which it almost certainly would in free democratic elections- at all costs. After spending billions of dollars on a war, there is no way the US will let something as paltry as the will of the people stand in the way of its plunder. If an elected government starts to oppose the US military (and corporate) occupation or attempts to gain control over its own resources, there is no doubt that it will be destroyed.
It is still unclear whether these elections were legitimate or not, many groups did boycott the election, and it is unlikely that all ethnic groups had equal access to the polls; but even if it was legitimate and the US let the people speak in this election, there are still many obstacles to the creation of a truly democratic society in Iraq. If history is any indication, Iraq’s democracy will probably be short lived, surviving just long enough to save the reputation of ‘humanitarian intervention’, and then it will be replaced be replaced by a brutal dictator willing to do business with the US. Or perhaps the country will simply degenerate into an ethnic civil war and all the Halliburton employees will have to pack their bags and leave.
However, there is still a small possibility of the Iraqi populace to taking control of the government and the events in their country, and if this happens, the US Left should stand in strong solidarity with them. If the people of Iraq were able to overcome the devastation of their country by American troops and actually move towards a democratic society, it would be a major victory for the world and for our ideals: peace, justice, liberty, and equality. If democracy does survive in Iraq, however, it will be in spite of, not because of, Bush and the antidemocratic American occupation.
|
Imperial Narratives
Monday, January 24, 2005 08:30 p.m.
Imperial Narratives
Creationism, Fundamentalism, and Chauvinism
It is interesting, when analyzing the capitalist culture in America, to note the rampant Christian fundamentalism that still survives as a remnant of feudal times and is still a highly potent social force. That an irrational practice like religion can not only coexist but collaborate with capitalism, a theory born of the enlightenment that thrives on logic and instrumental reason, is somewhat curious; especially when religion (due to the dawn of a consolidated mass media and cripplingly powerful corporations) is no longer necessary to be used a propaganda tool or as a means to control the masses.
Yet, even in an otherwise rationalized society, these vestiges of the past remain a powerful component to our society. The 2004 election, according to popular myth, was decided by “moral values” voters (the fact that the exit polls showed 20% voting on moral values is not nearly as telling, to me, as the fact that nearly 40% of the country believed that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda during the majority of the campaign). The Christian Right is also continuing to make its voice heard in the classroom, and I’m sure all of you have heard about the case in Georgia in which stickers denouncing evolution were to be put on the back of science text books, a full 80 years after the “Monkey Trail,” the famous battle between creationists and evolutionists about what was to be taught in the classroom.
What purpose does believing in creationism serve, and, as I have jokingly asked friends, if evolution is true, why haven’t creationists gone extinct? At first glance, there doesn’t appear that the ruling powers would have any interest in its constituency believing in creationism.
However, as a narrative about human existence, the myth of creation complements the ruling ideas and values brilliantly. Whereas the theory of evolution views human beings who have developed by chance due to complex biological interactions, who are no different than any other animal and certainly not superior; creation tells the story of God’s chosen ones, created in his own image, special, free to plunder and rape and pillage the earth and all those who are not God’s own. Once a society is in this mindset, that one group is chosen and one group is to be exploited by the chosen, it follows that the “chosen” group will get smaller and smaller as time progresses; it is easy to go from saying that only homo sapiens are God’s chosen group to saying that only rich, white, Protestant, heterosexual, male Americans are God’s chosen group.
Without creationist ideas defining our cultural outlook, on what grounds could our society deem itself superior to other societies? Because we were God’s chosen ones, we felt we were justified in committing genocide against the Native Americans, enslaving Africans, or bombing Hiroshima; because we were God’s chosen ones, we feel no grief or guilt towards laborers who work in sweatshops for a dollar and fifteen cents a day because of our neo-liberal policies. If creationism were to ever lose influence and were not replaced by a similar narrative, would the populace really allow such policies to continue? In a way, creationism serves the same function as the concept of reincarnation serves in Buddhist and Hindu societies; if one assumes that God is playing an active role in the world and has created it to his liking, or if one assumes that all humans are living out a karma which they have brought upon themselves, there is no need to be compassionate to anyone.
And many on the right feel that, since God is actively controlling the world, there is no need to be compassionate, if tragedy should befall anyone (except a white, male, heterosexual American), then it must have been God’s will and there is no need to attempt to help them. It is therefore a fundamental misconception for anyone to think that people on the right care about tortured Iraqi prisoners, starving children on the costal regions of Sri Lanka, or 150,000 dead Sudanese. Most people on the left take it for granted that most Americans will feel some compassion towards the victims of the US’ atrocities, but a great many of our fundamentalist citizens couldn’t care less. These people see nothing wrong with murdering Arabs to control oil, after all, God made that oil and those Iraqis for our purposes.
Therefore, the fight against creationism is not merely the fight against an annoying remnant of the past, but rather, a fight against the very narrative that justifies a brutal empire in the mind of so much of its population, the exact same narrative from which the concept of ‘Manifest Destiny’ was begat in the beginning.
|
Activism Proposal: Take back the farms
Monday, December 20, 2004 10:50 p.m.
This year, Bush received millions of votes from impoverished voters living in rural areas who voted directly against their class interests because of religious ideology. It is disgusting that Bush will have power during the next four years to peruse policies that will be to the detriment to these people who voted for him, the agricultural and rural conservative base.
These people are heavily indoctrinated by the Religious Right, but there is hope of awakening these people so that they can resist the power that is controlling and oppressing them. Places such as Kansas, Oklahoma, Montana, Nebraska, and other areas in the heartland that are now staunchly conservative used to beacons of radical and even socialistic agricultural movements (Woodie Guthrie, for instance). The Radical voice has been eradicated from the farms in rural areas in the US.
I would be interested in helping to bring the radical voice and vision back to people whose economic interest we represen. Perhaps the best way to do this would be to start independent medias, newspapers particularly, in these areas to cater to this oppressed community and to spread radical ideas, specifically as they pertain to the rural and agricultural communities’ own interests. I would be interested in starting a newspaper of this sort in small town West Texas, where much of the population is agricultural and very poor. Perhaps an organization could be formed on the internet to serve as a database of news and commentary as it pertains to agricultural community, which could be drawn to be used in local publications. If anyone is interested in helping out, please
|
Report on Disenfranchisement and Voter Suppression in 2004
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1301 Friday, December 10, 2004 08:23 p.m.
The Election Protection Coalition delivered a preliminarily report on December 6 regarding the widespread disenfranchisement and suppression in this year’s election that prevented votes from being counted and thus denied a political voice to countless American citizens. Election Protection is a nonpartisan group that is dedicated to ensuring that people all over America are allowed to have their voices heard and their concerns taken seriously regardless of their race, language, socio-economic class, gender, or disability. This election day, they organized an impressive campaign that recruited and managed more than 25,000 volunteers, including more than 8,000 lawyers and law students, in over 3,500 precincts. In these precincts, volunteers drove voters to the correct polling location, fought to keep intimidating persons in polling locations, and distributed more than five million pieces of literature that included a state-specific Voters’ Bills of Rights.
Over 39,000 reports of election abuse that were registered in the Election Incident Reporting System (EIRS), a database that recorded voter complaints on Election Day, have already been reviewed; but thousands have yet to be processed. “The idea that the election ran smoothly, the idea that the problems we saw in 2000 did not recur in 2004, is simply a crock. Too many people faced too many barriers to the ballot box, from impossibly long lines to outright voter intimidation and misinformation. It’s time to shatter the myth and work toward an election system that is more fair and more reliable for every American,” said Ralph G. Neas, President, People For the American Way Foundation.
The report documents widespread and disturbing infringements on the rights of suffrage, particularly in minority and low-income areas. There were several alarming nation-wide trends that may have robbed citizens of their vote. All over the US, errors were made by election officials in the counting absentee ballots and aggressive partisan “poll monitors” were present in the polling location, challenged the legitimacy of individual voters, and forced them to cast provisional ballots (thousands of which were left uncounted by election officials). In addition, partisan groups distributed misinformation to minority and low-income communities about the election, such as giving voters an incorrect voting date or incorrect polling locations. Voters in Wisconsin and in other areas voters were sent fliers that told them:
1) “If you already voted in any election this year, you can’t vote in the Presidential Election.”
2) “If anybody in your family has ever been found guilty of anything you can’t vote in the Presidential Election.”
3) “If you violate any of these laws, you can get 10 years in prison and your children will be taken away from you.”
The EIRS also received more than 1000 complaints about voter suppression or intimidation, thousands of complaints from voters concerned that the paperless electronic voting machines had tallied their vote incorrectly, and more than 10,000 complaints about registration problems (for instance, voters who registered were not on the voting rolls at their polling place). Hispanics reported being harassed by election officials and forced to verify citizenship with a picture ID by a man who appeared to be armed in Arizona before they were allowed to vote. There were also cases in which people with poor English skills were denied proper ballots and directions in their language, which is a direct violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Some voters complained of waiting as long as ten hours to vote in urban areas with few voting stations.
The Election Protection Coalition is in the process of forming an agenda to reform elections in America. Their preliminary recommendations for national reform include passing legislation that would require voter verified audit trials to certify all new voting systems and also fully fund the Help America Vote Act (an act passed in 2002 to ensure that the election problems in Florida were not repeated). They hope to increase the support for voter education programs as well.
They will also draft an agenda to call for reform in the local, county, and state election procedures. This plan will most likely recommend legislation to ensure that voting machines are distributed and accessible on Election Day in minority and low-income areas, that states have an accurate and centralized voter registration list, and that anti-intimidation laws are strengthened and enforced.
A comprehensive report will be released by Election Protection in 2005 incorporating all data gathered through the EIRS, as well as an analyses by statistical and social science professionals on the obstacles in the voting process. Election Protection continues to build its agenda to reform elections to ensure that elections in the future will be decided by the will of the people and not by illegal tactics designed to suppress votes.
|
New Ukraine Election
Sunday, December 5, 2004 11:14 a.m.
It’s now official; the Ukrainian Supreme Court is more honest than the US’. The court ruled that the November 21st election was invalid and ordered that a new election take place. A date for the new poll has yet to be declared, but it’s likely that it will be sometime later this month. Yushchenko will have quite a bit of momentum going into the poll, after overturning a corrupt vote after his supporters spent over two weeks in the streets protesting the fraud. The election is far from over, but a new election clearly favors the pro-democracy, economically liberal, antiwar opposition candidate, Yushchenko.
|
Putin’s Imperialism and the Stolen Ukrainian Election
Saturday, December 4, 2004 10:40 p.m.
Vladimir Putin is in many ways more villainous than George W. Bush. Putin is a former KGB officer who retains the brutal authoritarianism of Communist Russia and is a loyal servant to the Russian elite as well as one of the strongest supported of Bush’s war on terror and the war in Iraq. He is the reason that there will continue to be horrible violence in Chechnya; he was unwilling to allow Chechnya’s oil (up to 70,000 barrels a month) go and thus he has fought diligently against Chechnya’s bid for gain independence despite the will of many Chechens. Thus, even after the bloody school siege in by Islamic militants as well as two plane bombs, the violence in Chechnya will continue in the name of Putin’s imperialism and the 70,000 barrels.
Putin may be about to lose control of the Ukraine, however. One of Putin’s stronger allies was Ukraine’s retiring President Kuchma; they often cooperated on matters of geopolitics and economy, including making a deal on building a pipeline through Russia to transport oil through Ukrainian to Europe to sell, indeed, there are many crucial pipelines going through Ukraine. The Ukraine is a country of 50 million people and its GPD is 218 billion dollars, which is why Putin is fighting to keep his influence on Ukraine. Russia’s elite clearly benefit from Ukraine’s closeness to Moscow and has an economic interest in having a pro-Moscow government in Ukraine, and Putin obviously is not interested in losing influence in Ukraine.
Then came the Ukrainian Election; a choice between Victor Yanukovich (endorsed by Putin and President Kuchma, whose stellar record allegedly includes taking part in political assassinations and making illegal weapon deals with Iraq) and a pro-Moscow, authoritative, and regressive policy; or Victor Yushchenko, who ran on a platform of ending government corruption, fighting poverty with liberal economics, and growing closer to Europe (and perhaps joining the EU).
The vote was quite obviously stolen. The government announced the final tally to be a victory for Yanukovich by a 3 point margin. International election monitors have claimed the results to be unfair and corrupt and it is obvious that there has been massive fraudulent. Complaints include the abuse of state resources for partisan reasons and an ‘overt bias’ from the state funded media. There have also been complaints about voter intimidation, extra votes, and mysterious votes, and ballots ‘open to tampering.’ Some districts in East Ukraine (Yanukovich stronghold) reported a ridiculous 95% voter turnout.
A final verdict has not been declared as of yet, but Yushchenko supporters are still staging massive protests in the streets and fighting to ensure that their democratically elected Prime Minister gains power. Putin has congratulated Yanukovich on his ‘victory,’ obviously unconcerned with the integrity of the election.
The stakes of this election in Ukraine, Russia, and Europe are obvious. This election was clearly a choice between a liberalized and more European Ukraine or an oppressive, authoritative, and corrupt Ukraine loyal to Putin and Russia. This is apparent in the voting map; the map was split exactly down the center with the East going for Yanukovich and the West for Yushchenko. A victory for Yushchenko would mean more liberty and economic justice for a country that has long been under the oppressive governments of the tsarist Russia, the USSR, and now Putin’s Russia. It would also be a start in ending corruption, support of oligarchy, and of Putin’s influence. Putin appears bent on turning Russia back into a totalitarian country and one less country that has to endure his autocratic regime is obviously significant.
However, the stolen election in Ukraine is also part of a global trend. Putin’s open campaigning for Yanukovich and endorsement of the stolen election displays the same imperialistic disregard for the sovereignty of governing bodies that has been apparent in the US Foreign Policy for years, even democratically elected ones. The Bush Administration can condemn the results of these actions when they aren’t profiting from them, but the principles of suppressing the voice of the people for economic reasons is obviously something Bush is familiar with.
The Left’s reaction thus far has been appalling, take for instance this article posted on ZNet (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=74&ItemID=6746 ) sympathizes with Yanukovich and accuses the US of ‘interfering’ with the elections, downplays the obvious fraud (caught on video and witnessed by international independent monitors), and downplays the fact that Yanukovich is an oppressive oligarch. Obviously, the west has a vested interest in seeing the Ukraine move closer to Europe, but it wasn’t the west who stole the election, and it isn’t the west that supports the elitist. No one is pretending that Yushchenko is a radical or a revolutionary, but he could do quite a bit to end the consolidation of money and power in Ukraine, and this would surely be a step forward for the people. If the left truly values human rights, liberty, equality, and democracy rather than simply antagonizing America, it would surely side with the Ukrainian majority.
|
Fault lines in the Republican Party
Saturday, December 4, 2004 10:36 p.m.
On Election Day 2004, the Republican Party achieved a major victory, gaining seats in both houses of Congress, and re-electing their president to serve four more years and to appoint up to three new members to an already Republican Supreme Court. In the exit polls, Bush supporters overwhelmingly agreed that there was one major reason that Bush should still be president despite a quagmire in Iraq, a never ending ‘war on terror,’ and an economy in shambles, this reason was of course ‘moral values.’ Bush’s ‘moral values’ are based on two issues: he is pro-life, and he supports a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriages. Many lower class Americans, especially Catholic Hispanics, voted directly against their economic interests because of these ‘values’ that are championed by the religious right. The Christian Right, after putting Bush back into office after the most expensive campaign in history, will demand results. Bush can’t allow Roe v. Wade to stand, when he controls all three branches of government, without losing the support of the religious right. Similarly, they will demand more than a symbolic attempt to ban homosexual marriage.
But Bush and the GOP can’t realistically accomplish either goal. Even if they have the power in government to do so, which no doubt they do, the majority of Americans still think that think abortions should be legal in some cases (according to “Polling Report,” 61% of Americans believe that Roe v Wade ought to be upheld. While that is disturbingly low, it is still a clear majority and the GOP could not win a democratic election if they overturned Roe v Wade.) Also, moderate Republicans such as Arlen Specter are pro-choice and will not allow the Bush administration to fully outlaw abortion. Bush does still cannot conceivably amend the constitution to ban gay marriage, as he would need 3/4 of the state governments to ratify the amendment, and it would have to pass both houses of congress with a 2/3 majority. Even with the strong conservative hold on all branches of government, either action is inconceivable.
However, the religious right’s hatred of abortion and homosexuals are deep seated, and they’re not about to allow their greatest chance perhaps ever to repeal Roe v Wade and ban gay marriage go by. To understand a growing far-right movement that feels the Republican Party has become too ‘secular,’ I refer you to the website of Michael Peroutka, the Constitutional Candidate for President, at www.godfamilyrepublic.com (Incidentally, his party has nothing to do with the Constitution). Peroutka’s platform was very simple and basic, according to his advertisement he would repeal Roe v Wade, deport all foreign immigrants, abolish the IRS and all gun control laws, leave the UN, and illegalize gay marriage. Oddly enough, and despite the Confederate flag on the homepage, Peroutka’s campaign was not racist against blacks, indeed, on the homepage is an anecdote of Lance Elliott Griffin, a ‘Young Black Man And Former Bush Campaign Worker’ who felt abandoned by the vast liberalism that had invaded the Republican Party and decided to join the Peroutka campaign. The Black Commentator, a pro-black magazine, has a word for such African Americans: ‘mercenaries.’
Peroutka has an article on his homepage called “President Bush Sticks It To Conservatives Again.” The article bemoans President Bush’s appointment of ‘Guantanamo’ Gonzales, the man who called the Geneva Convention ‘obsolete’ and has encouraged Bush to use torture tactics in the War on Terror, because he is pro-choice and thus far too liberal.
This is where the fault line in the GOP lays: the pro-business corporate wing and the imperialistic neo-cons will not be willing to let Bush take an action that will be so disastrous for their party and their interests, and the social conservatives will not continue to support Bush and the GOP if they don’t see action taken. Right now the corporate imperialist agenda is built upon a mandate engineered by the religious extremists and upon the votes of a religious lower class who is continually hurt economically by right wing policy. The GOP cannot continue to win election after election on a phantom-issue; they have got to deliver to what has turned out to be their base, but their base’s agenda is s! till far from mainstream and it could potentially destroy the Republican Party to act based on the wishes of the evangelicals (20% of the electorate.) Either way, Bush stands to lose a major portion of electorate, to the Constitutional Party or some other fascist party if he fails to act on the religious right’s prodding, or to the Democrats or Libertarians if he acts against the interests of a democratic majority.
|
Activism proposal: Antimedia
Monday, November 8, 2004 06:53 p.m.
The problem of the corporate media structure has been well documented. These private corporations have an immense control on the public mind and often serve as propaganda systems for corporations and the government, yet very few people question the information they provide. Weakening the mainstream media empire in American is perhaps the most important priority of the left right now, as people who are controlled cannot bring about change.
Something must be done to weaken this propaganda system. Alternative media sources such as Z magazine and Indy media offer an excellent non-corporate viewpoint, however, people who believe the American media are not likely to go out seeking an alternative view. I propose a campaign to raise awareness about the corporate media system and how it has made information a commodity to be bought and sold and tampered with. A campaign such as this could be done easily and cheaply, simply by presenting the ideas with empirical evidence backing them in pamphlets or letters, and the campaign could also suggest alternative media systems such as Indy media, Z magazine, the BBC, C-SPAN, etc.
|
Election Analysis
Sunday, November 7, 2004 09:50 p.m.
Americans voted in favor of another four years of a reckless and imperialistic foreign policy which has killed tens of thousands and has made the world more dangerous, four more years of an economic policy which has been disastrous for the lower class while benefiting the richest Americans, four more years of a president who has bitterly divided the nation and the world, four more years of an administration that has acted on intolerant social and religious ideas to limit abortion rights and the rights of homosexuals, four more years of a president who is allowing corporations to destroy the environment, four more years of an increasingly authoritarian and has curtailed political rights of its citizens needlessly. This party will be in control of America for four years; the ramifications and consequences are obvious.
The fact that Bush can win after such a horrendous term is frightening. With the state of the nation as it is, an economy in shambles, a inept and imperialistic foreign that has caused the death of hundreds of thousands, an astronomical debt, etc., it is difficult to believe that Bush even had a chance to win, let alone win 51% of the vote. Perhaps the exit polls offer an explanation for the vote. While Kerry supporters said that the most important issues to them were Iraq, the economy, jobs, etc., Bush supporters overwhelmingly stated values, character, and moral values as the issues important to them. In other words, the most important issues to Bush supporters were not even policy issues at all! The Bush campaign recognized that they could not win if the election was about real world issues, as his administration has been incompetent and downright malevolent, thus they shifted their attention to abstractions that motivated the religious right but were irrelevant to the future of America. The campaign tactics worked with the average Americans. They classified Kerry’s nuanced opinions as baseless and outright lied about his military record, but these attacks made their mark, as some polls conducted shortly before the election showed that people believed Bush had a better military record than Kerry! Bush’s campaign was aided by two allies with extreme control on people’s mind to his advantage: the right wing churches of America and the media. Many poorer Americans voted against their economic interests because of social issues such as abortion. If the Democrats could not win this election even after such a horrendous presidency, it is difficult to believe that the Democratic policy as it is will ever be able to win another election.
|
New Osama bin Laden video
Sunday, November 7, 2004 09:47 p.m.
Al-Jazeera broadcast a new tape of Osama bin Laden on Friday October 29. In the video, bin Laden talked about what America needs to do to ensure that further attacks will not occur in the future. "The reasons are still there to repeat what happened," bin Laden said. He also stated that he first was inspired to attack America by the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. This was the first time he had truly admitted to planning the 9/11 attacks.
Bin Laden's statements could redefine the way Americans and the world look at terrorism and how America attempts to combat the problem. Bush has claimed that the reason terrorists attack the United States is because 'they hate our freedom.' Bin Laden says that it is because of the US's imperialistic foreign policy that he attacked America, also saying that he and his followers 'will not attack countries that leave them alone.' If the US is persuaded to engage in a less aggressive war against terrorist forces, it could save many lives and influence the world for the better. Obviously, this tape will have an effect on the election, but it is still not known which side will benefit. The fact that bin Laden is alive and willing to attack the US again ought to make Bush's war on terror look like a failure, but some voters may be repulsed by the fact that many of bin Laden's arguments are similar to arguments made by people on the left.
The new bin Laden tape testifies to the fact that Bush's war on terrorism is not working: bin Laden is still alive and none of the initial grievances that caused bin Laden to attack the US on 9/11 have changed, the American people are as or less safe now than they were pre-9/11, even after so many Americans and civilians have died in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. The American people will recognize that Bush's war on terrorism is by design a perpetual war, while Kerry will remove the threat to the US and at the same time end the US's role in creating an environment in the Middle East that breeds terrorism.
|
More comedy in Iraq: Saddam to Declare Candidacy for Iraqi Elections
Sunday, October 24, 2004 12:43 a.m.
Just when everyone thought the situation in Iraq had reached its peak of hilarity, the situation took a turn of comedic genius. Saddam Hussein, the ousted dictator, announced that he would be running for President of Iraq in the upcoming US sponsored elections.
Shockingly, 42 percent of the Iraqi people supported his election bid, according to a Gallop poll, and this could easily be a majority if multiple opponents run against him. It would be a stroke of ironic and comedic genius if Saddam were to be elected after Bush invaded partly to free the Iraqi people from a ‘tyrant’ and create a ‘free and democratic’ Iraq.
There are two situations that would be unprecedented in irony--- the election of Saddam and the total debunking of all neo-con ‘ideals’ that have been guiding the US Foreign policy, or, the more likely alternative, the first democratic election in Iraq being rigged by the US to ensure that the former situation doesn’t take place. Either situation would be extremely delicious to those dissenters who have a craving for irony, such as myself, and either situation could be disastrous for Cheney & Co.
Yet another irony drenched speculation--- what if Bush stole another election, losing the popular vote and sustaining power through some tyrannical move, and Saddam actually won the popular vote? What if Saddam has a sense of humor, and decides to build a case for war against the US--- claiming that Iraq wants to restore democracy in the US, and disarm us of our WMDs? That would force the neo-cons (who support nation building when Halliburton gets the check) to look introspectively at their hollow ideals. The situations are delightfully endless.
Iraq and democracy will never be compatible--their culture is so strongly rooted in dogmatic hierarchy—and anyone who claims that this system can be superimposed is living in a utopian world. Their culture will progress, no doubt, but the country can never be ruled by outside ideas and outside standards. When a society is still as unequal as the society in Iraq, there is no way it can be politically equal. So, the rise of another dictator is to be, regretfully, expected. Wouldn’t it be interesting if it were Saddam?
Oh, the irony.
|
Free speech on the line in this election
Saturday, October 16, 2004 11:37 p.m.
Posted in response to this article:
Debate and Campaign Reflections by Paul Street
I feel wholeheartedly that the left must do everything possible to defeat Bush, regardless of Kerry’s similarities. Defeating Bush is a small step to be sure, but it is a step in the right direction; a vote for Nader this year at best will have no effect, and at worst, if Bush gets reelected because of Nader’s votes, will be a huge step back. I am a strong supporter of the third party movement, but under the current system of corporate controlled democracy: exclusive debates, a corporate media manipulating the public mind, a ‘winner take all’ electoral system, very little can be achieved realistically. The impact of a vote for Kerry in a key swing state will be far greater than the impact of a vote for Nader or Cobb as far as furthering the goals of social justice, liberty, and equality.
Bush’s fear mongering, war manufacturing, and suppression of free speech are becoming increasingly Orwellian and it is clear that our current system is only steps away from totalitarianism. Would you really allow yourself to indirectly vote into a totalitarian system? Regardless of the faults of American society today, most of our constitutional liberties are yet intact, we have the right to dissent, the right to free expression, etc. As it was before Bush, our government was not perfect but we had the right to try and change it. The Patriot Act, the manufactured Iraqi war, and the free speech cages: these are clearly preludes to totalitarianism, and another term would only strengthen the powers of corporate and government oppression that have increased dramatically during Bush’s reign. A vote for Kerry is one small step forward, but, as the libertarians say, utopia is not an option in this election. I encourage all leftists to get actively involved in getting Kerry elected.
|
In response to Zeroing in on Sudan by Mike Whitney
Monday, October 11, 2004 06:14 p.m.
Zeroing in on Sudan
Regarding the situation in Sudan, be it genocide or simply a humanitarian
catastrophe, why is the Left more concerned about insuring that American
businessmen do not profit off of foreign oil than it is about a civil war were
50,000 people have died, millions have become refugees, and it’s “about to get
quite a bit worse” (according to the BBC, which is not simply a propaganda piece
for the American government and has been reporting the situation in Sudan since
before the US government even recognized a conflict)? Perhaps the only way to
end the mass murder in Sudan is to harness imperialistic desires, but the fact
is, a state sponsored Arab militia is going through and murdering entire towns
of Black Africans, once again, more than 50,000 have been killed to date, and
their oil is hardly bettering their situation.
It is puzzling that many of those on the far Left seem to have no problem with
foreign people’s killing each other in mass numbers but are quick to point out
any crime or hypocrisy in the US’ foreign policy. A dead Sudanese family is a
dead Sudanese family, whether they were murdered by the janjaweed militia as part of a
campaign against Black Africans (one could easily construe these campaigns as
imperialistic themselves, obviously this problem arose due to a high population
to resource ratio, and it is a sociological fact that all human conflicts
involve clashing economic interests of some kind) or if they were killed by US
troops for imperialistic reasons. To be extra-critical of the United States while
failing to recognize that the same motives control the US as control Saddam or
the janjaweed would not be an intelligent assessment of the situation. In some
cases, imperialistic motives can achieve positive results, and this is
doubtlessly one of them.
|
David Cobb and Michael Badnarik Arrested
Saturday, October 9, 2004 06:59 p.m.
The Green presidential candidate David Cobb and Libertarian nominee Michael Badnarik were arrested on Friday attempting to participate in the 2nd Presidential Debate that took place in St. Louis. The men passed through the police barricade that was intended to enclose demonstrators, keeping them away from the scene of the debate and ensuring that their message was heard by as few people as possible. They intended to participate in the debate, claiming that it was illegal for a debate funded by public money to place restrictions on who could join in the discussion of issues facing the country. Apparently, both men were handcuffed and sent to jail for an undetermined amount of time. However, both men are cheerful and proud of their resistance. "The real crime is the corporate hijacking of our democracy," says David Cobb. Previously that day, Cobb and Badnarik had participated in a third party debate, which also included Walt Brown of the Socialist party and Mike Peroutka of the Constitution Party.
The arrest of Michael Badnarik and David Cobb is an act of repression against political dissident and an attack on the freedom of speech. Their arrest is hardly something unexpected -- indeed, it is a growing national trend for people with alternative political ideas to be denied their freedom of speech as the corporate and imperialistic political viewpoints are hammered into the public conscious constantly by media devices.
It is time to destroy the restraints on freedom of speech in this country. As a supporter of free political discourse, I believe the arrest of Mr. Cobb and Mr. Badnarik to be entirely unacceptable. It is imperative that people on the Left make the public aware of the repression that is going on, be it the ‘free speech zones’ in New York at the RNC or the monopolization of public debates by corporate parties.
|