Humanitarian

by David Baake

2005/3/27

The Incoherency of the Pro-Israeli Narrative

@ 10:00 PM (56 months, 5 days ago)

           Often, the pro-Palestine movement becomes so caught up in debates over disputed historical facts, fending off claims that pro-Palestine left is anti-Semitic, or arguing over the definition of key-words such as ‘terrorism’ or ‘occupation’ that it fails to expose and exploit fundamental incoherencies and inconsistencies in the Zionist narrative about the situation.  If the situation is viewed from the perspective of an Israeli citizen, for example, these incoherencies become apparent.

          Key to the Israeli Narratives, as I have argued in the article ‘Reflexive Racism in Israel and America,’ is the erroneous assertion that all Arabs intrinsically hate Jews and that they are incapable of every living in peace with Arabs.  While this idea completely disregards the fact that anti-Semitism is an entirely European concept, and that the Ottoman Empire was quite a bit more tolerant of Jews than those in Europe, it is still quite affective in convincing Jews, who rightfully fear those who wish to annihilate them, that the Palestinians are racist and villainous.  In complete denial of historical facts, the narrative often attempts to portray Palestinians as the modern day equivalent to the Nazis.

          However, even if this extremely offensive and completely incorrect version of the situation is accepted, Israel’s actions are still far from coherent.  Why for instance, does it continue to send settlers into Palestinian territory?  By the far-right Israeli narrative, despicable and hateful as it is, would this not be the equivalent of sending Jews, proudly displaying the Star of David, into Nazi strongholds?  If Palestinians are so racist and dangerous, why does Israel insist on sending its citizens to occupy their territory?

          What about the apartheid wall?  The original plan would have enclosed 200,000 Palestinians within the de facto Israeli border?  How can anyone maintain that this wall is for security, when 200,000 of the very people it is supposedly securing Israel against are actually enclosed within Israel?  Wouldn’t it be much safer to build the wall on the 1967 border, and then have the settlers return within the border?

          By asking these simple questions of Israel’s version of the situation, questions that any Israeli citizen might want to ask about his or her own security, the cynical nature and incoherency of the Israeli narrative becomes apparent.  Israel continues to make decision that put its citizens in more danger and cause more suffering among both Israelis and Palestinians.   

         

2005/3/26

Kashmir and Geopolitics

@ 11:18 AM (56 months, 6 days ago)

           

Recently, the US announced it would be selling F-16 planes to Pakistan as a part of its five year $3 billion assistance program.  The F-16 is one of the most advanced and powerful planes in the world, and only 4,500 such planes are in commission in the entire world.  By agreeing to sell the planes to Pakistan, the US risks instigating a new arms race between India and Pakistan, long time rivals, and further agitating the conflict over the Kashmir region.  The US indicated that it may strike a similar arms deal with India soon.

Kashmir is one of the most strategically important areas in the world.  The region boarders two major powers, China and India, the first and second fastest growing economies of the world respectively, as well as two Islamic countries, Pakistan and Afghanistan, one of which is directly occupied by US military and run by an American puppet, the other of which is one of the US’ greatest allies in the war on terrorism who is a major recipient of American military aid.

 

History of the Conflict over Kashmir

                                               

          Kashmir had been divided up and occupied by three different countries for over 50 years, India, Pakistan, and to a lesser extent a small area in the northern part of the region, China, all nuclear powers.  The status of the Kashmir and Jammu region has been undecided since the colony of India became independent of colonial rule in 1947.  The former British colony was divided into two new states, India, which was predominately Hindu, and Pakistan, predominately Muslim.  The ruler of Kashmir and Jammu at the time, Hari Singh, was a Hindu, but as the population of the region had a Muslim majority, and as the state was directly between the two new states, he initially did not join either state.

India’s main claim to the region is that Hari Singh eventually accessioned his territories to India in return for an Indian military intervention against a Pakistan-backed Muslim insurgency in 1947, which lead to a war between the two countries.  Although both countries promised the status of Kashmir would be decided by a referendum, one that Pakistan would have most likely won, no such referendum has ever been held.  The United Nations arranged a ceasefire on January 1, 1949, and both sides retreated behind the Line of Control, which divided Kashmir into a section occupied by Pakistan and one occupied by India. 

Another war was fought in 1965, again provoked by Pakistan-supported militants in Indian Kashmir, which also ended in a ceasefire arranged by the UN and a reestablishment of the Line of Control.  In 1971, the two countries were once again at war. The war was initially a civil war, with the people of East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, fought for independence from West Pakistan.  The fighting created 10 million East Pakistani refugees, who were allowed to enter India.  India later sent troops to East Pakistan to aid the East Pakistanis in their struggle for independence.  During the conflict, over 90,000 Indians were taken prisoner by the West Pakistan forces.  India and East Pakistan were victorious, and East Pakistan became the independent country of Bangladesh on December 6, 1971.

In recent years, a new armed insurgency has fought in Kashmir against Indian rule, with some of the militants calling for an independent Kashmir and others for a union with Pakistan.  The situation has become even more volatile when in 1998 both countries announced that they had developed nuclear weapons.  The conflict over Kashmir is the only live conflicts between nuclear powers in the world today.

The imperial interests of India and Pakistan over the Kashmir territory have had devastating consequences for all parties involved.  The 1947 war alone left 1 million dead, and in recent years, the death toll is in the tens of thousands.  The people of India and Pakistan suffer greatly from the conflict as well.  The military spending on both sides is obscene; Pakistan, a country whose GDP per capita is $580, spent $2.7 billion on its military in 2002 alone, while India, with a GDP per capita of $640, spent $13.8 billion on its military during the year. 

The tension surrounding the issue has also led to racial violence and repression against Muslims in India, and the rise of far-Right Hindu leaders such as Narendra Modi, who is best known for instigating race riots in 2002 in which some 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, were killed.

 

The US’ Role in South Asia and the Indio-Pakistani Conflict

 

The US’ decision to reinstitute its policy of selling arms to Pakistan and India is criminal, as it will exacerbate and intensify the unfortunate situation in Kashmir.  The international community ought to be working toward a demilitarization of the contentious and dangerous situation.  Along with the F-16s that are being sold to Pakistan, there is talk of the US also supplying India with a large shipment of arms, and perhaps also F-16s.  There is reason to believe that the US and India may also be moving towards a strategic alliance in an attempt to contain the growing Chinese empire.  According to the Economist, India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recently made a speech in which he affirmed that India was ‘proud to identify with those who defend the values of liberal democracy and secularism across the globe.’  The US’ attempt to play both sides of the conflict in an attempt to fortify its position may be very problematic, just as the US has faced problems by forming alliances with both Israel and fundamentalist Arab governments such as Saudi Arabia.

The US has shifted its military focus somewhat to East Asia, where it has been attempting to fortify its position in the region by reinforcing its allies in the region including Japan, South Korea, the puppet government in Afghanistan, and Indonesia in an attempt to contain China. In addition, the US has been militarily assisting King Gyanendra and has supported his antidemocratic coup, classifying the Maoist rebels who have been fighting for basic land reform as terrorists on the level of Al Qaeda.  Now, by reopening military ties with both Pakistan and India, the US is hoping to complete its plan of encircling China with American allies, which, although it openly participates in the capitalist system, is a member of the WTO, and has basically turned its entire country into a Nike sweatshop, has shown signs of moving in a different direction from the US, and has begun to economically assist third world leaders with policies adverse to the US, notably Hugo Chavez.  It is this that the US wishes to contain, a force adverse to American hegemony to defend third world nationalism.

 

Solutions

 

To avert the potential nuclear crisis between Pakistan and India over Kashmir and to ensure a peaceful solution, a referendum on the status of the territory must be held, something which India has not allowed to happen for fear that the Muslim majority would vote to join Pakistan or to become independent, and both sides must respect the results. 

If the people of Kashmir were allowed to decide their fate through elections, Pakistan and India could be brought closer to peace and religious tensions in the region could be lessened.  Until both countries agree to a peaceful solution and a plebiscite in Kashmir, it is absolutely criminal for anyone in the international community to be providing either country with arms, as the situation is so dangerous, but the US has disregarded the danger of the situation and has instead continued to act with no consideration of anything but its own interest.

2005/3/20

Fundamentalist Islam is an enemy?

@ 08:20 PM (56 months, 12 days ago)

Despite claims by the American government at different times, but especially after 9/11, to be waging a war on fundamentalist Islam, and despite the attempt by America’s elite to capitalize off of anti-Arab sentiment present in the opinions of the American public, fundamentalism has never been an enemy; indeed, the US has promoted religious extremism and on many occasions has supported them with monetary or military denotations.  Similarly, Israel was complacent with the rise of militant Islamist groups in the beginning because they felt that such sectarianism would divide the secular Palestinian resistance.  

In America’s Middle East policy, we are witnessing a new manifestation of the old Marxist truism that states that the elite will attempt to divide the proletariat by racial, religion, and gender prejudices.  In this case, of course, we can substitute proletariat for the Arabic people, the model works perfectly.  The US has been eager to exploit ancient racial and religious conflicts in the Middle East for the precise reason that the bourgeois was eager to divide the proletariat by race and gender prejudices: a divided populace cannot act collectively to destroy the capitalist system, just as division in the Middle East prevents the rise of secular Arabic Nationalism, the true enemy of the US.  By funding fundamentalists, such as Osama bin Laden and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, the US has been able to sabotage secular nationalist movements that were threatening American interest.

Fundamentalist regimes are also excellent for American interest, as long as they are willing to do business with the US.  Extremist regimes are by their very nature oppressive and undemocratic, so such a regime will crush dissident and popular rebellions within the country.  Take Saudi Arabia, a prime example of a fundamentalist government working within the neoliberal American system, for example.  Because Saudi Arabia’s government has no regard for human rights and enforces Sharia law, it can easily devastate democratic movements.

Fundamentalism is not something that the US has ever discouraged, and has on numerous occasions, taken advantage of conflicts between religious extremists; the true enemy is Arabic democracy.   

      

2005/3/17

Imperial Narratives

@ 08:19 PM (56 months, 15 days ago)

When analyzing the capitalist culture in America, it is interesting to note the rampant Christian fundamentalism that still survives as a remnant of feudal times and remains 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 as 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 Trial," 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 falls into the 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 originally propounded.

Reflexive Racism in Israel and America

@ 08:10 PM (56 months, 15 days ago)

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, an image which is highly alienating to 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 oppressed and undemocratic societies are by far those governed by 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 use its resources for the common good.

This general anti-Arab sentiment has been harnessed by the Zionist movement in order to portray the criminal perpetrator as the victim.  As the Zionist narrative describes the situation:  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.

Several historical incidents are used to validate this assertion in their argument.  The standard argument states that 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?  Since the very birth of the modern Israel, the state has been under attack because of what it is and who its people are, they claim, (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.)  The Arab states invaded Israel in 1948 because of pure hatred for Jews and unwillingness to live along side them, 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 not 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.

  The Israeli narrative suggests that 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 the most 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.  Israel’s Arab neighbors are not a threat to its existence, as all have now recognized its existence, and none of these countries would be militarily capable of attacking the greatest ally of the world’s only superpower. 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 militarization of the intifada [1].  Would a similar poll in the US or Israel have found that nearly 3/5ths of the population was opposed to the use of political 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.

[1] http://www.zajel.org/article_view.asp?newsID=1872&cat=17

If current trends continue, 90 million Africans will contract HIV

@ 08:08 PM (56 months, 15 days ago)

In a recently released report, the UN has warned that if more is not done to combat the AIDS 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 $105 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 do become infected, “it will not 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 401.7 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 in which tens of millions were killed, the west has not taken the needed initiative to fight the disease.

Various church leaders and abstinence advocates have also committed the atrocity of attempting to prevent 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 and demonstrate the hypocrisy of the church.  Combating the AIDS pandemic should not be a political issue, but because the far right has no vested interest in the lives of 90 million Africans living in strategically insignificant areas, it has become a deeply politicized issue.

 The world must not turn its back on the AIDS pandemic in Africa, a potential tragedy of tremendous magnitude.

The Impending Persian-American Conflict

@ 08:05 PM (56 months, 15 days ago)

It is becoming apparent that bringing about regime change in Iran will be a major foreign policy objective during Bush's next term. To understand the Persian-American conflict, it is important to look at the threat that Iran poses to American interests, the geopolitical importance of Iran, and the history of America in Iranian affairs. Understanding the context and background of this conflict allows one a stronger foundation on which to mobilize against a potentially devastating war.

Iran's threat to American hegemony in the Middle East

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 paradigm within which the US foreign policy operates in general. The US foreign policy has been primarily focused on achieving two objectives, often simultaneously. Obviously, 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 and fits into this foreign policy framework.

However, the US has also needed to contain potential military, economic, or political rivals who might become powerful enough to threaten US dominance in any of these three categories. These actions can be understood as an attempt to maintain and perpetuate an empire, 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 American rule 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 confronted directly). 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 currently outside the globalized economy. However, aside from the oil, the Bush administration may also be compelled to attack Iran because of its nuclear developments.

There is still no conclusive evidence of any kind that Iran has any intention of building nuclear weapons. 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.

By suggesting that by developing a nuclear program (which Iran claims is to be used for peaceful purposes) Iran is intending to build nuclear weapons, Bush certainly may be merely attempting to play the WMD card a second time as a justification for an oil war. 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.

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; this 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. It is highly unlikely that Iran would 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.

Can the US conceivably prepare to attack Iran, after 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 conflicts in the Middle East to a new, unprecedented level of havoc.

The Bush Administration would certainly like 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.

Operation Ajax and America's Ugly History in Iran

The neoconservatives in the Bush Administration will also attempt to build their 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. Their crimes are nearly indistinguishable from one another.

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. [5]

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 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, which was worth hundreds of millions of dollars under public control. At that time, Iran only received only 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 attacking Mossadegh. 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 communists and 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 will not.

Framing the debate

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 sometime in the next four years. The situation has thus far not deviated from the build up to war 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. The antiwar movement must begin to combat the war mongers by framing the public debate over the potential war in Iran within a framework that shows clearly the US interest in Iran's oil and in deterring nuclear proliferation by a leading Islamic nation and also emphasizes America's historical role in Iran, especially its support of the Shah and its action to destroy a democratic government. Otherwise, the Bush Administration's propaganda will succeed in swaying public opinion towards another brutal and devastating imperialistic war.

Democracy under occupation

@ 08:00 PM (56 months, 15 days ago)

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, and only after much nonviolent protest. As Noam Chomsky said in a recent blog entry at www.zmag.org:

“In many respects, the elections were successful.  The main success, however, is being mentioned only marginally, by a few reporters: the US was compelled to allow them to take place.  That is a real triumph of non-violent resistance, for which Sistani has been the symbol.  The US sought in every possible way to avoid elections, but has been compelled to back down, step-by-step.  First, it tried to ram through a US-written constitution.  That was barred by a Sistani fatwa.  Then it tried to impose one or another device (caucuses, etc.) that could be controlled completely.  Also blocked by non-violent resistance.  It continued until finally the US (and UK, trailing obediently behind) had no recourse but to allow an election—and of course, the doctrinal system went into high gear to present it as a US initiative, once it could no longer be avoided.”

          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

 

The Antigay Mandate: Fault lines in the Republican Party

@ 07:49 PM (56 months, 15 days ago)

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 campaigns 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 the 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 a¾ 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 still 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.