Showing posts with label Anti-globalization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anti-globalization. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Israeli On-Going Brutality

A new day, and the Palestinian victims are exceeding 900 dead. Last time I checked as a matter of fact, they were more than 930.

Israel improved (being sarcastic) 1% by easing down its brutality (not!). They at least warned on Saturday the Christian Aid Clinic that they have only 15 minutes to evacuate because their building was suspected of hosting 'terrorists'. The UN itself, unless dumb Zionists want to accuse the UN of racism, reported that 40% of these victims are women and children. Valuable medical supplies required to assist the Palestinians were destroyed. Other clinics remain under threat of being bombed... those threats come straight from the Israeli Defense (still wondering about the defense part) Forces. According to the BBC statistics, only 13 Israelis are killed, whereby three of them are citizens. Only three citizens, whereby 3/4 of the killed by the Palestinians were military, now compare that to the 930 killed. Isn't that ethnic cleansing? Or as some naïve Zionists claim: Self-Defense... still wondering what self-defense has to do with the butchery of almost a 1000 citizens...

One of the comrades posted the damage Hamas is inflicting on Israeli targets, this is the damage:



Another comrade at the Further Left Forum, also provided valuable information on boycotting Israeli products.The bar codes on the packages acually expose the country of origin. The first three numbers, circled in green, related to Israel.



Now of course, a dumb-ass Zionist will tell you they are boycotting Israeli products because they are Jews, not at all. Israel has to learn that their self-victimization strategy is running out of fuel.People are fed up of attrocities covered up by the American propaganda media.

Speaking of media, the echoes of the July War 2006 are repeating itself. Israel, like two years ago, have prepared packages for the newspapers and the media to publish. They are limiting access of media, the BBC World Correspondent expressed deep frustration on Israeli monopoly in regards of imposing its own version on the media. In the words of BBC's Paul Reynolds: Israel has been aiming for total air supremacy in more than one way in Gaza - it wants to dominate the airwaves of the news organisations with its own narrative.

A person is wondering why? Because they are worried that the Israeli government is the barbarian and uncivilized rather the Palestinians who are the real victims? Olmert defended his army by stating that Israel is using acceptable war weapons.... he also added that such weapons are used by all Western Democracies. Now, to what extent Olmert expects people to believe that Israel is the beacon of democracy in the Middle East amidst this butchery. Or is a 'civilized country' justified to bombard the hell out of the Palestinians? To those who support such a logic, they are no better than Hitler or Milosevic, who based attoricities based on race and ethnicity.

It is enough that each Palestinian is suffering in his/her home from explosions, food shortages, diseases, but it is not enough to Israel, they are also calling the victims and laughing on them that they will be killed because Hamas. Now correct me, who is driving those aircrafts? Who is doing the killings? Hamas or the IDF? Of course, the IDF. However, the words of my history professor in school still find resonance in my brains: "The Israelis pull all the triggers, kill people, and they are still crying. When they invaded Beirut in 1982, they were crying. When they brutally took Palestine to announce their fake nation, Israel, they were crying that they are victims! Damn it, they are all candidates for the Grammy Awards!" Indeed, the Palestinians of Gaza are treated as if they carry the blood of the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Oh I forgot, to some, Israel was a nation 2000 years ago and the Palestinians are simply the conquerors... how pethatic! It reminds us of Mussolini restoring the Roman Empire back in World War II.

Well Israel bombed overnight 60 targets tonight. Mr. Ban of the UN decided finally to visit the region for attrocities. After how many days of on-going Palestinian genocide? Oh sorry, the general secretary cannot do anything except equate the butcherer and the victim's violance and call for peace. The same what Mr. Obama, who promised change. It just hurt his heart to see all those victims, "whether Israeli or Palestinian?" Did he really check out the scene over here? Doesn't this remind us of Bosnia's war where the UN called all parties to seize power and called for an Arms Embargo? Leaving an entire ethnic group at the mercy of two fully armed groups? I seriously find no difference between Karadzic and Olmert, or Levni and the notorious Beljana Plavsic, who based everything on genetic differences to justify attrocities.

Finally, Jon Stewart, probably the most followed comedy program, did it again by mocking Bush and the situation of what is going on in there. This doesn't mean Stewart is a pro-Palestinian. Stewart feeds on the contradictions of the leadership in the US, and uses their archives against them:



We have seen Jon Stewart during the July War as well, a video that was very popular in Lebanon two years ago... :



Also, I highly recommend readers to check Marcy Newman's amazing blog for details on the situation of Gaza. That activist is all energy, and a source for inspiration, read for the details of Gaza at Newman's Body on the Line.

Finally, I cannot forget my mother, sticking up her middle finger to the TV, as she watched the Bush family mourn the death of their 'first' pet. The pictures of dead children do not affect Bush, apparently their pet seems more human. I wish I can upload the photo, but that would expose who I am.

MFL

PS: Darko, I will fix everything within the two days...

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Cartoon



Written in Arabic: Resolution 1860
Taken From Annahar

Picture Speaks for itself, always loved Annahar Cartoonist

Friday, January 18, 2008

Revolution of the Snails: Encounters with the Zapatistas by Rebecca Solnit

(Appeared on Jan. 16 on Zmag, Link)

I grew up listening to vinyl records, dense spirals of information that we played at 33-1/3 revolutions per minute. The original use of the word revolution was in this sense -- of something coming round or turning round, the revolution of the heavenly bodies, for example. It's interesting to think that just as the word radical comes from the Latin word for "roots" and meant going to the root of a problem, so revolution originally means to rotate, to return, or to cycle, something those who live according to the agricultural cycles of the year know well.


Only in 1450, says my old Oxford Etymological Dictionary, does it come to mean "an instance of a great change in affairs or in some particular thing." 1450: 42 years before Columbus sailed on his first voyage to the not-so-new world, not long after Gutenberg invented moveable type in Europe, where time itself was coming to seem less cyclical and more linear -- as in the second definition of this new sense of revolution in my dictionary, "a complete overthrow of the established government in any country or state by those who were previously subject to it."

We live in revolutionary times, but the revolution we are living through is a slow turning around from one set of beliefs and practices toward another, a turn so slow that most people fail to observe our society revolving -- or rebelling. The true revolutionary needs to be as patient as a snail.

The revolution is not some sudden change that has yet to come, but the very transformative and questioning atmosphere in which all of us have lived for the past half century, since perhaps the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955, or the publication of Rachel Carson's attack on the corporate-industrial-chemical complex, Silent Spring, in 1962; certainly, since the amazing events of 1989, when the peoples of Eastern Europe nonviolently liberated themselves from their Soviet-totalitarian governments; the people of South Africa undermined the white apartheid regime of that country and cleared the way for Nelson Mandela to get out of jail; or, since 1992, when the Native peoples of the Americas upended the celebration of the 500th anniversary of Columbus's arrival in this hemisphere with a radical rewriting of history and an assertion that they are still here; or even 1994, when this radical rewriting wrote a new chapter in southern Mexico called Zapatismo.

Five years ago, the Zapatista revolution took as one of its principal symbols the snail and its spiral shell. Their revolution spirals outward and backward, away from some of the colossal mistakes of capitalism's savage alienation, industrialism's regimentation, and toward old ways and small things; it also spirals inward via new words and new thoughts. The astonishing force of the Zapatistas has come from their being deeply rooted in the ancient past -- "we teach our children our language to keep alive our grandmothers" said one Zapatista woman -- and prophetic of the half-born other world in which, as they say, many worlds are possible. They travel both ways on their spiral.



Revolutionary Landscapes

At the end of 2007, I arrived on their territory for a remarkable meeting between the Zapatista women and the world, the third of their encuentros since the 1994 launch of their revolution. Somehow, among the miracles of Zapatista words and ideas I read at a distance, I lost sight of what a revolution might look like, must look like, on the ground -- until late last year when I arrived on that pale, dusty ground after a long ride in a van on winding, deeply rutted dirt roads through the forested highlands and agricultural clearings of Chiapas, Mexico. The five hours of travel from the big town of San Cristobal de las Casas through that intricate landscape took us past countless small cornfields on slopes, wooden houses, thatched pigsties and henhouses, gaunt horses, a town or two, more forest, and then more forest, even a waterfall.

Everything was green except the dry cornstalks, a lush green in which December flowers grew. There were tree-sized versions of what looked like the common, roadside, yellow black-eyed susans of the American west and a palm-sized, lavender-pink flower on equally tall, airily branching stalks whose breathtaking beauty seemed to come from equal parts vitality, vulnerability, and bravura -- a little like the women I listened to for the next few days.

The van stopped at the junction that led to the center of the community of La Garrucha. There, we checked in with men with bandannas covering the lower halves of their faces, who sent us on to a field of tents further uphill. The big sign behind them read, "You are in Territory of Zapatistas in Rebellion. Here the People Govern and the Government Obeys." Next to it, another sign addressed the political prisoners from last year's remarkable uprising in Oaxaca in which, for four months, the inhabitants held the city and airwaves and kept the government out. It concluded, "You are not alone. You are with us. EZLN."



As many of you may know, EZLN stands for Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (Zapatista Army for National Liberation), a name akin to those from many earlier Latin American uprisings. The Zapatistas -- mostly Mayan indigenous rebels from remote, rural communities of Chiapas, Mexico's southernmost and poorest state -- had made careful preparations for a decade before their January 1, 1994 uprising.

They began like conventional rebels, arming themselves and seizing six towns. They chose that first day of January because it was the date that the North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect, which meant utter devastation for small farmers in Mexico; but they had also been inspired by the 500th anniversary, 14 months before, of Columbus's arrival in the Americas and the way native groups had reframed that half-millenium as one of endurance and injustice for the indigenous peoples of this hemisphere.

Their rebellion was also meant to take the world at least a step beyond the false dichotomy between capitalism and the official state socialism of the Soviet Union which had collapsed in 1991. It was to be the first realization of what needed to come next: a rebellion, above all, against capitalism and neoliberalism. Fourteen years later, it is a qualified success: many landless campesino families in Zapatista-controlled Chiapas now have land; many who were subjugated now govern themselves; many who were crushed now have a sense of agency and power. Five areas in Chiapas have existed outside the reach of the Mexican government, under their own radically different rules, since that revolution.

Beyond that, the Zapatistas have given the world a model -- and, perhaps even more important, a language -- with which to re-imagine revolution, community, hope, and possibility. Even if, in the near future, they were to be definitively defeated on their own territory, their dreams, powerful as they have been, are not likely to die. And there are clouds on the horizon: the government of President Felipe Calderón may turn what has, for the last 14 years, been a low-intensity conflict in Chiapas into a full-fledged war of extermination. A war on dreams, on hope, on rights, and on the old goals of the hero of the Mexican Revolution a century before, Emiliano Zapata: tierra y libertad, land and liberty.

The Zapatistas emerged from the jungle in 1994, armed with words as well as guns. Their initial proclamation, the First Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle, rang with familiar, outmoded-sounding revolutionary rhetoric, but shortly after the uprising took the world by storm, the Zapatistas' tone shifted. They have been largely nonviolent ever since, except in self-defense, though they are ringed by the Mexican army and local paramilitaries (and maintain their own disciplined army, a long line of whose masked troops patrolled La Garrucha at night, armed with sticks). What shifted most was their language, which metamorphosed into something unprecedented -- a revolutionary poetry full of brilliant analysis as well as of metaphor, imagery, and humor, the fruit of extraordinary imaginations.

Some of their current stickers and t-shirts -- the Zapatistas generate more cool paraphernalia than any rock band -- speak of "el fuego y la palabra," the fire and the word. Many of those words came from the inspired pen of their military commander, the nonindigenous Subcomandante Marcos, but that pen reflected the language of a people whose memory is long and environment is rich -- if not in money and ease, then in animals, images, traditions, and ideas.

Take, for example, the word caracol, which literally means snail or spiral shell. In August 2003, the Zapatistas renamed their five autonomous communities caracoles. The snail then became an important image. I noticed everywhere embroideries, t-shirts, and murals showing that land snail with the spiraling shell. Often the snail wore a black ski mask. The term caracol has the vivid vitality, the groundedness, that often escapes metaphors as they become part of our disembodied language.

When they reorganized as caracoles, the Zapatistas reached back to Mayan myth to explain what the symbol meant to them. Or Subcomandante Marcos did, attributing the story as he does with many stories to "Old Antonio," who may be a fiction, a composite, or a real source of the indigenous lore of the region:

"The wise ones of olden times say that the hearts of men and women are in the shape of a caracol, and that those who have good in their hearts and thoughts walk from one place to the other, awakening gods and men for them to check that the world remains right. They say that they say that they said that the caracol represents entering into the heart, that this is what the very first ones called knowledge. They say that they say that they said that the caracol also represents exiting from the heart to walk the world.... The caracoles will be like doors to enter into the communities and for the communities to come out; like windows to see us inside and also for us to see outside; like loudspeakers in order to send far and wide our word and also to hear the words from the one who is far away."

The caracoles are clusters of villages, but described as spirals they reach out to encompass the whole world and begin from within the heart. And so I arrived in the center of one caracol, a little further up the road from those defiant signs, in the broad, unpaved plaza around which the public buildings of the village of La Garrucha are clustered, including a substantial two-story, half-built clinic. Walking across that clearing were Zapatista women in embroidered blouses or broad collars and aprons stitched of rows of ribbon that looked like inverted rainbows -- and those ever-present ski masks in which all Zapatistas have appeared publicly since their first moment out of the jungles in 1994. (Or almost all, a few wear bandannas instead.)

That first glimpse was breathtaking. Seeing and hearing those women for the three days that followed, living briefly on rebel territory, watching people brave enough to defy an army and the world's reigning ideology, imaginative enough to invent (or reclaim) a viable alternative was one of the great passages of my life. The Zapatistas had been to me a beautiful idea, an inspiration, a new language, a new kind of revolution. When they spoke at this Third Encounter of the Zapatista Peoples with the People of the World, they became a specific group of people grappling with practical problems. I thought of Martin Luther King Jr. when he said he had been to the mountaintop. I have been to the forest.



The Words of the Third Encounter

The encuentro was held in a big shed-like auditorium with a corrugated tin roof and crossbeams so long they could only have been hewn from local trees -- they would never have made it around the bends in the local roads. The wooden walls were hung with banners and painted with murals. (One, of an armed Zapatista woman, said, "cellulite sí, anorexia, no.") An unfinished mural showed a monumental ear of corn whose top half merged into the Zapatista ski mask, the eyes peering out of the corn. Among the embroideries local artisans offered were depictions of cornstalks with Zapatista faces where the ears would be. All of this -- snails and corn-become-Zapatistas alike -- portrayed the rebels as natural, pervasive, and fruitful.

Three or four times a day, a man on a high, roofed-over stage outside the hall would play a jaunty snippet of a tune on an organ and perhaps 250 of the colorfully dressed Zapatista women in balaclavas or bandannas would walk single file into the auditorium and seat themselves onstage on rows of backless benches. The women who had come from around the world to listen would gather on the remaining benches, and men would cluster around the back of the hall. Then, one caracol at a time, they would deliver short statements and take written questions. Over the course of four days, all five caracoles delivered reflections on practical and ideological aspects of their situation. Pithy and direct, they dealt with difficult (sometimes obnoxious) questions with deftness. They spoke of the challenge of living a revolution that meant autonomy from the Mexican government, but also of learning how to govern themselves and determine for themselves what liberty and justice mean.

The Zapatista rebellion has been feminist from its inception: Many of the comandantes are women -- this encuentro was dedicated to the memory of deceased Comandante Ramona, whose image was everywhere -- and the liberation of the women of the Zapatista regions has been a core part of the struggle. The testimonies addressed what this meant -- liberation from forced marriages, illiteracy, domestic violence, and other forms of subjugation. The women read aloud, some of them nervous, their voices strained -- and this reading and writing was itself testimony to the spread both of literacy and of Spanish as part of the revolution. The first language of many Zapatistas is an indigenous one, and so they spoke their Spanish with formal, declarative clarity. They often began with a formal address to the audience that spiraled outward: "hermanos y hermanas, compañeras y compañeros de la selva, pueblos del Mexico, pueblos del mundo, sociedad civile" -- "brothers and sisters, companions of the rainforest, people of Mexico, people of the world, civil society." And then they would speak of what revolution had meant for them.

"We had no rights," one of them said about the era before the rebellion. Another added, "The saddest part is that we couldn't understand our own difficulties, why we were being abused. No one had told us about our rights."

"The struggle is not just for ourselves, it's for everyone," said a third. Another spoke to us directly: "We invite you to organize as women of the world in order to get rid of neoliberalism, which has hurt all of us."

They spoke of how their lives had improved since 1994. On New Year's Eve, one of the masked women declared:

"Who we think is responsible [for the oppressions] is the capitalist system, but now we no longer fear. They humiliated us for too long, but as Zapatistas no one will mistreat us. Even if our husbands still mistreat us, we know we are human beings. Now, women aren't as mistreated by husbands and fathers. Now, some husbands support and help us and don't make all the decisions -- not in all households, but poco a poco. We invite all women to defend our rights and combat machismo."

They spoke of the practical work of remaking the world and setting the future free, of implementing new possibilities for education, healthcare, and community organization, of the everyday workings of a new society. Some of them carried their babies -- and their lives -- onstage and, in one poignant moment, a little girl dashed across that stage to kiss and hug her masked mother. Sometimes the young daughters wore masks too.



A Zapatista named Maribel spoke of how the rebellion started, of the secrecy in which they met and organized before the uprising:



"We learned to advance while still hiding until January 1. This is when the seed grew, when we brought ourselves into the light. On January 1, 1994, we brought our dreams and hopes throughout Mexico and the world -- and we will continue to care for this seed. This seed of ours we are giving for our children. We hope you all will struggle even though it is in a different form. The struggle [is] for everybody..."

The Zapatistas have not won an easy or secure future, but what they have achieved is dignity, a word that cropped up constantly during the encuentro, as in all their earlier statements. And they have created hope. Hope (esperanza) was another inescapable word in Zapatista territory. There was la tienda de esperanza, the unpainted wooden store of hope, that sold tangerines and avacados. A few mornings, I had café con leche and sweet rice cooked with milk and cinnamon at a comedor whose handlettered sign read: "Canteen of autonomous communities in rebellion...dreams of hope." The Zapatista minibus was crowned with the slogan "the collective [which also means bus in Spanish] makes hope."

After midnight, at the very dawn of the New Year, when men were invited to speak again, one mounted the platform from which the New Year's dance music was blasting to say that he and the other men had listened and learned a lot.

This revolution is neither perfect nor complete -- mutterings about its various shortcomings weren't hard to hear from elsewhere in Mexico or the internationals at the encuentro (who asked many testing questions about these campesinas' positions on, say, transgendered identity and abortion) -- but it is an astonishing and fruitful beginning.



The Speed of Snails and Dreams

Many of their hopes have been realized. The testimony of the women dealt with this in specific terms: gains in land, rights, dignity, liberty, autonomy, literacy, a good local government that obeys the people rather than a bad one that tramples them. Under siege, they have created community with each other and reached out to the world.

Emerging from the jungles and from impoverishment, they were one of the first clear voices against corporate globalization -- the neoliberal agenda that looked, in the 1990s, as though it might succeed in taking over the world. That was, of course, before the surprise shutdown of the World Trade Organization in Seattle in 1999 and other innovative, successful global acts of resistance against that agenda and its impact. The Zapatistas articulated just how audacious indigenous rebellion against invisibility, powerlessness, and marginalization could be -- and this was before other indigenous movements from Bolivia to northern Canada took a share of real power in the Americas. Their image of "a world in which many worlds are possible" came to describe the emergence of broad coalitions spanning great differences, of alliances between hunter-gatherers, small-scale farmers, factory workers, human rights activists, and environmentalists in France, India, Korea, Mexico, Bolivia, Kenya, and elsewhere.

Their vision represented the antithesis of the homogenous world envisioned both by the proponents of "globalism" and by the modernist revolutions of the twentieth century. They have gone a long way toward reinventing the language of politics. They have been a beacon for everyone who wants to make a world that is more inventive, more democratic, more decentralized, more grassroots, more playful. Now, they face a threat from the Mexican government that could savage the caracoles of resistance, crush the rights and dignity that the women of the encuentro embodied even as they spoke of them -- and shed much blood.

During the 1980s, when our government was sponsoring the dirty wars in Central America, two U.S. groups in particular countered those politics of repression, torture, and death. One was the Pledge of Resistance, which gathered the signatures of hundreds of thousands who promised to respond with civil disobedience if the U.S. invaded Sandinista-run Nicaragua or otherwise deepened its involvement with the dictatorships and death squads of Central America. Another was Witness for Peace, which placed gringos as observers and unarmed protectors in communities throughout Central America.

While killing or disappearing campesinos could be carried out with ease in countries like El Salvador and Guatemala, doing the same to U.S. citizens, or in front of them, was a riskier proposition. The Yankee witnesses used the privilege of their color and citizenship as a shield for others and then testified to what they saw. We have come to a moment when we need to strengthen the solidarity so many activists around the world have felt for the Zapatistas, strengthen it into something that can protect the sources of "the fire and the word" -- the fire that has warmed so many who have a rebel heart, the word that has taught us to imagine the world anew.

The United States and Mexico both have eagles as their emblems, predators which attack from above. The Zapatistas have chosen a snail in a spiral shell, a small creature, easy to overlook. It speaks of modesty, humility, closeness to the earth, and of the recognition that a revolution may start like lightning but is realized slowly, patiently, steadily. The old idea of revolution was that we would trade one government for another and somehow this new government would set us free and change everything. More and more of us now understand that change is a discipline lived every day, as those women standing before us testified; that revolution only secures the territory in which life can change. Launching a revolution is not easy, as the decade of planning before the 1994 Zapatista uprising demonstrated, and living one is hard too, a faith and discipline that must not falter until the threats and old habits are gone -- if then. True revolution is slow.

There's a wonderful passage in Robert Richardson's biography of Thoreau in which he speaks of the Europe-wide revolution of 1848 and says of the New England milieu and its proliferating cooperative communities at that time, "Most of the founders were more interested in building models, which would be emulated because they succeeded, than in the destruction of the existing order. Still American utopian socialism had much in common with the spirit of 1848."

This says very directly that you can reach out and change the state and its institutions, which we recognize as revolution, or you can make your own institutions beyond the reach of the state, which is also revolutionary. This creating -- rather than simply rebelling -- has been much of the nature of revolution in our time, as people reinvent family, gender, food systems, work, housing, education, economics, medicine and doctor-patient relations, the imagination of the environment, and the language to talk about it, not to speak of more and more of everyday life. The fantasy of a revolution is that it will make everything different, and regime revolutions generally make a difference, sometimes a significantly positive one, but the making of radical differences in everyday life is a more protracted, incremental process. It's where leaders are irrelevant and every life matters.

Give the Zapatistas time -- the slow, unfolding time of the spiral and the journey of the snail -- to keep making their world, the one that illuminates what else our lives and societies could be. Our revolution must be as different as our temperate-zone, post-industrial society is to their subtropical agrarianism, but also guided by the slow forces of dignity, imagination, and hope, as well as the playfulness they display in their imagery and language. The testimony in the auditorium ended late on December 31. At midnight, amid dancing, the revolution turned 14. May it long continue to spiral inward and outward.

The last time Rebecca Solnit camped out on rebel territory, she was an organizer for the Western Shoshone Defense Project that insists -- with good legal grounds -- that the Shoshone in Nevada had never ceded their land to the U.S. government. That story is told in her 1994 book Savage Dreams: A Journey into the Landscape Wars of the American West, but the subsequent inspiration of the Zapatistas is most evident in the book Tom Engelhardt helped her to bring into being, Hope in the Dark: Untold Histories, Wild Possibilities. She is 11 chapters into her next book.

[This article first appeared on Tomdispatch.com, a weblog of the Nation Institute, which offers a steady flow of alternate sources, news, and opinion from Tom Engelhardt, long time editor in publishing, co-founder of the American Empire Project and author of The End of Victory Culture (University of Massachusetts Press), which has just been thoroughly updated in a newly issued edition that deals with victory culture's crash-and-burn sequel in Iraq.]

Thursday, October 04, 2007

Traboulsi: Was the Iraq War Inevitable?

taken from here

[Translator's Introduction: The article below by Fawwaz Traboulsi first appeared in Arabic in the Beirut daily as-Safir on July 5, 2007.

Was the Iraq war inevitable? The anti-war movement in the West did what it could to prevent it. On February 15, 2003, in hundreds of American, European, and other cities across the globe an estimated ten million people demonstrated against the impending war. Massive demonstrations continued during the weeks preceding the invasion on March 20, 2003. World public opinion notwithstanding, the Bush administration plunged headlong into the war, and eventual catastrophe, with delusional fantasies: they would quickly win in a "shock-and-awe" campaign and the Iraqi people would welcome the invading troops with "rice and flowers" -- so they proclaimed.

What about the anti-war movement in Arab countries? There were demonstrations in Arab cities in the weeks preceding the invasion, to be sure, some turning violent in confrontations with the police (chiefly in Cairo); but these were few and sparse, sometimes organized by the state, and far smaller than anything witnessed in the West. Anecdotal evidence from expatriate Arab groups indicated a far larger turnout of Arabs abroad than in their home countries. No doubt the repressive police states that are the norm in most of the Arab world made it difficult to organize anti-war rallies without government authorization. Perhaps also the masses in Arab countries were weary of marching in demonstrations that would be perceived in support of Saddam Hussein's reviled government. But what about a wider oppositional movement in years preceding the war, if not in Iraq then in neighboring countries, that should have held Saddam Hussein and his government (and other despotic Arab regimes) accountable for their policies and deeds? What about intellectuals and journalists who should have written, and could still write critically, in a press whose freedom in many places (at least in Lebanon and the Gulf states) had not been curtailed? In the article below, Traboulsi addresses an Arab audience that has not always shown a disposition to take to task Saddam Hussein's regime and others like it. A particular target of Traboulsi's criticism are the political commentators that are prone to attribute the Arabs' woes to dark conspiracies or to external forces beyond their control, thus deflecting much of the blame from failed and discredited rulers. In doing so, these political commentators contribute, if not to public apathy and demobilization, then to a feeling of impotence and despair against current conditions.

-- Assaf Kfoury]

For anyone reviewing the record, it is now plain that the president of the United States was lying to the American people, his allies and the world when he was brandishing the specter of "weapons of mass destruction" as justification for the decision to invade Iraq. Not only was George W. Bush lying when he maintained WMD threatened the security of Iraq's neighbors, he managed to push the charade to the point of convincing a large segment of American and world public opinion that these weapons posed a direct threat to the security of the United States itself. His dutiful acolyte Tony Blair elevated the lie to an extra level of demagogy when he declared that Iraq's chemical weapons could be set and launched within 45 minutes!

The lie about WMD was coupled with another lie, this one about a presumed connection between Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda, which has since been totally exposed as a fabrication. Osama Bin Laden can now send reams of thanks to the American president for having turned Iraq into a haven for al-Qaeda and other Jihadi organizations. The Mesopotamian lands became a producer and exporter of terrorists within a brief period of importing them during the first few months of the occupation. And Bin Laden can double and redouble his thanks to the American president who has acted, wittingly or not, so as to help make al-Qaeda a truly international terrorist network which now reaches large portions of the planet.

While we recount lies that were used to justify the war, let's not forget that American neo-conservatives had been clamoring for regime change in Iraq since 1995. We now know preparations for regime change by force had been underway before the terrorist operation of September 11, 2001, and the latter provided the perfect excuse to put the plan to invade Iraq into action.

We know all of that, and a lot more, about the background that led to the war from the American side. But what about the background from the Iraqi side? We know very little about the latter and there does not seem to be much interest in finding out more. Nonetheless, during the WMD crisis in the months right before the invasion, there was one person in Iraq who knew with absolute certainty the non-existence of WMD -- this person was of course Saddam Hussein.

So, a question is in order: Why did Saddam Hussein procrastinate for months on end before permitting UN inspectors to proceed with the search for WMD? And why did he put up all sorts of obstacles before finally agreeing to let the inspectors freely pursue their assignment? By the time he agreed it was too late to stop or impede the inexorable drive to war. Many will rush to preempt the question with a flat answer: They were going to attack Iraq regardless!

The same answer came in response to another question several years before: Why didn't Saddam Hussein order his troops to withdraw from Kuwait in 1991 before the UN deadline? Had he done so, he would have invalidated the main and official reason the US and its allies used to attack Iraq in 1991.

In both situations, Saddam Hussein did not undertake to do any of the necessary steps to undercut the plans of the powers arrayed against Iraq. An attempt to do so may or may not have worked, but why refrain from it? There is no need to speculate why Saddam Hussein acted the way he did. He is no longer alive so that we could still hope he would be asked these questions in front of a truly independent Iraqi court -- a court that would judge him for the totality of his crimes and policies, not for only one relatively minor crime which, in the event, led to his execution in an act of tribal vengeance.

Was there a way to prevent the United States from invading Iraq?

Those who maintain the inevitability of the invasion, regardless of the Iraqi regime's conduct, repeat a logic heard before in justification of every war and every Arab defeat. That sort of logic of fated events complements another justificatory logic, this one preoccupied with conspiracies where the idea of a "trap" is central to the plot: After every war and every defeat, it must be that the unsuspecting leader fell into a "trap" set by his enemies. Some have said that Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and the Second Gulf War in 1991 resulted from his falling into a "trap" set by US Ambassador April Glaspie, who let him understand that her government would not intervene in inter-Arab conflicts, which led him to believe he would have a free hand in acting against Kuwait!

What is truly amazing in the conduct of our Arab rulers is that, while they literally follow the principles of Machiavelli's book "The Prince" when it comes to devising forms of internal repression and tyranny, they invariably fail to pay attention to the Prince's advice in being expert like the fox in uncovering "traps" and avoiding them. If they keep falling into "traps", it then stands to reason our rulers should be made accountable rather than absolved for their failure.

These questions may now seem from a different bygone time, but they haven't lost any of their relevance as we watch the unrelenting horrors in today's Iraq. There may be a lesson in pondering them. May they contribute to put an end to that pernicious habit of elevating defeated leaders to heroes -- these leaders who were often rewarded by promoting them to absolute ruler or by renewing their mandate by acclamation after ... a war they did not know how to avoid or a defeat that brought destruction to their country and their people!

Fawwaz Traboulsi teaches at the Lebanese American University, Beirut-Lebanon. He has written on history, Arab politics, social movements and popular culture and translated works by Karl Marx, John Reed, Antonio Gramsci, Isaac Deutscher, John Berger, Etel Adnan, Sa`di Yusuf and Edward Said. The translator, Assaf Kfoury, teaches computer science at Boston University.

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Global Capitalism, Welfare State, and Lebanon

First: Shocking Numbers of Capitalism under US Imperialism and the World Trade Organization

- Top 100 economic entities are divided as follows: 51 Corporations & 49 Nation States (Susan George, From Corporate Globalization, Anti-Capitalism: A Guide to the Movement, Bookmarks Publications Ltd., London 2001, P. 11)

- The top 200 firms are responsible for about a quarter of all measured economic activity in the world – or the gross world product. Also, over 3.4 Trillion dollars rotate the globe per day in terms of Direct Foreign Investments leaving the market volatile. (Susan George, From Corporate Globalization, Anti-Capitalism: A Guide to the Movement, Bookmarks Publications Ltd., London 2001, P. 12)

- Some statistics reveal that only 10% of the world’s available force are working in the Trans National Corporation (Ibid, P. 12)

- Suzan George says: “a mere 1 percent shift in the holdings of these giants is equivalent to more than a quarter of the entire stock market capitalization of all the emerging markets of Asia taken together, and to two thirds of the value of all Latin America.” (Ibid, P. 13)

- Transportation, the number of employees who have their jobs outside their country increased 200% in 1970 – 1990 ( Teresa Brennan, Globalization and its Threats (Rout ledge, 2003), P. 23-25)

- This is demonstrated in the unequal distribution of wealth were 60 percent of global wealth is concentrated in 11 percent of the world’s population excluding the middle class. (Tony Cliff, Marxism at the Millennium, 2000) (MFL notes: the difference differed as Samir Amin revealed in his book Obsoletism Capitalism)

- The WTO officials always argue that their institution fights to help for the poor. By 2001, more than 85% of the world’s population lives in nations with increasing inequality. The debt of the Third World countries have been increasing rather than the opposite, and has become a devastating weight on the people living in those countries. The corporation has shut their governments’ voices through the World Bank and International Mutual Fund, but they were wrong if they keep their people silent for long. (Amory Starr, Global Revolt, Zed Books 2005, P.33-37)

- By 2000, this ratio was totally reversed and now: 90 per cent of international transactions are from financial flows that are not directly related to trade in goods and services. (Ann Petifor, Anti-Capitalism: A Guide to the Movement, Bookmarks Publications Ltd., London 2001, P. 43)

- Top 10 banks in the world (mostly American, German, and British) control 52% of the international market. (Robin Round, Globalize This! Common Courage Press, Maine 2000, P. 178)

- Despite the “economic growth,” global unemployment has also increased. This means that one third of the world’s labor, which is one billion workers, is either unemployed or underplayed, which means the workers need to work more. (Teresa Brennan, Globalization and its Threats (Rout ledge, 2003), P. 26-27)

- The number is 1.4 billion, and that number is specific to urban residents. With increased fossil fuel consumption and telecommunication networks. The WHO European Office concluded that 80,000 deaths are due to air pollution in Europe alone. (Ibid, P. 41)

- For how long the world can tolerate the starvation, in December 10 2004, UNICEF issued its annual report that shocked the social movements, and focused on how around 1 billion child are denied their childhood. “Almost one billion children all over the world are denied at least one of seven commodities deemed essential: shelter, water, sanitation, schooling, information, healthcare and food. At least 640 million children lack adequate shelter, while 140 million have never been to school. Safe water is something that 400 million children are denied while 500 million live without basic sanitation. No less than 90 million starved.” In 2001, the number of estimated children starving was much less. As capitalism advances with time, the number of people hurt increases. The demand for action also increases, and the more people are hurt, the more activists are joining the lines. (Defense of Marxism, December 14, 2004, Maarten Vanheuverswyn: One Billion Children In Extreme Poverty, A Holocaust At A Global Scale, link)

Also, over 3.4 Trillion dollars rotate the globe per day in terms of Direct Foreign Investments leaving the market volatile.

Second:Downfall of the Welfare State

While Social Democracy focused, prior the eighties, on the Welfare State (like Sweden), now the Third Way is abolishing the welfare services system. The governments of the OCED figured out that privatization are a good way to save money burdens on their institutions. The logic of the Welfares is to have everyone follow the policy of “pay-as-you-go”, along with progressive taxes in order to ensure money to the needy of the society. With privatization, things took a different curve. Cutting welfares on the poor overall does not cause a political fuss from the overall population, especially those who can make their voices heard. Ever since privatization has taken place, in the reign of globalization, securities have been gradually declining. The Third Way assumes that the citizens should have more responsibilities, and should take care of themselves more often.

One problem rises with that logic, the progressive taxation system, which focuses on each person paying their taxes in percentage of their income has been reversed. The elites do not pay taxes as they should, and the corporation officials have been offered taxation incentives. The logic behind the hosting country to a TNC is that TNCs open job vacancies in an economy. Yet, it is the middle class, who are gradually being eradicated, and the lower classes that pay the prices with increased taxations and shortage of welfare services. The burden goes even more deeply especially governmental revenues are switched from corporate taxes to the people. Eventually, welfare services and pension funds are gradually being abolished due privation and globalization.

Third: Lebanon

As mentioned in several posts, the late ex-prime minister, Rafiq Harriri, wanted to bury Lebanon in such a system to attain independence from Syrian Hegemony + to suit his own business interests. Aoun and Hezbollah do not oppose the entrance of Lebanon to the World Trade Organization (WTO) rather they worry about the increased Value Added Taxes instead to what system Lebanon is going to enter. A topic I will tackle more and more in details to shed light to what system we are entering rather watching Junblatt, Jaajaa, Aoun, or Moussawi making monkeys out of their followers.

That is why I do not believe in any form of nationalism, whoever will take power, they are going to starve their people. The rich will get richer and the poor poorer. I may sound a defeatest in this theory, but if the WTO organization and its horrors, to which we will become members in 2007, does not push activism to a new level with a better class awareness, then Lebanon is a sitting duck to economical imperialism as well as Lebanon lacking any social movements/political parties to oppose the hegemony of the market. The world is bigger that tiny Lebanese nationalism, and in the end, whoever wins in this clash, we will remain disgusted from the situation.

As you see, Lebanon is entering that system without any capability or social movement/political party to face such a system. Moreover, class inequality already on the increase and we shall be buried to ashes with debts. Till now, only Chile is successful to eliminate its debts. Lebanon already lacks welfare system, and worse, if we had a minimum structure, it will be demolished except for those who can afford it. The government and the opposition neglect that fact while the opposition are worried about the increase in TVA (VAT) rather what system we are entering. A topic I will tackle in-depth.

Down with the Opposition and Government, they are going to starve the people in all cases.

MFL

PS: There is no war but class war, the rest of the wars are irrelevant in the long run